Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: killingeve on May 30, 2012, 04:11:PM
-
As far as I'm aware only four books have been written re the above as follows:
Colin Caffell - In Search Of The Rainbow's End
Roger Wilkes - Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber And The White House Farm Murders
Claire Powell - Murder At White House Farm: Story Of Jeremy Bamber
Scott Lomax - Jeremy Bamber: Evil, Almost Beyond Belief?
I know a few posters have recently read Colin's book and I've noted their comments. But was just wondering about other posters and whether they have read Colin's book and/or any of the other books? If so general feedback would be welcome and we might glean something from this.
-
egap1 I have not read any of the books and I would love to have comments from anyone who has read any of the books.
-
I own and have read all four books.Will give my take on them when I have more time.
-
tyler will look forward to that. :)
-
I have colins book in hardback not finished reading yet, some pages in there im a little unsure about some very touching moments, not in the list but this one intrests me because its a local one of sorts.
-
I have a copy of the original manuscript to Roger Wilkes' book.
Have never read the book though - just the manuscript!
-
I have a copy of the original manuscript to Roger Wilkes' book.
Have never read the book though - just the manuscript!
How did you get that?
-
It was forwarded to me to proof read.
-
I own and have read all four books.Will give my take on them when I have more time.
I'd be very interested in reading your take on them Tyler.
-
I have colins book in hardback not finished reading yet, some pages in there im a little unsure about some very touching moments, not in the list but this one intrests me because its a local one of sorts.
Just out of interest Mertol22, are there any stories about Southend? You can pm me so as to keep it out of this thread. Many thanks.
-
It was forwarded to me to proof read.
Hello - Is that because of your knowledge or because it's your job?
-
There's also a book available for kindle, but it's really short. I have downloaded it but not read it yet as I can't quite get to grips with the whole kindle thing!
-
As far as I'm aware only four books have been written re the above as follows:
Colin Caffell - In Search Of The Rainbow's End
Roger Wilkes - Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber And The White House Farm Murders
Claire Powell - Murder At White House Farm: Story Of Jeremy Bamber
Scott Lomax - Jeremy Bamber: Evil, Almost Beyond Belief?
I know a few posters have recently read Colin's book and I've noted their comments. But was just wondering about other posters and whether they have read Colin's book and/or any of the other books? If so general feedback would be welcome and we might glean something from this.
I have a copy of the Roger Wilkes book Blood Relations and have read it a couple of times.
With regard to a question of pro / anti or impartial? In my opinion Roger Wilkes' book is impartial and he invites the reader to draw there own conclusions. However, I do recall Roger Wilkes' does conclude only Jeremy really knows the answer.
-
Hello - Is that because of your knowledge or because it's your job?
It's certainly not my job......lol.
;D
-
I have a copy of the Roger Wilkes book Blood Relations and have read it a couple of times.
With regard to a question of pro / anti or impartial? In my opinion Roger Wilkes' book is impartial and he invites the reader to draw there own conclusions. However, I do recall Roger Wilkes' does conclude only Jeremy really knows the answer.
I started reading this yesterday and there is some very interesting dialogue in the first chapter. Some of the descriptions of JBs behaviour I have never read and it comes across as almost incriminating at times due to the fact that he goes from being overcome with emotion to seemingly fine. In general it has so far been intriguing
-
I started reading this yesterday and there is some very interesting dialogue in the first chapter. Some of the descriptions of JBs behaviour I have never read and it comes across as almost incriminating at times due to the fact that he goes from being overcome with emotion to seemingly fine. In general it has so far been intriguing
The Wilkes book in some ways gives the most balanced account of the murders. We're told that Wilkes did extensive research and interviewed a number of witnesses and that's evident when you read this book.
Yet Wilkes does not attribute his quotes or information. Though, to be fair, none of the books about the WHF murders do this. This lack of attribution is a weakness in all of these books, in my opinion.
Wilkes seems to me to begin from a 'guilty' perspective, however by the end of the book he reaches the conclusion that the question of who killed five members of Jeremy's family is 'too close to call'.
-
For any reader with no prior knowledge of the case for them it would be easier to view jeremy guilty and then see what these books have to offer, interesting other than Colin Caffell no other relative has found the need to put their thoughts into a book not even mugford that i do find strange .
-
The Wilkes book in some ways gives the most balanced account of the murders. We're told that Wilkes did extensive research and interviewed a number of witnesses and that's evident when you read this book.
Yet Wilkes does not attribute his quotes or information. Though, to be fair, none of the books about the WHF murders do this. This lack of attribution is a weakness in all of these books, in my opinion.
Wilkes seems to me to begin from a 'guilty' perspective, however by the end of the book he reaches the conclusion that the question of who killed five members of Jeremy's family is 'too close to call'.
I have to say, I did wonder where he had got some of the conversations and detail from and whether or not they are actual 'quotes'. I'm also finding it unfortuante that some of it is written as if a novel. The opening with Sheila walking into the field nearly led me to put it down and forget about it.
-
For any reader with no prior knowledge of the case for them it would be easier to view jeremy guilty and then see what these books have to offer, interesting other than Colin Caffell no other relative has found the need to put their thoughts into a book not even mugford that i do find strange .
That's a very good point, Mertol. Though I'm not surprised that JM has not written a book.
-
I don't think that it is strange no other family members have written books. If I was in their shoes and my family was killed the last thing I would be doing is ever writing a book about it.
-
That's a very good point, Mertol. Though I'm not surprised that JM has not written a book.
i can understand why colin put pen to paper he lost the world at the time, ive heard on the grapevine signed copies of the scott lomax book is on sale at Amazon.
-
i can understand why colin put pen to paper he lost the world at the time, ive heard on the grapevine signed copies of the scott lomax book is on sale at Amazon.
Who told you that mertol lol 8) :P
-
Who told you that mertol lol 8) :P
Like JR Ewing patti i hear everything..
-
Like JR Ewing patti i hear everything..
Mertol it is only fair that everyone should know a signed copies of Lomax's book is available on Amazon, sold by the man himself, who incidentally lives a couple of villages away from me...I have bought one today....Well worth the buy. :) :) :) :)
-
i can understand why colin put pen to paper he lost the world at the time, ive heard on the grapevine signed copies of the scott lomax book is on sale at Amazon.
We have to remember that collin wrote a book from his point of view. That doesnt mean anything else. Sure he lost his boys but we have to remember he dumped Sheila. Sheilas parents are supposed to be the bad guys but quite simply they were the ones spending the money,trying to find support for sheila etc. Colin left sheila for someone else. Why is he treated as the holy grail if he cared anything for the sick mother of his children maybe he shouldnt have left her for another woman. Maybe he should have stuck around a bit longer. It so easy to blame other people but maybe he should have taken a bit more responsibility.
-
We have to remember that collin wrote a book from his point of view. That doesnt mean anything else. Sure he lost his boys but we have to remember he dumped Sheila. Sheilas parents are supposed to be the bad guys but quite simply they were the ones spending the money,trying to find support for sheila etc. Colin left sheila for someone else. Why is he treated as the holy grail if he cared anything for the sick mother of his children maybe he shouldnt have left her for another woman. Maybe he should have stuck around a bit longer. It so easy to blame other people but maybe he should have taken a bit more responsibility.
maggie Colin has done things i never will, marry and have children i find it hard at times to fully take in what he feels, in his book you do get a answer to how he did feel upon his own death he will be buried with his boys and sheila as he said to be together once more forever, no one can blame him for his destiny are we perfect ?
-
No mertol, none of us are perfect but he played his part in sheila's tragedy.
-
No mertol, none of us are perfect but he played his part in sheila's tragedy.
He dunped sheila and moved in with someone else, he dumped Jeremy. Sorry.... bit spineless in my eyes.
-
Can you leave a partner if they are that ill and needy
I would have thought it should be impossible
-
No mertol, none of us are perfect but he played his part in sheila's tragedy.
i dont see how i sensed in the book sheila wanted colin back , but what happens when love dies yet at most funeral services you hear love is the greatest force of all i think the love died everyone is different everyone has a life ledger open
-
i dont see how i sensed in the book sheila wanted colin back , but what happens when love dies yet at most funeral services you hear love is the greatest force of all i think the love died everyone is different everyone has a life ledger open
Depends what you mean by love I guess. Tovleave someone after 6 months of marriagei when you have twin babies s a bit poor. IMO
-
From what I gather, the marriage was over before the twins were born.....I am not sure who was at fault. Colin's infidelity, didn't help.....and, Sheila had no support over her abortions and her miscarriage, from her family or Colin...This to me is where Sheila started with her mental health problems....Although, she had her insecurities, prior to meeting Colin...At the end of the day he let her down badly...He admits this of course... ???
-
Depends what you mean by love I guess. Tovleave someone after 6 months of marriagei when you have twin babies s a bit poor. IMO
I agree Maggie.He seems to come across as a lovely man,but by no means a saint.He was moving on with his life and described her almost as a thorn in his side as she kept on depending on him.Indeed,the very night that she died,he told his girlfriend that he wished Sheila were dead!
-
I agree Maggie.He seems to come across as a lovely man,but by no means a saint.He was moving on with his life and described her almost as a thorn in his side as she kept on depending on him.Indeed,the very night that she died,he told his girlfriend that he wished Sheila were dead!
Dont call that a lovely man.oSounds pretty selfish to me.
-
Have to say,that I find it interesting that many of you think that Wilkes book is impartial.The book had quite a big input from the Boutflours and the Eatons and I personally think that it shows.Apparently he is still friends with them.
I only realised the other day that mine is a signed copy.Woopidy Doop! ::)
-
Tyler sent you a pm
-
Tyler sent you a pm
Yes,have replied x
-
Dont call that a lovely man.oSounds pretty selfish to me.
the thing is maggie no one can go back and put things right and no one never will i call it fate and i always look at the start, its all ifs if colin had not gone in the London pub that day he may never had chatted to sheila , a cancel going to WHF on that day a car problem a flat tyre a rta its destiny nothing more .
-
the thing is maggie no one can go back and put things right and no one never will i call it fate and i always look at the start, its all ifs if colin had not gone in the London pub that day he may never had chatted to sheila , a cancel going to WHF on that day a car problem a flat tyre a rta its destiny nothing more .
Cant exuse him mertol. He let her down. She was no doubt difficult but he was old enough to know what he was doing.He had babies with her and abandoned all of them for another woman. He knew she was ill but moved on and left his children....babies with her.
-
Cant exuse him mertol. He let her down. She was no doubt difficult but he was old enough to know what he was doing.He had babies with her and abandoned all of them for another woman. He knew she was ill but moved on and left his children....babies with her.
No he didnt, he had equal share of custody of his twins.
-
No he didnt, he had equal share of custody of his twins.
Yes he did, and at the time of the murders they were living with him and only visiting with Sheila.
-
Thats correct bridget.
-
No he didnt, he had equal share of custody of his twins.
Eventually. He cheated on her and left her 6 monrhs into the marriage.
-
Yes he did, and at the time of the murders they were living with him and only visiting with Sheila.
That was later. Damage had been done.
-
But he didnt turn his back on them as you suggest, did he?
-
Cant exuse him mertol. He let her down. She was no doubt difficult but he was old enough to know what he was doing.He had babies with her and abandoned all of them for another woman. He knew she was ill but moved on and left his children....babies with her.
some men would have killed themselves some turned to booze fighting in pubs all day and some will go on perhaps he could have done more tried once more if i was colin i would have tried again to stop sheila falling into ill health but thats me .
-
Yes he did, and at the time of the murders they were living with him and only visiting with Sheila.
He should have known better xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
He should have known better and the twins would still be alive, what sort of responsible parent is that
But you cant blame Colin for something jeremy has done, and colin, to his credit, has forgiven bamber for killing his children.
-
But he didnt turn his back on them as you suggest, did he?
Ridiculous statement of course he did, he found someone knew and didn't want to live as a family anymore
He opened the door to the police saying she's done it then
Who in their right mind would leave children if they knew the mother was suicidal
#it'snotrocketscience
-
Im sorry but i disagree, what piffle.
You can not blame those kiddies father for the fact they ended up murdered.
-
But you cant blame Colin for something jeremy has done, and colin, to his credit, has forgiven bamber for killing his children.
We have to disagree on that sagar as i dont accept that jeremy killed anyone. I think Jeremy has forgiven colin for deserting him. It depends how you look at it.
-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx! When a Mother and Father break up - neither is leaving the kids even if one of the parents move out of the house.
And to ask what kind of father leaves a suicidal mother? One that doesn't want to be with that Mother any longer. Nothing to do with the children. Colin loved the children very much.
Personal attack mod'd
-
Im sorry but i disagree, what piffle.
You can not blame those kiddies father for the fact they ended up murdered.
No one is blaming colin for the murders just saying that his behaviour was not good.
-
Post number 48 above, that what she seems to be saying?
-
Disgusting posts again Jackie! When a Mother and Father break up - neither is leaving the kids even if one of the parents move out of the house.
And to ask what kind of father leaves a suicidal mother? One that doesn't want to be with that Mother any longer. Nothing to do with the children. Colin loved the children very much.
Mat there was nothng disgusting about jackies post she has a right to her opinion. I agree with her. Colins behaviour was not good. He pointed the finger at other people but he left her with twins 6 months after they were married. He was old enough to know what he was doing when he married her.
-
He should have known betterxxxxxxxxxxxxx what sort of responsible parent is that
The above post Maggie seems to imply that it was colins fault that his kids were shot.
-
Mat there was nothng disgusting about jackies post she has a right to her opinion. I agree with her. Colins behaviour was not good. He pointed the finger at other people but he left her with twins 6 months after they were married. He was old enough to know what he was doing when he married her.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtowards another member tonight that have been deleted. If I had said half of what she said you lot, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Personal attack and attack on mods mod'd
-
The above post Maggie seems to imply that it was colins fault that his kids were shot.
Thats not what jackies saying, i dont think. Shes bright she writes in shorthand sometimes ie. if he hadnt maybe that wouldnt have happened which means that could have been avoided.see what I mean
-
No Maggie, there is no mistaking what she is saying in the mentioned post. Its written plain enough. And iam not the only one, seems mat agrees too.
-
Disgusting posts again Jackie! When a Mother and Father break up - neither is leaving the kids even if one of the parents move out of the house.
And to ask what kind of father leaves a suicidal mother? One that doesn't want to be with that Mother any longer. Nothing to do with the children. Colin loved the children very much.
I agree, Colin was a good father trying to ensure that his ex wife maintained her relationship with their children.
-
No Maggie, there is no mistaking what she is saying in the mentioned post. Its written plain enough. And iam not the only one, seems mat agrees too.
Wel I dont think you understand what jackie is saying.
-
He should have known better and the twins would still be alive, what sort of responsible parent is that
There's no doubting what this means.
-
Well mat would. Mats reason for being on the forum is to fight with jackie.
That's not true, Maggie. How dare you say such rubbish.
-
yes Bridget its quite plain isnt it.
-
I agree, Colin was a good father trying to ensure that his ex wife maintained her relationship with their children.
Bridget....colin left sheila after the twins were born to live with another woman. Would you find that acceptable if it was you.
-
That's not true, Maggie. How dare you say such rubbish.
I dare say what i like mat, just as you do.
-
Bridget....colin left sheila after the twins were born to live with another woman. Would you find that acceptable if it was you.
It happens all the time Maggie, the twins lived with colin most of the time anyway. He has nothing to reproach himself with.
-
Bridget....colin left sheila after the twins were born to live with another woman. Would you find that acceptable if it was you.
Relationships break up - that's life. What matters after that is how you deal with it, and from what I can see Colin did everything that could have been expected of him as a loving father.
-
It happens all the time Maggie, the twins lived with colin most of the time anyway. He has nothing to reproach himself with.
Oh it happens all the time thats ok then. The twins eventually lived with colin. Just saying he wasnt mr wonderful thats all.
-
I dare say what i like mat, just as you do.
maggie dont take any notice he will start with the threatening behaviour in a minute
-
Relationships break up - that's life. What matters after that is how you deal with it, and from what I can see Colin did everything that could have been expected of him as a loving father.
Your mind is closed bridget. He didnt behave well to sheila.
-
Oh it happens all the time thats ok then. The twins eventually lived with colin. Just saying he wasnt mr wonderful thats all.
He wasnt, but its still unfair to blame him for his kids being killed, dont you agree?
-
Relationships break up - that's life. What matters after that is how you deal with it, and from what I can see Colin did everything that could have been expected of him as a loving father.
you werent there
how do you know
Have you ever looked after children
they dont fall out of taxis
Maggie she has never had kids she wouldnt understand
-
Your mind is closed bridget. He didnt behave well to sheila.
I would say that not accepting that relationships break up is a far better example of a closed mind. Do you think Sheila was the perfect partner?
-
Maggie dont take any xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxin a minute
I'm vvvvvvvvvvvvvv Jackie. You just say that when I begin to make a point you don't like. The posts you made xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - instead they were just deleted. Why xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - in fact I've been in trouble on this forum just because people say I have done something when there was no proof.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxshould be deleted - and I spoke with Roch about this - but at that time xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
It's about time people realised the hypocrisy that happens.
Personal attacks and unacceptable comments mod'd
-
He wasnt, but its still unfair to blame him for his kids being killed, dont you agree?
No one blames him for his kids being killed. You guilty lot jump on any little thing. Whats wrong with you jeremy is in prison and has been for 27years so what on earths your problem.
-
Hello jackie, how many children do you have?
-
No one blames him for his kids being killed. You guilty lot jump on any little thing. Whats wrong with you jeremy is in prison and has been for 27years so what on earths your problem.
The 'guilty' lot problem is that he is in prison but is trying to get out and still refuses to admit his crimes.
-
No one blames him for his kids being killed. You guilty lot jump on any little thing. Whats wrong with you jeremy is in prison and has been for 27years so what on earths your problem.
Jackie does, apparently.
-
I would say that not accepting that relationships break up is a far better example of a closed mind. Do you think Sheila was the perfect partner?
Bridget of course not.
-
No one blames him for his kids being killed. You guilty lot jump on any little thing. Whats wrong with you jeremy is in prison and has been for 27years so what on earths your problem.
I dont have a problem, im quite happy that he is prison he deserves it. i just think it wrong to blame colin for the death of his kids. i dont have a problem at all Maggie :D
-
you werent there
how do you know
Have you ever looked after children
they dont fall out of taxis
Maggie xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jackie i have kids xxxxxxxxxxx.???
Personal attacks mod'd
-
Jackie does, apparently.
Yes post 48 made that most clear i hope colin doesnt look at this forum.
-
I'm not threatening anyone, Jackie. You just say that when I begin to make a point you don't like. The posts you made tonight should have had you banned again - instead they were just deleted. Why does this happen to you and no one else?
If I or anyone else had posted an attack like that on a member of this forum and the mods had seen it, I would be in severe trouble - in fact I've been in trouble on this forum just because people say I have done something when there was no proof.
I agreed that the posts about NGB should be deleted - and I spoke with Roch about this - but at that time I didn't realise the filth in your post was aimed at a current member of this forum.
It's about time people realised the hypocrisy that happens.
Mat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It has been proved beyond a doubt xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nobody could give a toss about you either way, whats that other screenshot from the other forum you said about me xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Personal attacks mod'd
-
Jackie i have kids are you mad.???
Jackie is referring to Bridget, not you!
-
Mat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It has been proved beyond a doubt xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nobody could give a toss about you either way, whats that other screenshot from the other forum you said about me xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It wasn't me who told you to xxxxxxxxxxxx. Go check your facts and then come back and rectify your xxxxxxxxxxxxxxpost.
-
mat who is the woman in the picture on your profile?
-
Jackie is referring to Bridget, not you!
Yes, you can pretty much bet that when she's at her most spiteful it's directed at me.
-
Yes, you can pretty much bet that when she's at her most spiteful it's directed at me.
I hope colin doesnt read this forum bridget, the remark about him earlier would devastate him.
-
Yes, you can pretty much bet that when she's at her most spiteful it's directed at me.
yes bridgetxxxxxx whatever
Personal attack mod'd
-
Whats weety?
-
I hope colin doesnt read this forum bridget, the remark about him earlier would devastate him.
I doubt he does, but if he does I expect he will consider the source ;)
-
mat who is the woman in the picture on your profile?
A singer, Tammy Wynette.
Yes, you can pretty much bet that when she's at her most spiteful it's directed at me.
Yeah, I didn't miss what she was getting at with that posts. I reported it.
-
Yes, you can pretty much bet that when she's at her most spiteful it's directed at me.
I beg to disagree. I think both myself and Mat are contenders too!
-
I beg to disagree. I think both myself and Mat are contenders too!
I agree with this. I think that Me, Petey, Bridget and AA are all level footed.
-
I agree with this. I think that Me, Petey, Bridget and AA are all level footed.
And interesting that both me and AA are pro JB!
-
I beg to disagree. I think both myself and Mat are contenders too!
Yes sorry, you are right about that!
-
AA knows Bamber very well doesnt she? i think she said over 20 years, am i right?
She will know this case more than most i will imagine.
-
AA knows Bamber very well doesnt she? i think she said over 20 years, am i right?
She will know this case more than most i will imagine.
Yeah, AA and Bamber were very close. She's a good person and proof that I can get along with people who support Bamber as well as those who believe him innocent.
-
You mean those who support as well as those who think hes guilty?
-
You mean those who support as well as those who think hes guilty?
People on both sides of the fence.
-
Yes, i understand now.
-
Mat and Jackie have been temp banned. I've had to spend half the night into the early hours moding their mutually abusive posts and trying to prevent war breaking out on the forum.
-
Can i ask why my post was removed, i haven broken any forum rules?
-
I'm not going to go to bed until you speak with me, keira. Your friendship is 10x as important to me as this website.......u've got my number.....
-
I'm not going to go to bed until you speak with me, keira. Your friendship is 10x as important to me as this website.......u've got my number.....
Cut the spin. How have you bypassed the bans, Mat?
-
Bypassed what? I haven't. Why won't you reply to a pm?
-
Bypassed what? I haven't. Why won't you reply to a pm?
Why, when I try to ban you, Mat, do I get the following message:
An Error Has Occurred! The name of this ban (mat) already exists. Please choose a different name?
Your ban already exists, yet you are here, posting under Mat.
-
Why, when I try to ban you, Mat, do I get the following message:
An Error Has Occurred! The name of this ban (mat) already exists. Please choose a different name?
Your ban already exists, yet you are here, posting under Mat.
Are you really asking me to help you ban me, Keira? It's not a just ban. Me and Jackie weren't attacking each other - other than when I called her post disgusting and ridicoulous - and she said I told her to suck a horse on the other forum but i explained that wasn't me.
I don't like Jackie - but the way you've edited the posts makes it look like she was ripping me apart....she wasn't.
I'm leaving this post of yours so that we all can see how you goad Jackie.
-
I'm standing up for Jackie in that post! Not goading her. I am saying she didn't attack me. But you've banned her and made it look like her posts were an attack with the editing you've done.
How's that an attack on Jackie?
Maggie and Grahame saw the start of the topic, what about them? They'll say there was no attacks other than the ones I stated. What about Bridget she saw the whole thing? And Petey and Saga.
-
I'm standing up for Jackie in that post! Not goading her. I am saying she didn't attack me. But you've banned her and made it look like her posts were an attack with the editing you've done.
How's that an attack on Jackie?
Maggie and Grahame saw the start of the topic, what about them? They'll say there was no attacks other than the ones I stated. What about Bridget she saw the whole thing? And Petey and Saga.
You're standing up for Jackie, right? Then why did you repeatedly report her posts?
They're in the mod log, Mat
-
We have to remember that collin wrote a book from his point of view. That doesnt mean anything else. Sure he lost his boys but we have to remember he dumped Sheila. Sheilas parents are supposed to be the bad guys but quite simply they were the ones spending the money,trying to find support for sheila etc. Colin left sheila for someone else. Why is he treated as the holy grail if he cared anything for the sick mother of his children maybe he shouldnt have left her for another woman. Maybe he should have stuck around a bit longer. It so easy to blame other people but maybe he should have taken a bit more responsibility.
People handle grief in different ways. I believe Colin wrote the book because it was probably a release for him to be able to write about Sheila who he loved and who had his two lovely children. Of course he loved her and to suggest otherwise would be unfair. He just couldn't live with her. It was destroying them both to stay together.
-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtowards another member tonight that have been deleted. If I had said half of what she said you lot, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Personal attack and attack on mods mod'd
I think that is a bit unfair Mat? The moderators are the fairest mods I've ever seen on this forum.
-
Mat and Jackie have been temp banned. I've had to spend half the night into the early hours moding their mutually abusive posts and trying to prevent war breaking out on the forum.
Good move Keira. Just childish the lot of them. The problem is they will all blame you now. ::)
-
Morning Maggie
Another late night on the forum.
I wld suggest Nevill and June were spending money trying to repair the damage caused to Sheila by June's well documented bouts of mental illness and religious mania. Adoptive parents getting the cheque book out for school fees, mental health professionals, properties, cars, travel etc does not imo indicate that the adoptive parents were able to provide a loving, supportive family home in which the adoptees could thrive.
At the end of the day Maggie adoption is an abberation. It is the only relationship which demands intimacy whereby one party was neither born to it or chose to be in it. Can you think of any other relationships constructed on this basis apart from an arranged marriage?
I do not see how Colin Caffell can in any way shape or form be held responsible for Sheila's mental illness. By the time Sheila was one year of age she had been passed from pillar to post: birth mother to mentally ill adoptive mother to unknown caregiver whilst June was in hospital receiving treatment for her mental illness caused by her decision to adopt Sheila and then eventually back to June. I would suggest this caused untold damage and was the root cause of Sheila's mental illness. Sheila had behavioural problems at school and was expelled twice. This in itself is highly unusual ie a privately educated female in the 60's/70's being expelled. All of this took place way before Sheila met Colin.
It is a well known fact that the relationship between adoptive mother and adopted daughter is often a difficult one. According to my counsellor it has something to do with the adopted daughter's loyalty to the birth mother and the continuity of the family line. To illustrate this point, I was re-reading my copy of Kate Adie's autoboigraphy entitled 'The Kindness of Strangers' and noted that she had dedicated the book to her birth mother as well as taking her to Buckingham Palace to collect her OBE. Perhaps her adoptive mother was deceased but why not dedicate the book to her?
Maggie I was wondering if I could borrow your copy of Colin's book . I will of course send you a sae and return it promptly when finished. Thanks.
I 'm aware you've probably gone on your hols, but I just wanted you to know I support 100% everything you've said.
-
People handle grief in different ways. I believe Colin wrote the book because it was probably a release for him to be able to write about Sheila who he loved and who had his two lovely children. Of course he loved her and to suggest otherwise would be unfair. He just couldn't live with her. It was destroying them both to stay together.
nearly in bedford at a layby, i will check colins book but im sure he does say words to effect he could have done more its not fair to judge him on these events there was very complex issues here .
-
egap, I didn't say I believed colin made Sheila mentally ill in any way. I just meant that he didbt behave brilliantly. He knew heiw vulnerable she waa abd yet he was unfaithful to her leaving her aline with the twins nd moving in with another woman. However, I do accept that iit isn't up to me or anyone else to judge other peoples behaviour in such a very difficult siituation. Hope I didnt offend anyone truly close to Colin.
-
egap, I didn't say I believed colin made Sheila mentally ill in any way. I just meant that he didbt behave brilliantly. He knew heiw vulnerable she waa abd yet he was unfaithful to her leaving her aline with the twins nd moving in with another woman. However, I do accept that iit isn't up to me or anyone else to judge other peoples behaviour in such a very difficult siituation. Hope I didnt offend anyone truly close to Colin.
Hi Maggie. I suppose it was probably very difficult for him to know exactly what to do under those circumstances? It is always hard to know the best course of action with anyone who is mentally ill? I'm not sure even the experts know of any proven best course of treatment for it because schizophrenia is a difficult illness to treat anyway and there are so many variants depending on the circumstances of the patient? It is always easy to be wise after the event, especially when there are years distant from the event itself?
-
Hi Maggie. I suppose it was probably very difficult for him to know exactly what to do under those circumstances? It is always hard to know the best course of action with anyone who is mentally ill? I'm not sure even the experts know of any proven best course of treatment for it because schizophrenia is a difficult illness to treat anyway and there are so many variants depending on the circumstances of the patient? It is always easy to be wise after the event, especially when there are years distant from the event itself?
Tolly agree Grahame.... I was just being aukward last night. Cant imagine why!!!!
-
I think that is a bit unfair Mat? The moderators are the fairest mods I've ever seen on this forum.
You're right, Grahame. Was a bit unfair. We're all guilty of lashing out at a mod when we disagree with a decision.
-
You're right, Grahame. Was a bit unfair. We're all guilty of lashing out at a mod when we disagree with a decision.
I just wondered if you would like to amend your comment on the Lamberton forum just to show goodwill towards the mods? :)
-
Good move Keira. Just childish the lot of them. The problem is they will all blame you now. ::)
For a second time, it must be difficult and exhausting to have to deal with!
-
Good article in the Times today by Jeremy Clarkson called Go on, troll me but leave your name and address.Very true that this should be the case but sadly it is not this is why people are allowed to say such outrageous things about another fellow human being they have never met and never likely to meet. Worth a read.
-
SUSAN, - Naughty step again. The S.T. is a Murdoch title. Jeremy C goes to parties at Murdoch's daughter's pad, and they go Hacking at Rebekah's with Dave.
I had formed an opinion that you are a responsible, refined, and more importantly, an elite 'Independent' lady.
-
Campion I may be all the things you say refined lady that part is in doubt. I can only blame my other half as he buys the paper and made me read that bit as he is trying to educate me on the dangers of the internet I think he thinks I am somewhat naive and I will be led astray my smooth talking males with an interest in "birds"
-
I read The Sun, Mirror, Mail and the Independant each day.
-
Wow Mat 4 papers in one day you must be well upto date with all the news bet you look at the pics in the Sun ;) ;) ;)
-
Wow Mat 4 papers in one day you must be well upto date with all the news bet you look at the pics in the Sun ;) ;) ;)
I look at the pictures in all the papers..........the sun is no different.
;)
-
I read The Sun, Mirror, Mail and the Independant each day.
I read four newspapers too: the telegraph, Grauniad, times, Sun or mail. I stopped reading the Guardian due to Polly toynbee, but I missed reading it.
-
Good reply Mat :)
-
I read four newspapers too: the telegraph, Grauniad, times, Sun or mail. I stopped reading the Guardian due to Polly toynbee, but I missed reading it.
Why Poly Toynbee? She's the daughter of the great historian.
-
I think that is a bit unfair Mat? The moderators are the fairest mods I've ever seen on this forum.
Oh, thank you, Grahame, you're a sweetheart x
-
am very close to finishing Colin Caffell's book and, I think our Mertol is also about to finish it. It will interesting to see If we both come up with the same opinion... :) :) :)
-
am very close to finishing Colin Caffell's book and, I think our Mertol is also about to finish it. It will interesting to see If we both come up with the same opinion... :) :) :)
Hello Patti, I have read the last part of Colins book and i have re-visited a couple of sections, I believe he loved Sheila all along, the events of that night is somthing he had to go and search for the answers to understand more, though he re married he will always love her and the boys that can never change,in relation to jeremy why did colin decide to do workshops in prisons ?
-
Hello Patti, I have read the last part of Colins book and i have re-visited a couple of sections, I believe he loved Sheila all along, the events of that night is somthing he had to go and search for the answers to understand more, though he re married he will always love her and the boys that can never change,in relation to jeremy why did colin decide to do workshops in prisons ?
I think that's true, Mertol, but the question for me is: what exactly does love mean to him? He walked out on his vulnerable wife and twin babies when the boys were just 4 or 5 months old. I don't believe he visited them for a year or so, did he? That seems to me quite a hard hearted thing to do.
-
I think that's true, Mertol, but the question for me is: what exactly does love mean to him? He walked out on his vulnerable wife and twin babies when the boys were just 4 or 5 months old. I don't believe he visited them for a year or so, did he? That seems to me quite a hard hearted thing to do.
Yes that's not a good thing to do. She could have been suffering from post natal depression and that is the very time a mother needs help with the children as she doesn't even know what is going on in her own mind.
-
I think that's true, Mertol, but the question for me is: what exactly does love mean to him? He walked out on his vulnerable wife and twin babies when the boys were just 4 or 5 months old. I don't believe he visited them for a year or so, did he? That seems to me quite a hard hearted thing to do.
Thank you Keira, that is the thing. I do agree with you, I would think it was devastating for Sheila and also for June and Ralph. Its all very well attacking them but Sheila's illness would make her hold grudges and obsess about every little thing. I still can't go with the fact that she was anything but loved even tho they made mistakes. Colin was so quick to blame them but they did everything, provided houses he lived in no doubt took money and they loved his boys. Sheila's illness was very real.
-
Yes that's not a good thing to do. She could have been suffering from post natal depression and that is the very time a mother needs help with the children as she doesn't even know what is going on in her own mind.
Left with twin babies too, it must have been so hard for the poor girl.
-
Left with twin babies too, it must have been so hard for the poor girl.
Yes and the boys were loved by the grandparents. They read them bedtime stories and theyran free on the farm. If June did a bit of religious wrath of god it was no doubt more difficult for them because of their mum but it is reported they loved the farm in spite of that. Sheila was sick and struggling, it is a pity he decided to say he always loved her at the end of the book when he had not supported her at all.
-
Sheila was stuck in a flat with those babies too. I know it was a luxury flat in a mansion block, but it wasn't as though she could put them outside in the fresh air and sit with them for a while or get on with housework.
There was a communal garden, which was fenced, I believe, opposite the mansion block. Sheila's friends told Claire Powell that Sheila would take the boys to the park to find someone to talk to, because she was all alone in the flat and babies are not really company for a young woman. Sheila's friends said they found her to be a very needy person, she was desperate to talk and wanted her friends to guide her, almost as though she saw them as proxy mothers.
-
The other books on the maiden 1st post ive not read, i wanted to know more about the two families how a woman feels to me is alien i dont understand i have had no need to if the love died from colin then i dont see what more could have been done, sheila lost colin, colin lost his sons life dealt a very painfull ledger to them both.
-
Sheila was stuck in a flat with those babies too. I know it was a luxury flat in a mansion block, but it wasn't as though she could put them outside in the fresh air and sit with them for a while or get on with housework.
There was a communal garden, which was fenced, I believe, opposite the mansion block. Sheila's friends told Claire Powell that Sheila would take the boys to the park to find someone to talk to, because she was all alone in the flat and babies are not really company for a young woman. Sheila's friends said they found her to be a very needy person, she was desperate to talk and wanted her friends to guide her, almost as though she saw them as proxy mothers.
Poor sheila, any mum would understand how hard it must have been for her. Those mansion flats have small windows, they are dark and uninviting. She must have felt very isolated. I feel everything she tried was a disaster but you dont get as ill as sheila because things are a disaster, you get ill like that possibly because you are genetically prone to be. Seriously, depression is not schizophrenia, although a side effect of schizophrenia is depression. A girl without those genetics would have coped differently. imho
-
The other books on the maiden 1st post ive not read, i wanted to know more about the two families how a woman feels to me is alien i dont understand i have had no need to if the love died from colin then i dont see what more could have been done, sheila lost colin, colin lost his sons life dealt a very painfull ledger to them both.
I dont really know how to explain mertol, except that colin knew sheila was ill. He knew she had difficulties with the person most important to her...her mum and felt unloved. Colin apparently had a good relationship with his mum, who was normal enough. He still had a long term relationship with Sheila various tries at babies. Poor sheila was a mess from miscarriages to abortions. How can we understand that but when finally she had his twins he walked away. I know he was probably young but his behaviour was not great. She was a pretty girl who had been built up to believe she was a beauty but she couldn't keep her man. Tradgedy, whatever happened, sheila's life was a tradgedy. imho
-
Poor sheila, any mum would understand how hard it must have been for her. Those mansion flats have small windows, they are dark and uninviting. She must have felt very isolated. I feel everything she tried was a disaster but you dont get as ill as sheila because things are a disaster, you get ill like that possibly because you are genetically prone to be. Seriously, depression is not schizophrenia, although a side effect of schizophrenia is depression. A girl without those genetics would have coped differently. imho
I think so too, Mags. Sheila's friends said that when the boys were of school age they were pale, thin and fragile little boys who seemed not to know what to do with themselves until Sheila told them what to do.
Sheila would sit on a bench in the garden with one of the other mothers and say that she was worried about her boys because they were such wimps. The twins would run back to Sheila and just hover around her and she would become irritated with them and tell them to go and play, because they didn't know they wanted to play unless she told them to.
What I find odd is that Sheila would criticise the boys for hanging around her and for their failure to be as she wanted them to be, more outgoing, I suppose and more masculine. Yet Sheila had this obsessive fear that the boys would have sex with her or rape her, but I suppose these were the irrational fears she had due to her illness. These fears were the opposite of how things really were with this family.
-
I think so too, Mags. Sheila's friends said that when the boys were of school age they were pale, thin and fragile little boys who seemed not to know what to do with themselves until Sheila told them what to do.
Sheila would sit on a bench in the garden with one of the other mothers and say that she was worried about her boys because they were such wimps. The twins would run back to Sheila and just hover around her and she would become irritated with them and tell them to go and play, because they didn't know they wanted to play unless she told them to.
What I find odd is that Sheila would criticise the boys for hanging around her and for their failure to be as she wanted them to be, more outgoing, I suppose and more masculine. Yet Sheila had this obsessive fear that the boys would have sex with her or rape her, but I suppose these were the irrational fears she had due to her illness. These fears were the opposite of how things really were with this family.
Apparently when children are at a very young age that is when they learn the most and it is usually the mother who imparts the most useful information to them?
-
I learnt a ton from my Mum but that is because she was the only one around. She taught me all of the basics and the foundations fo life. So yeah I agree the Mum plays a massive role in the development of a child.
-
Apparently when children are at a very young age that is when they learn the most and it is usually the mother who imparts the most useful information to them?
That is so, but it's also important to have a father figure too because the male brings the outside world into the home and the male role model. Sheila's little boys lacked that model for around a year and when they did have contact with their father again it wasn't constant.
-
I think so too, Mags. Sheila's friends said that when the boys were of school age they were pale, thin and fragile little boys who seemed not to know what to do with themselves until Sheila told them what to do.
Sheila would sit on a bench in the garden with one of the other mothers and say that she was worried about her boys because they were such wimps. The twins would run back to Sheila and just hover around her and she would become irritated with them and tell them to go and play, because they didn't know they wanted to play unless she told them to.
What I find odd is that Sheila would criticise the boys for hanging around her and for their failure to be as she wanted them to be, more outgoing, I suppose and more masculine. Yet Sheila had this obsessive fear that the boys would have sex with her or rape her, but I suppose these were the irrational fears she had due to her illness. These fears were the opposite of how things really were with this family.
Have actually seen this in action so obviously not as bad as sheilas boys. My girls were so healthy and strong minded they demanded to make their own choices but other kids couldn't do that they didnt know how to make a decision. Well I don't know, it was just crap for those poor little boys...I think they were loved by colin and by their grandparents even if some of it was a bit scary. I would imagine Sheila as an adopted girl must have adored her own children, her flesh and blood, the acceptance that she was and of her own existence. If she wanted to kill herself, and that is a 50% chance with a schizophrenic she could never have left her beloved boys behind her. I still think her depression from her schizophrenia became too much. What Ralph and June were discussing that Jeremy was half listening to was scarcely heard by Sheila trying to deal with her own stuff. She chose that night to kill herself, it was for sure easy enough, there were guns everywhere. If I wanted to kill myself in 1985 I would have headed for WHF. She decided to take her own life, the drugs, the men, the promises, come on she was in a really bad place. Someone heard and woke up June and Neville's beloved grandchildren shot, their daughter....put yourself in their place. Domestic not calculated murder.
-
That is so, but it's also important to have a father figure too because the male brings the outside world into the home and the male role model. Sheila's little boys lacked that model for around a year and when they did have contact with their father again it wasn't constant.
My mother was left by my father, who ran off with another woman when my brother and I were at a very early age and she brought us up on her own.
My mother is still alive and is in her 90's and is living in the Republic of Ireland (Kerry) My father died a few years back. I never hated him. But he did miss out on those important years. He never did understand children and thought he could treat us boys the same as those soldiers under his command in the army. He was very strict and used to smack us quite a lot in order to discipline us. He never showed us much love unfortunately which would have balanced things out a bit.
-
My mother was left by my father, who ran off with another woman when my brother and I were at a very early age and she brought us up on her own.
My mother is still alive and is in her 90's and is living in the Republic of Ireland (Kerry) My father died a few years back. I never hated him. But he did miss out on those important years. He never did understand children and thought he could treat us boys the same as those soldiers under his command in the army. He was very strict and used to smack us quite a lot in order to discipline us. He never showed us much love unfortunately which would have balanced things out a bit.
Grahame did he know what love was, maybe he'd never learned that. Not everyone knows that instinctively.xx
-
Grahame did he know what love was, maybe he'd never learned that. Not everyone knows that instinctively.xx
No nbut your mum taught you how to love, even if you go off piste a bit. your'e a good guy grahame.
-
No nbut your mum taught you how to love, even if you go off piste a bit. your'e a good guy grahame.
Thanks. I'll tell that to my kids the next time I hang them up by their thumbs and whip them with the cat o' nine tails. ::)
-
I think so too, Mags. Sheila's friends said that when the boys were of school age they were pale, thin and fragile little boys who seemed not to know what to do with themselves until Sheila told them what to do.
Sheila would sit on a bench in the garden with one of the other mothers and say that she was worried about her boys because they were such wimps. The twins would run back to Sheila and just hover around her and she would become irritated with them and tell them to go and play, because they didn't know they wanted to play unless she told them to.
What I find odd is that Sheila would criticise the boys for hanging around her and for their failure to be as she wanted them to be, more outgoing, I suppose and more masculine. Yet Sheila had this obsessive fear that the boys would have sex with her or rape her, but I suppose these were the irrational fears she had due to her illness. These fears were the opposite of how things really were with this family.
I wouldn't mind betting that part of the reason bringing up her boys felt alien to her was because SHE wasn't doing the bringing up. June was. By this, and I drawing from personal experience, she was using the same method, and saying the same words as June had with her BEFORE she capable of conscious memory. I did exactly the same thing and it was a very confusing time. I had no idea why I was saying such mean and spiteful things. The words that came out of my mouth didn't feel as is they were mine. THEY WEREN'T. They were the words my mother had used to me.
So, how might June have experienced motherhood? I imagine she was terrified of the small creature that she found herself responsible for. I imagine she thought that if she was not a "perfect" mother, she was a failure and in order to be "perfect" she had to maintain absolute control of Sheila's every thought , word and deed. We know about June's obsession with sex. At what stage did she start to impress this on Sheila? One of my earliest memories is of being put to bed on a very cold night and wanting to tuck my hands under the covers. My mother removed them and placed them on the eiderdown, so I put them back. She pulled out my hands and smacked them, tucked the covers in so tightly that I couldn't move and dared me, under threat, to do it again. Many years latter, I learned that this method was employed to prevent children touching their genitals!!!! Some small boys had their legs tied!!!! I feel convinced that most of the voices she heard belonged to June, in her many roles as the mother she loved, the God who told her she was a sex crazed harlot, unworthy of love and unlovable, and the Devil to told her to do those things, that as his child, she was born to do. Small wonder she was confused.
-
Is June's 'obsession with sex' something from one of the books? I don't recall seeing anything about it.
-
Is June's 'obsession with sex' something from one of the books? I don't recall seeing anything about it.
Quite frankly I think the whole of modern society is obsessed with sex. She just had an obsession with it as being dirty and sinful outside of marriage.
-
Quite frankly I think the whole of modern society is obsessed with sex. She just had an obsession with it as being dirty and sinful outside of marriage.
I imagine since she was religious she thought it was sinful outside of marriage, and like most mothers she didn't like the idea of her daughter sleeping around.
-
Yes. June refused to let her daughter marry in the local church and give her the traditional marriage that was usually given by the family..like the big marquee on the lawn...
Sheila was pregnant at the time of her marriage and she married at the register office, then went back to an hotel....Her dress was in contention too....June told her that a white wedding was not appropriate...According to Colin, this was to save embarrassment in the village. :) :)
-
I imagine since she was religious she thought it was sinful outside of marriage, and like most mothers she didn't like the idea of her daughter sleeping around.
Yes I agree and she probably thought that Colin Caffell was a bad influence on her?
-
Yes I agree and she probably thought that Colin Caffell was a bad influence on her?
From what I've read here June and Colin didn't exactly hold each other in high regard. I don't know why, maybe his book explains it better but I haven't had the opportunity to read it yet.
-
Yes. June refused to let her daughter marry in the local church and give her the traditional marriage that was usually given by the family..like the big marquee on the lawn...
Sheila was pregnant at the time of her marriage and she married at the register office, then went back to an hotel....Her dress was in contention too....June told her that a white wedding was not appropriate...According to Colin, this was to save embarrassment in the village. :) :)
Well that could certainly be described as an old fashioned view, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it indicates an obsession with sex.
-
Well that could certainly be described as an old fashioned view, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it indicates an obsession with sex.
Colin didn't like the way she treated Sheila....He says, that whenever she had spent time with her mother, she felt
depressed and upset. All Sheila wanted from her mother was to feel loved and she could not understand why other
mothers hugged their children and gave them birthday parties....Sheila never had this, she never invited friends home.
When Sheila had the twins....and the family came to see her...Colin's mum was excited about the twins and hugged
Sheila and made a fuss of her....he says June stood there with arms by her side and said who's a clever girl then...Not once
did she put her arms around her or touch the babies.....This must have hurt Sheila...
June may have had old fashioned views, of which I fully respect....but she also had the inability to hug her children.
Colin said Sheila could not understand it. :)
-
The bible in parts is obsessed with sex. Thou shalt not do this,that and the other.
The family,particularly June,was indoctrinated by various chapters in the bible which speak of differing forms of sex,,to which June had adhered to,and was passing this,,her way,,,on to the rest of the family.
I often wonder at June herself not having borne children,,whether the reason was a medical one,,or whether she'd treated it as a sin. It was a dirty word in her mind and became an obsession.
Sheila was rebelling against June's wishes. Hence the abortions,miscarriage/s and finally the twins,who by this time,poor Sheila wasn't in any fit state to appreciate that she had something of her own to love and be loved by.
What a very sad ending for the poor " tortured " woman who was driven to despair.
-
A lot of things bothered Sheila...When she had her first abortion at the age of 17 she was worried that she might not be able to carry a child again. Colin did not say she was forced into this abortion, but Sheila was worried...They both discussed it and thought it would be better if she did have an abortion, but Sheila was not happy about it...She talked it over with her mother and suddenly changed her mind about it all....
The day after the abortion Colin went to see Sheila at WHF. Sheila wanted to go out and her mother said they could go in the garden....But they walked over to a field and got naked and laid in the sun...There was no sex, because it was the day after her abortion....Her mother caught them in the field.....She was furious with them both...So when they got back to the farm, Sheila went upstairs and packed her bags...and went back to London with Colin.... :)
-
The bible in parts is obsessed with sex. Thou shalt not do this,that and the other.
The family,particularly June,was indoctrinated by various chapters in the bible which speak of differing forms of sex,,to which June had adhered to,and was passing this,,her way,,,on to the rest of the family.
I often wonder at June herself not having borne children,,whether the reason was a medical one,,or whether she'd treated it as a sin. It was a dirty word in her mind and became an obsession.
Sheila was rebelling against June's wishes. Hence the abortions,miscarriage/s and finally the twins,who by this time,poor Sheila wasn't in any fit state to appreciate that she had something of her own to love and be loved by.
What a very sad ending for the poor " tortured " woman who was driven to despair.
Hi lookout...according to Colin, the 2nd abortion took place when they were married...Sheila had caught an infection of some sort
and had to have the pregnancy terminated.....When she carried the twins Sheila spent most of the pregnancy in hospital. I know what
that is like, because I had to do the same with my son....Then came the monster...hahahahahah
It must have been difficult for both JB and Sheila being modern children, having an old fashioned mother who quoted the bible to them
at every given opportunity, quite frustrating......
Having read what JB said about his parents....his only hang up was his mother and her religion.
I sometimes wonder if June is painted wrongly sometimes.....possibly misunderstood.?????
-
Is June's 'obsession with sex' something from one of the books? I don't recall seeing anything about it.
Bridget, You're unlikely to to find mention of June's "obsession with sex" mentioned. It comes from what I've read, what I've been told and my observations as to how she is portrayed as raising her daughter. It is not so much a condemnation as an acknowledgement that she was a troubled woman.
-
I think also colin had little regard for june , patti has mentioned a page or two from the book about them sunbathing nude yet when they got back to the house nevill saw the funny side of it, is it possible colin had had enough of june rather than sheila ?
-
Bridget, You're unlikely to to find mention of June's "obsession with sex" mentioned. It comes from what I've read, what I've been told and my observations as to how she is portrayed as raising her daughter. It is not so much a condemnation as an acknowledgement that she was a troubled woman.
Hi april...form what I gather June ruled and that was it....Colin said that the family portrayed themselves differently when in public and, that no one knew the real them behind closed doors. :) :)
-
I think also colin had little regard for june , patti has mentioned a page or two from the book about them sunbathing nude yet when they got back to the house nevill saw the funny side of it, is it possible colin had had enough of june rather than sheila ?
Hi Mertol...I think it was Nevill's get out of it all.....where he often said " Oh Well" and walked away.
Have you finished it yet? Must finish mine today , then re-read it and take notes...lol
I have a signed copy of Lomax's book on the way....did you know that...:) :) :)
-
Hi Mertol...I think it was Nevill's get out of it all.....where he often said " Oh Well" and walked away.
Have you finished it yet? Must finish mine today , then re-read it and take notes...lol
I have a signed copy of Lomax's book on the way....did you know that...:) :) :)
i have finished the book last night after dallas, however i still need to find that page of figure walking away i will try today, i am aware miss marple of your signed book when i went on amazon i could not see them lucky you !
-
Quite frankly I think the whole of modern society is obsessed with sex. She just had an obsession with it as being dirty and sinful outside of marriage.
I think that tells us she regarded sex as generally distasteful. I'm not sure how, within the space of time it takes to unite people in marriage, an act seen as dirty and sinful can become pure and beautiful.
-
Hi april...form what I gather June ruled and that was it....Colin said that the family portrayed themselves differently when in public and, that no one knew the real them behind closed doors. :) :)
There is always two sides patti, June did rule end of, i dont know if jeremy is a man of religion then and now,my gut feeling he was not because if he was he would recieve the same stern bible bashing sheila and the boys did, sheila did believe and that left her open to the wrath of june.
-
i have finished the book last night after dallas, however i still need to find that page of figure walking away i will try today, i am aware miss marple of your signed book when i went on amazon i could not see them lucky you !
Hi Mertol....It did say one collectable...but after I bought the book, it still said one collectable, but when I looked the other day there was no collectable one...So I must have bought the last one and, it was a steal....:))
-
Hi april...form what I gather June ruled and that was it....Colin said that the family portrayed themselves differently when in public and, that no one knew the real them behind closed doors. :) :)
Patti, how strange!!! You could be describing my family!!!! My mother ruled, and she had the same need to control (and demand absolute obedience from me) as I suspect June had of Sheila.
-
Hi Mertol....It did say one collectable...but after I bought the book, it still said one collectable, but when I looked the other day there was no collectable one...So I must have bought the last one and, it was a steal....:))
yes it was you have a steal , you rather like these little chaps the smilies !
-
There is always two sides patti, June did rule end of, i dont know if jeremy is a man of religion then and now,my gut feeling he was not because if he was he would recieve the same stern bible bashing sheila and the boys did, sheila did believe and that left her open to the wrath of june.
Mertol did you feel that Sheila was very religious according Collin's book? They were both into Tarot and I believe Colin still is. :)
-
Apparently when children are at a very young age that is when they learn the most and it is usually the mother who imparts the most useful information to them?
Grahame, you are exactly correct. The Jesuits say "Give me the child at (6, I think) and I will give you the man) Thus, whatever baggage Mummy is carrying gets passed to her child and whatever bad habits she has imparted are almost impossible for teachers to rectify.
-
Mertol did you feel that Sheila was very religious according Collin's book? They were both into Tarot and I believe Colin still is. :)
I do patti in regards to sheila , however june had a lot to do with that,and when june passed her worship for god to the boys this seems to when the trouble started , with colin i think also today yes he does believe , colin did seek help for a seance to contact sheila did he not ? but with colin i feel he had little control when the boys were there , those drawings the boys did speak for themselves.
-
Patti, how strange!!! You could be describing my family!!!! My mother ruled, and she had the same need to control (and demand absolute obedience from me) as I suspect June had of Sheila.
Patti, how strange!!! You could be describing my family!!!! My mother ruled, and she had the same need to control (and demand absolute obedience from me) as I suspect June had of Sheila.
Aww, sorry to hear that april, I hope I haven't upset you. I just get the feeling that is the reason Sheila and Jeremy left home in their early teens. Jeremy left home at 16 and only lived at WHF for 3 months since he was 16...I'm not sure what age Sheila left home, but she was living with Colin from being 17...
april I would love to ask you a few questions, but I wouldn't want to offend you...:)
-
There is always two sides patti, June did rule end of, i dont know if jeremy is a man of religion then and now,my gut feeling he was not because if he was he would recieve the same stern bible bashing sheila and the boys did, sheila did believe and that left her open to the wrath of june.
Mertol, I suspect, in the case where there are two children and the mother exerts control over one, the other gets let off the hook, yet rather than seeing it as a good thing, it often results in the child feeling ignored and uncared for.
-
I think also colin had little regard for june , patti has mentioned a page or two from the book about them sunbathing nude yet when they got back to the house nevill saw the funny side of it, is it possible colin had had enough of june rather than sheila ?
What an astute insight, Mertol.
-
I do patti in regards to sheila , however june had a lot to do with that,and when june passed her worship for god to the boys this seems to when the trouble started , with colin i think also today yes he does believe , colin did seek help for a seance to contact sheila did he not ? but with colin i feel he had little control when the boys were there , those drawings the boys did speak for themselves.
Mertol I was amazed at the drawing the boys had done...The sun crying on WHF and then being sick on it. Also the one they said which was Grannie Bamber.
I thought Colin's went a bit weird towards the end of the book and did not complete the so called journey he was on...or gain any answers. In parts it was difficult not to hold back the tears, for he had lost his two lovely children. I honestly Colin could be persuaded of JB being NOT GUILTY...he appears to be so gullible.
I love the smilies.....I'm a smiley person :)
-
I think also colin had little regard for june , patti has mentioned a page or two from the book about them sunbathing nude yet when they got back to the house nevill saw the funny side of it, is it possible colin had had enough of june rather than sheila ?
Colin's letter to Nevill asking him to stop June doing to the twins what she did to Sheila makes it clear that Colin blamed June, June's crazy, obsessive religious beliefs and her obsession with the devil for Sheila's mental illness.
-
Mertol, I suspect, in the case where there are two children and the mother exerts control over one, the other gets let off the hook, yet rather than seeing it as a good thing, it often results in the child feeling ignored and uncared for.
Thats just it April while reading the book i was also hoping to read more about jeremy it became clear there was little, i dont think jeremy was interested in religion and this may explain why june never could force something on him he did not care for, thats not the fault of jeremy, sheila on the other hand did believe and june ,lets be honest seized that to the full.
-
Aww, sorry to hear that april, I hope I haven't upset you. I just get the feeling that is the reason Sheila and Jeremy left home in their early teens. Jeremy left home at 16 and only lived at WHF for 3 months since he was 16...I'm not sure what age Sheila left home, but she was living with Colin from being 17...
april I would love to ask you a few questions, but I wouldn't want to offend you...:)
I alway reckon that if you don't ask the queation, you'll never know what the answer might have been so Patti, whatever you would like to ask, please feel free, and please be assured that in no way have you upset me.
-
The bible in parts is obsessed with sex. Thou shalt not do this,that and the other.
The family,particularly June,was indoctrinated by various chapters in the bible which speak of differing forms of sex,,to which June had adhered to,and was passing this,,her way,,,on to the rest of the family.
I often wonder at June herself not having borne children,,whether the reason was a medical one,,or whether she'd treated it as a sin. It was a dirty word in her mind and became an obsession.
Sheila was rebelling against June's wishes. Hence the abortions,miscarriage/s and finally the twins,who by this time,poor Sheila wasn't in any fit state to appreciate that she had something of her own to love and be loved by.
What a very sad ending for the poor " tortured " woman who was driven to despair.
I'm not quite sure that the Bible is obsessed with sex in parts? They in those days when Israel came out of Egypt lead by Moses were themselves, as todays society is obsessed with sex and that is what Moses was addressing in those parts in order control man's obsession. The Israelites were to be entirely different from the nations around them and that was how those nations carried on. You can see this also if these sex obsessions were not controlled that society soon fell again and again into these obsessions. One just has to look at the Roman Empire to illustrate this.
I shouldn't think that June was any more a religious fanatic than quite a few other church goers. In fact there was a time when those who didn't conform to Christian values were seen as the fanatics. Fanaticism is always that which goes against what is considered the norm at the time. I think perhaps it might be a bit unfair to call June a religious fanatic just because she saw Colin as a threat to the daughter she brought up and of course Colin would see her praying with Sheila's boys every night as fanatical. Because that was something he didn't agree with and saw it as her ramming religion down their throats rather than him ramming his ideas down their throats. In fact I've met atheists who are just as fanatical as society counts Christians to be and just can't see the fact that they too could be charged with ramming their own form of atheism down their children's throats.
-
Colin's letter to Nevill asking him to stop June doing to the twins what she did to Sheila makes it clear that Colin blamed June, June's crazy, obsessive religious beliefs and her obsession with the devil for Sheila's mental illness.
Hi Keira
Apparently it wasn't just a bedtime thing either.....:)
-
I alway reckon that if you don't ask the queation, you'll never know what the answer might have been so Patti, whatever you would like to ask, please feel free, and please be assured that in no way have you upset me.
Hi april.....I see you have similar circumstances when you were growing up...What are your feeling towards your parents now? Sorry for asking :(
-
I'm not quite sure that the Bible is obsessed with sex in parts? They in those days when Israel came out of Egypt lead by Moses were themselves, as todays society is obsessed with sex and that is what Moses was addressing in those parts in order control man's obsession. The Israelites were to be entirely different from the nations around them and that was how those nations carried on. You can see this also if these sex obsessions were not controlled that society soon fell again and again into these obsessions. One just has to look at the Roman Empire to illustrate this.
I shouldn't think that June was any more a religious fanatic than quite a few other church goers. In fact there was a time when those who didn't conform to Christian values were seen as the fanatics. Fanaticism is always that which goes against what is considered the norm at the time. I think perhaps it might be a bit unfair to call June a religious fanatic just because she saw Colin as a threat to the daughter she brought up and of course Colin would see her praying with Sheila's boys every night as fanatical. Because that was something he didn't agree with and saw it as her ramming religion down their throats rather than him ramming his ideas down their throats. In fact I've met atheists who are just as fanatical as society counts Christians to be and just can't see the fact that they too could be charged with ramming their own form of atheism down their children's throats.
Very eloquently put Grahame, have you studied theology?
-
Mertol I was amazed at the drawing the boys had done...The sun crying on WHF and then being sick on it. Also the one they said which was Grannie Bamber.
I thought Colin's went a bit weird towards the end of the book and did not complete the so called journey he was on...or gain any answers. In parts it was difficult not to hold back the tears, for he had lost his two lovely children. I honestly Colin could be persuaded of JB being NOT GUILTY...he appears to be so gullible.
I love the smilies.....I'm a smiley person :)
There is a moment in colins book when he is visiting the boys grave in the snow walking down the hill he laughs out because someone built a snowman next to them he later found out who it was , i think this helped him to go on, going on what colin says he has not seen jeremy since 1986 so you have 2 possible answers , he never will , should jeremy be cleared could colin find the will and meet him i think he could.
-
I wouldn't mind betting that part of the reason bringing up her boys felt alien to her was because SHE wasn't doing the bringing up. June was. By this, and I drawing from personal experience, she was using the same method, and saying the same words as June had with her BEFORE she capable of conscious memory. I did exactly the same thing and it was a very confusing time. I had no idea why I was saying such mean and spiteful things. The words that came out of my mouth didn't feel as is they were mine. THEY WEREN'T. They were the words my mother had used to me.
So, how might June have experienced motherhood? I imagine she was terrified of the small creature that she found herself responsible for. I imagine she thought that if she was not a "perfect" mother, she was a failure and in order to be "perfect" she had to maintain absolute control of Sheila's every thought , word and deed. We know about June's obsession with sex. At what stage did she start to impress this on Sheila? One of my earliest memories is of being put to bed on a very cold night and wanting to tuck my hands under the covers. My mother removed them and placed them on the eiderdown, so I put them back. She pulled out my hands and smacked them, tucked the covers in so tightly that I couldn't move and dared me, under threat, to do it again. Many years latter, I learned that this method was employed to prevent children touching their genitals!!!! Some small boys had their legs tied!!!! I feel convinced that most of the voices she heard belonged to June, in her many roles as the mother she loved, the God who told her she was a sex crazed harlot, unworthy of love and unlovable, and the Devil to told her to do those things, that as his child, she was born to do. Small wonder she was confused.
What an insightful post, April. Although Sheila's voices were the product of the schizophrenic imbalances in her brain, research, especially studies of schizophrenic quads, has shown that the severity of the symptoms of schizophrenia, such as hearing voices, is conditioned by the nature of the schizophrenic's upbringing.
THe research suggests that a stable upbringing can minimise the symptoms of schizophrenia, whereas a dysfunctional upbringing can exacerbate the symptoms.
-
Sheilas upbringing looks to have played a part of her condition, my favourite late actor Klaus Kinski was even diagnosed a schizophrenic by the few klaus trusted film director Werner Herzog, kinski was abused by his father , he said the best thing in my life was my father dead.
-
I think sex is a lovely thing to have. I think it is more open in society today and, talked about more. To hide or to preach that sex should be forbidden, must have an effect on today's modern child.
Human beings have had sex since the beginning of time....Grahme mentioned the Roman Empire. Bothers married sisters and all the family had sex...with each other, it was deemed to be a normal way of life.
It's modern society that we live in today that makes the scene of incest deplorable and it is my eyes. But, had I lived in the times of the Roma Empire, my thoughts might be very different. :)
-
Very eloquently put Grahame, have you studied theology?
Yes that is counted among my sins. ;D
-
Quote from april: One of my earliest memories is of being put to bed on a very cold night and wanting to tuck my hands under the covers. My mother removed them and placed them on the eiderdown, so I put them back. She pulled out my hands and smacked them, tucked the covers in so tightly that I couldn't move and dared me, under threat, to do it again.
Bless...I want to give you a big hug. :'(
Take care speak later xxx
-
June made the mistake , to worship god is fine but that must be free of choice ,
a church is a place of worship not at the side of the bed.
-
I'm not quite sure that the Bible is obsessed with sex in parts? They in those days when Israel came out of Egypt lead by Moses were themselves, as todays society is obsessed with sex and that is what Moses was addressing in those parts in order control man's obsession. The Israelites were to be entirely different from the nations around them and that was how those nations carried on. You can see this also if these sex obsessions were not controlled that society soon fell again and again into these obsessions. One just has to look at the Roman Empire to illustrate this.
I shouldn't think that June was any more a religious fanatic than quite a few other church goers. In fact there was a time when those who didn't conform to Christian values were seen as the fanatics. Fanaticism is always that which goes against what is considered the norm at the time. I think perhaps it might be a bit unfair to call June a religious fanatic just because she saw Colin as a threat to the daughter she brought up and of course Colin would see her praying with Sheila's boys every night as fanatical. Because that was something he didn't agree with and saw it as her ramming religion down their throats rather than him ramming his ideas down their throats. In fact I've met atheists who are just as fanatical as society counts Christians to be and just can't see the fact that they too could be charged with ramming their own form of atheism down their children's throats.
I do see June as a religious fanatic because she filled Sheila's mind with a poisonous belief that the devil was controlling her. When June caught Sheila, who was at the time a young teenager, having sex with a young farm hand, did June ever blame herself?
Any loving and perceptive parent would question the upbringing they had given a child who begins to get into trouble in this manner. Yet, June never appears to have questioned herself or Sheila's upbringing as far as I can see. Not once does June seemed to have blamed herself and the dysfunctional, cold and unaffectionate upbringing that she had given Sheila.
Who did June blame? She blamed Sheila. June frogmarched Sheila back to the house while ranting and raving at Sheila that she was the devil's child.
AE blamed June's horrible smearing of Sheila with this 'devil's child' slur as the root of Sheila's problems.
-
And again the fatal injuries to june speak volumes to me.
-
I think sex is a lovely thing to have. I think it is more open in society today and, talked about more. To hide or to preach that sex should be forbidden, must have an effect on today's modern child.
Human beings have had sex since the beginning of time....Grahme mentioned the Roman Empire. Bothers married sisters and all the family had sex...with each other, it was deemed to be a normal way of life.
It's modern society that we live in today that makes the scene of incest deplorable and it is my eyes. But, had I lived in the times of the Roma Empire, my thoughts might be very different. :)
Hi Patti. There are documents about the Roman Empire that are still locked away in the British Library and can only be viewed by special appointment because they are considered to be so corrupt. It wasn't just ordinary sex we are talking about. But obscene forms of bestiality and paedophilia that even todays society would see as most obscene. Another thing that would happen is that if a couple had a baby and it was a girl child they would think nothing of abandoning that child on the city rubbish tip. Terrible things would take place during the last days of the Roman Empire. I think if you ever knew the reality of the situation then today's society would seem very mild with its crime and murders and general corruption compared to the Roman Empire. And it was these horrors that the apostle Paul was referring to in his letter to the Roman Christians.
-
And what did Sheila say when June hurled this horrible abuse at her, that Sheila was the devil's child?
Poor little Sheila said, yes, you're right, mum, I am the devil's child.
-
When June told Sheila that she was the devil's child she emotionally abused Sheila. That abuse had a lasting and devastating impact on Sheila throughout her short life.
-
I shouldn't think that June was any more a religious fanatic than quite a few other church goers. In fact there was a time when those who didn't conform to Christian values were seen as the fanatics. Fanaticism is always that which goes against what is considered the norm at the time. I think perhaps it might be a bit unfair to call June a religious fanatic just because she saw Colin as a threat to the daughter she brought up and of course Colin would see her praying with Sheila's boys every night as fanatical. Because that was something he didn't agree with and saw it as her ramming religion down their throats rather than him ramming his ideas down their throats. In fact I've met atheists who are just as fanatical as society counts Christians to be and just can't see the fact that they too could be charged with ramming their own form of atheism down their children's throats.
Grahame, I think the twin' depiction of WHF tells its' own story. I think they had probably had the wits terrified out of them by the praying routine, and which child wouldn't given that June's God seems to be unforgiving, judgemental, quick to anger, even quicker to mete out punisment. A God it was almost impossible to please. A God it was impossible for them to trust to keep them safe. An ogre from a fairy story. The twins, like their mother must surely have lived in fear of Him.
I know people who are committed Christians and I feel spiritually uplifted by them. I suspect I would not have felt the same about June. I feel she would have managed to convey, albeit, subtley, that one didn't quite live up to expectations.
-
Hi april.....I see you have similar circumstances when you were growing up...What are your feeling towards your parents now? Sorry for asking :(
One word, Patti. FREE!!!!!!.........but in the moments I think/talk about it I am angry on behalf of the child she inflicted such psychological cruelty on and excused it as being a joke. The father I adored could have done more to protect me, but like Nevill, I suspect it was anything for a quiet life. However, I want to make it very clear that I'm no longer that child, I'm an entirely OTHER person. I've put years of work into it and I like who I am............but God help anyone who inflicts cruelty and injustice on children!!!!!!!
-
Yes I agree and she probably thought that Colin Caffell was a bad influence on her?
In the mid seventies, general attitudes towards sex outside marriage and illegitimate babies were only beginning to change. A mother didn't need to be religious or totally controlling to want to protect their daughters from situations which made women's lives very difficult. Women were still trying to gain equality in society.
-
Colin didn't like the way she treated Sheila....He says, that whenever she had spent time with her mother, she felt
depressed and upset. All Sheila wanted from her mother was to feel loved and she could not understand why other
mothers hugged their children and gave them birthday parties....Sheila never had this, she never invited friends home.
When Sheila had the twins....and the family came to see her...Colin's mum was excited about the twins and hugged
Sheila and made a fuss of her....he says June stood there with arms by her side and said who's a clever girl then...Not once
did she put her arms around her or touch the babies.....This must have hurt Sheila...
June may have had old fashioned views, of which I fully respect....but she also had the inability to hug her children.
Colin said Sheila could not understand it. :)
Maybe poor old june had never been hugged. Do we know what her childhood was like? Behviour is passed from generation to generation xxxx
-
I've not so far said it but it may help to clarify what I've been attempting to say. Children see parental figures as being all powerful. They believe every word adults say. They don't understand sarcasm or adult nuances in speech. Tell a child "it's raining cats and dogs" and that's what it will expect to see. I recall shedding tears because a house was going to be stonedashed (think about the references to stonedashing in the Bible) I wondered what they had done that was so wrong and where they would go. I'd like to believe that if people realized how easy it is to "bend" the mind of an impressionable child, they would take better care, but sadly, there are always those who feel powerless in their own lives and seek to gain power over others. In children, they find the perfect opportunity.
-
Quote from april: One of my earliest memories is of being put to bed on a very cold night and wanting to tuck my hands under the covers. My mother removed them and placed them on the eiderdown, so I put them back. She pulled out my hands and smacked them, tucked the covers in so tightly that I couldn't move and dared me, under threat, to do it again.
Bless...I want to give you a big hug. :'(
Take care speak later xxx
Thankyou for that hug, Patti. It was wonderful xxx
-
I've not so far said it but it may help to clarify what I've been attempting to say. Children see parental figures as being all powerful. They believe every word adults say. They don't understand sarcasm or adult nuances in speech. Tell a child "it's raining cats and dogs" and that's what it will expect to see. I recall shedding tears because a house was going to be stonedashed (think about the references to stonedashing in the Bible) I wondered what they had done that was so wrong and where they would go. I'd like to believe that if people realized how easy it is to "bend" the mind of an impressionable child, they would take better care, but sadly, there are always those who feel powerless in their own lives and seek to gain power over others. In children, they find the perfect opportunity.
That is so true April, young children are so vulnerable and trusting, its hard to believe how cruel people can be to them, often unwittingly and without thought. However, its pretty obvious by her behaviour that June was an abused child herself. It takes great courage to have therapy for damage caused in childhood, also to recognise that maybe it's necessary. June's generation and class of the stiff upper lip would never have recognised the foundations of her illness.
-
It amazes me how someone can change their mind on Jeremy Bambers guilt or innocence by whoever they decide to be friendly with. One minute stating something as fact (today) and another dismissing something as just part of a story in a book that's not factual
See below
andrea
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2011, 10:39:PM »
Quote
it is definately in the claire powell book, its in that book that she mentions the meeting at the pub, where they allegedly tried to do a deal with the reporter for the pictures. i have that book, its called murder at whithouse farm.
Report to moderator Logged
Tyler
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #76 on: May 23, 2011, 10:46:PM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on May 23, 2011, 10:39:PM
it is definately in the claire powell book, its in that book that she mentions the meeting at the pub, where they allegedly tried to do a deal with the reporter for the pictures. i have that book, its called murder at whithouse farm.
Yep,thats the one Andrea
.Do you believe it happened? Only,Claire writing about that meeting obviously put Jeremy in a bad light and yet in most of the book,she seems quite supportive of him.Thats what made me wonder if it was indeed true.
andrea
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2011, 08:22:AM »
ive no idea tyler, she gets a lot of things wrong in that book. for instance when june caught sheila in the field with colin, powell said it was a farmhand and that they were having sex in a ditch. cc himself told the true story. the book aint that reliable but is any book?
grahame
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2011, 08:40:AM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on May 24, 2011, 08:22:AM
ive no idea tyler, she gets a lot of things wrong in that book. for instance when june caught sheila in the field with colin, powell said it was a farmhand and that they were having sex in a ditch. cc himself told the true story. the book aint that reliable but is any book?
Now that is a very relevant statement Andrea. How many of us take for granted that which a certain book says is true? Or how many of us check up on the writer of the book to see what they themselves believe? Very few of us are neutral on any subject and what we write may reflect that which we ourselves believe and not what is actually true?
Again you can see this prejudice in the forum as well. Someone may believe in something so strongly that they cannot see the truth and indeed refuse even to read another person's opinion from the opposite side. What makes this even more confusing is that, that person is convinced that they are looking at all things fairly.
-
Maybe poor old june had never been hugged. Do we know what her childhood was like? Behviour is passed from generation to generation xxxx
Hi Maggie
I remember AE saying that when Grannie S was told about the deaths...She sat up and said " It's the devil at work, or its the devils work" So it makes you wonder...
Just enjoying an ice cream...mmmmm :P :P
-
Hi Maggie
I remember AE saying that when Grannie S was told about the deaths...She sat up and said " It's the devil at work, or its the devils work" So it makes you wonder...
Just enjoying an ice cream...mmmmm :P :P
Patti, I do believe June herself was an abused child if she hadnt been touched and hugged as a child she may have found touching and hugging almost impossible. I think june was a victim herself and that was the basis of her own mental illness. Maybe she found it easier to cuddle a stuffed toy than a human being. We should show her some compassion. imho.
-
Hi Maggie
I remember AE saying that when Grannie S was told about the deaths...She sat up and said " It's the devil at work, or its the devils work" So it makes you wonder...
Just enjoying an ice cream...mmmmm :P :P
So all this typing is making you hot i see nothing like a ice cream to cool things down you could finish off with a glass of chardo on me if you want.
-
Hi Patti. There are documents about the Roman Empire that are still locked away in the British Library and can only be viewed by special appointment because they are considered to be so corrupt. It wasn't just ordinary sex we are talking about. But obscene forms of bestiality and paedophilia that even todays society would see as most obscene. Another thing that would happen is that if a couple had a baby and it was a girl child they would think nothing of abandoning that child on the city rubbish tip. Terrible things would take place during the last days of the Roman Empire. I think if you ever knew the reality of the situation then today's society would seem very mild with its crime and murders and general corruption compared to the Roman Empire. And it was these horrors that the apostle Paul was referring to in his letter to the Roman Christians.
Sex at its' most basic and the repercussions and ramifications. At what point did we romanticize it? Where started the myths which surround it? At what point did sex become equated with love? At its best it can be so beautiful that it defies description, at its most basic it is little more than a physical exercise to release tension or a vehicle for enabling the vilest fantasies........
.......but one thing I feel is certain, those who come from families where they feel themselves to have been unloved and ignored, who have not lived up to what was expected of them, who have not experienced hugs and praise, will see it as love. They will glow with the positive attention they are experiencing, perhaps for the first time. They may acually experience feeling loved for the first time and if a modern girl feels something of, pardon the pun, an anticlimax afterwards, spare a thought for the Victorian miss who knew NOTHING and trembled when hands brushed. They are likely to go from one sad experience to another, each new one promising something it fails to deliver and each failure making her feel more unlovable. Travel far enough down that road and it could lead to those things at the dark heart of the Roman Empire.
-
That is so true April, young children are so vulnerable and trusting, its hard to believe how cruel people can be to them, often unwittingly and without thought. However, its pretty obvious by her behaviour that June was an abused child herself. It takes great courage to have therapy for damage caused in childhood, also to recognise that maybe it's necessary. June's generation and class of the stiff upper lip would never have recognised the foundations of her illness.
Nor are they willing to expose what those parents have done, Maggie, especially when those parents are held, by others in high regard, and adoptive parents are.....and then there's the fear of not being believed. I was in my mid forties before I no longer cared if, or not, I was believed. It was both an enormous relief and the best thing I have ever done for myself.
-
" In 1985,the public and the police were reluctant to believe that a young mother could brutally murder her family. Today,reports of women committing violent crime,including murdering their children before attempting/committing suicide are well documented through the media. Had Jeremy Bmber's trial taken place today and had the jury been made aware of all the research and the links established between cannabis and schizophrenia,then an entirely different conclusion would surely have been reached.
If the advances made with understanding schizophrenia and its treatment had been available to Sheila Caffell back in 1985,it is possible that she would be alive today.
She was,after all,as much a victim as Jeremy Bamber is."
-
" In 1985,the public and the police were reluctant to believe that a young mother could brutally murder her family. Today,reports of women committing violent crime,including murdering their children before attempting/committing suicide are well documented through the media. Had Jeremy Bmber's trial taken place today and had the jury been made aware of all the research and the links established between cannabis and schizophrenia,then an entirely different conclusion would surely have been reached.
If the advances made with understanding schizophrenia and its treatment had been available to Sheila Caffell back in 1985,it is possible that she would be alive today.
She was,after all,as much a victim as Jeremy Bamber is."
I agree completely with that statement lookout.
-
Nor are they willing to expose what those parents have done, Maggie, especially when those parents are held, by others in high regard, and adoptive parents are.....and then there's the fear of not being believed. I was in my mid forties before I no longer cared if, or not, I was believed. It was both an enormous relief and the best thing I have ever done for myself.
I would like to point out at this point april, that there are many, many happy and complete families which include adopted children. As a mother of adopted children, I have to quite often reassure myself that I am not any of these things you write about, neither are thousands of other adoptees or their children.
I'm not in anyway trying to undermine your'e argument, and I do sympathise with and what you suffered, just wanted to point out adoption can be good. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. Of course, my children ideally should have been with there natural familes but this wasn't ever to be.
-
Colin's letter to Nevill asking him to stop June doing to the twins what she did to Sheila makes it clear that Colin blamed June, June's crazy, obsessive religious beliefs and her obsession with the devil for Sheila's mental illness.
Keira, if we transpose "rigid" for "obsessive" it gives another hold on June's views on religion. I feel saddened by the thought of Sheila running, distressed from the Greek monestry, a place where I've never failed to find solace, even when I haven't felt in need of it!!!!! I wonder if, to June, the only acceptable form of religion was her own, the one accepted by the Establishment and having found Sheila had visited an Orthodox monestry, regaled her with stories of how they were aligned to the Devil, which if Sheila had ever found peace there, would have reinforced her mother's assertion that she was the Devil's child.
It also occurs to me to ask what may June have been seeking atonement for to display such overt religiosity? Those I know who are committed Christians are generally happy, and are sustained by their faith. Their inner calm makes them a joy to be with. I feel the same could not have been said of June.
-
when i visit a convent i go to the 1st night is special i sleep like a log above you in every room a crucifix yet i dont believe in god now june was all wrong she prevented sheila from the freedom of choice now i can see why jeremy to some is viewed as a bad apple was he ?
-
I would like to point out at this point april, that there are many, many happy and complete families which include adopted children. As a mother of adopted children, I have to quite often reassure myself that I am not any of these things you write about, neither are thousands of other adoptees or their children.
I'm not in anyway trying to undermine your'e argument, and I do sympathise with and what you suffered, just wanted to point out adoption can be good. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. Of course, my children ideally should have been with there natural familes but this wasn't ever to be.
Maggie, please forgive me. I do run on a bit, I know. I DO know that adoptions like mine and Sheila's are, thankfully VERY rare and I'm delighted for you, and your children, that it has been such a wonderful experience for you. It is as it should be and I send you love and best wishes for your ongoing happiness. xx
-
Keira, if we transpose "rigid" for "obsessive" it gives another hold on June's views on religion. I feel saddened by the thought of Sheila running, distressed from the Greek monestry, a place where I've never failed to find solace, even when I haven't felt in need of it!!!!! I wonder if, to June, the only acceptable form of religion was her own, the one accepted by the Establishment and having found Sheila had visited an Orthodox monestry, regaled her with stories of how they were aligned to the Devil, which if Sheila had ever found peace there, would have reinforced her mother's assertion that she was the Devil's child.
It also occurs to me to ask what may June have been seeking atonement for to display such overt religiosity? Those I know who are committed Christians are generally happy, and are sustained by their faith. Their inner calm makes them a joy to be with. I feel the same could not have been said of June.
Am I the only person who thinks June was a damaged person and was probably abused, in the same way she abused Sheila, when she was a child. Wasn't she part of the tragedy rather than just the cause?
-
They were both allowed to leave home though, before either of them reached 18. Maybe they were both eager to leave or may have been persuaded...Also the parents bought them both a home. It's quite puzzling at times. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Maggie, please forgive me. I do run on a bit, I know. I DO know that adoptions like mine and Sheila's are, thankfully VERY rare and I'm delighted for you, and your children, that it has been such a wonderful experience for you. It is as it should be and I send you love and best wishes for your ongoing happiness. xx
Thank you april, I had a life threatening illness in my 20s which left me unable to ever have children. It was so hard to accept and it took us 9 years before we had the opportunity to adopt. I fell in love with my babies and loved them as least as much as I could have loved my own. I consider myself a very lucky person to have had the whole experience. Some people don't quite understand that you can completely love a child not of your blood but I assure everyone that you can.
-
Am I the only person who thinks June was a damaged person and was probably abused, in the same way she abused Sheila, when she was a child. Wasn't she part of the tragedy rather than just the cause?
Absolutely not, Maggie. Given that Granny Speakman made the statement about the tragedy being "the Devil's work,"it seems apparent that he had a place in their family life and his work was known to them!! I think it very likely that June suffered some form of abuse.
-
Thank you april, I had a life threatening illness in my 20s which left me unable to ever have children. It was so hard to accept and it took us 9 years before we had the opportunity to adopt. I fell in love with my babies and loved them as least as much as I could have loved my own. I consider myself a very lucky person to have had the whole experience. Some people don't quite understand that you can completely love a child not of your blood but I assure everyone that you can.
Maggie, I can't express the joy that reading your reply gave me. I'm still trying to type through tears!!!!! xx
-
Absolutely not, Maggie. Given that Granny Speakman made the statement about the tragedy being "the Devil's work,"it seems apparent that he had a place in their family life and his work was known to them!! I think it very likely that June suffered some form of abuse.
She found showing affection impossible, apart from a stuffed toy on the bed and maybe Crispy, I just wonder that she may have desperately wanted to hug her daughter but quite simply didn't know how to. I think June's life was also a tragedy, belonging to the English upper classes at that time was more of a curse than anything I should think.
-
ive not found the figure part patti in colins book, but i spotted something on page 173 what colin said about jeremy its on the 6th line from the top,
-
They were both allowed to leave home though, before either of them reached 18. Maybe they were both eager to leave or may have been persuaded...Also the parents bought them both a home. It's quite puzzling at times. :-\ :-\ :-\
I think, Patti, that provision of property for their young is part of the youngs' rite of passage, besides, neither of them had the kind of qualifications which would have enabled them to find work to finance themselves.
-
She found showing affection impossible, apart from a stuffed toy on the bed and maybe Crispy, I just wonder that she may have desperately wanted to hug her daughter but quite simply didn't know how to. I think June's life was also a tragedy, belonging to the English upper classes at that time was more of a curse than anything I should think.
Behavioural patterns are known to be passed on, partly because nobody recognizes that it's happening and partly because it's almost impossible to change without help even if it is.
-
ive not found the figure part patti in colins book, but i spotted something on page 173 what colin said about jeremy its on the 6th line from the top,
Mertol...I can't see where It says anything about JB on page 173....maybe the book is different, you have the hardback I have the paperback....
I must try and find where it tells you about the mystery man in the lane... ;)
-
Mertol...I can't see where It says anything about JB on page 173....maybe the book is different, you have the hardback I have the paperback....
I must try and find where it tells you about the mystery man in the lane... ;)
proving a tough nut to crack patti, but to this day im still curious as to why colin included it given the verdict on jeremy.
-
Patti the page in question is out of chapter seventeen /The journey,try the 3rd page from there in your version it should be there
-
Mertol, I am reading the part where he is talking about one of the childrens' drawing. He calime there was 28 lady birds which was the same age their mother died....This is not true is it? How can he get her age wrong? :-\ :-\
-
Patti the page in question is out of chapter seventeen /The journey,try the 3rd page from there in your version it should be there
About the darker side? :-\
-
Mertol, I am reading the part where he is talking about one of the childrens' drawing. He calime there was 28 lady birds which was the same age their mother died....This is not true is it? How can he get her age wrong? :-\ :-\
Odd that, wasn't it?
-
About the darker side? :-\
patti the hardback has 277 pages with acknowledgments 272 without , going to mc donalds will be back later after dallas 10 ish if you are around.
-
It amazes me how someone can change their mind on Jeremy Bambers guilt or innocence by whoever they decide to be friendly with. One minute stating something as fact (today) and another dismissing something as just part of a story in a book that's not factual
See below
andrea
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2011, 10:39:PM »
Quote
it is definately in the claire powell book, its in that book that she mentions the meeting at the pub, where they allegedly tried to do a deal with the reporter for the pictures. i have that book, its called murder at whithouse farm.
Report to moderator Logged
Tyler
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #76 on: May 23, 2011, 10:46:PM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on May 23, 2011, 10:39:PM
it is definately in the claire powell book, its in that book that she mentions the meeting at the pub, where they allegedly tried to do a deal with the reporter for the pictures. i have that book, its called murder at whithouse farm.
Yep,thats the one Andrea
.Do you believe it happened? Only,Claire writing about that meeting obviously put Jeremy in a bad light and yet in most of the book,she seems quite supportive of him.Thats what made me wonder if it was indeed true.
andrea
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2011, 08:22:AM »
ive no idea tyler, she gets a lot of things wrong in that book. for instance when june caught sheila in the field with colin, powell said it was a farmhand and that they were having sex in a ditch. cc himself told the true story. the book aint that reliable but is any book?
grahame
Guest
Re: do the topless photos exist
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2011, 08:40:AM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on May 24, 2011, 08:22:AM
ive no idea tyler, she gets a lot of things wrong in that book. for instance when june caught sheila in the field with colin, powell said it was a farmhand and that they were having sex in a ditch. cc himself told the true story. the book aint that reliable but is any book?
Now that is a very relevant statement Andrea. How many of us take for granted that which a certain book says is true? Or how many of us check up on the writer of the book to see what they themselves believe? Very few of us are neutral on any subject and what we write may reflect that which we ourselves believe and not what is actually true?
Again you can see this prejudice in the forum as well. Someone may believe in something so strongly that they cannot see the truth and indeed refuse even to read another person's opinion from the opposite side. What makes this even more confusing is that, that person is convinced that they are looking at all things fairly.
Wow! When did I join up to that crappy forum?
-
Am I the only person who thinks June was a damaged person and was probably abused, in the same way she abused Sheila, when she was a child. Wasn't she part of the tragedy rather than just the cause?
No you're not Maggie. I think June comes in for a lot of stick that she doesn't deserve. We have very reliable reports that she was a very kind and generous person. We can't always blame the sins of the children on their parents.
-
No you're not Maggie. I think June comes in for a lot of stick that she doesn't deserve. We have very reliable reports that she was a very kind and generous person. We can't always blame the sins of the children on their parents.
Grahame, one of my arguments and its only a theory, anyone with schizophrenia tends to see things in a different way than the rest of us. They obsess and hold grudes over all sorts of details which should possibly be dismissed as just one of those things. Their paranoa makes them see the smallest slight as an enormous insult. Sheila would see June in that way and many other people as well. I'm not saying June did or didn't behave in certain ways but schizophrenics have massive association problems, they see the world aand the people in it from a totally different perspective. So her perception of her mum could have been severely skewed.
-
patti the hardback has 277 pages with acknowledgments 272 without , going to mc donalds will be back later after dallas 10 ish if you are around.
Mertol come back....you can't go to McDonalds, those burgers have never seen a cow....Lol.......
-
Mertol come back....you can't go to McDonalds, those burgers have never seen a cow....Lol.......
He can, he's bringing us veggie burgers when re returns, Patti ;D
-
Odd that, wasn't it?
Surely he would have remembered her 27th birthday...Or was she 26 or 28....No, she was 28 she was born in 1957...
I'm thinking of the logs here Keira...one says 26, the other says 27 and here we have her ex husband saying she was 28... :-\ :-\ :-\ ;)
-
No you're not Maggie. I think June comes in for a lot of stick that she doesn't deserve. We have very reliable reports that she was a very kind and generous person. We can't always blame the sins of the children on their parents.
Grahame, none of us are one dimentional. My own mother supported the church, looked after aging relatives, loved animals, took in waifs and strays, clothed and fed them. Everybody said what a kind and generous person she was.
You are correct in your assertion that parents can't ALWAYS be held responsible for childrens' behaviour, however they can't NOT be a contributory factor.
-
Grahame, none of us are one dimentional. My own mother supported the church, looked after aging relatives, loved animals, took in waifs and strays, clothed and fed them. Everybody said what a kind and generous person she was.
You are correct in your assertion that parents can't ALWAYS be held responsible for childrens' behaviour, however they can't NOT be a contributory factor.
Yes I agree April. But if you follow that thinking to its logical conclusion you'd be blaming Adam and Eve?.............erm..... ??? ......Just a minute.... It was all their fault in the first place. :)
-
Yes I agree April. But if you follow that thinking to its logical conclusion you'd be blaming Adam and Eve?.............erm..... ??? ......Just a minute.... It was all their fault in the first place. :)
But Jeremy said Sheila was a happy and contented child who only became disturbed in her teens. Schizophrenia can develop from early teenage years although most females develop it slightly later than boys. The symptoms could have been showing from puberty and causing her all sorts of problems not at that time recognised as illness but more as difficult or bizarre behaviour. The sort of behaviour which may have caused her to be expelled from two schools for disinterest and later from jobs. She was probably incapable of holding down any sort of job. Colin blamed June for Sheila's problems but we don't know if that was the whole truth, her depression and withdrawal from the world are both symptoms of schizophrenia.
-
Grahame, none of us are one dimentional. My own mother supported the church, looked after aging relatives, loved animals, took in waifs and strays, clothed and fed them. Everybody said what a kind and generous person she was.
You are correct in your assertion that parents can't ALWAYS be held responsible for childrens' behaviour, however they can't NOT be a contributory factor.
Well april, I have had some experience with my grown up only daughters depression and mood swings over the previous two years and all I can say is there are days, like today, when all I want to do is stay away from it all.
It's exhausting, demoralizing and deeply upsetting to be verbally attacked by a grown up child of your own because they are depressed.
Yes, she would love to blame me for all her mistakes because then she doesn't have to accept responsibility for her own actions.
It is hard to put into words how emotionally exhausting dealing with her can be.
One wrong word, and world war three starts to break out.
The worry is indescribable. Help is non-existant.
In the end all I can do is hope for the best. For better things for her.
On good days, if I see her, I try to give constructive advice, if she is in the mood to listen, but on bad days I feel like she is verbally using me as a punch bag because she is unhappy.
To be honest with you that is a trait she has shown since she was about 14 and I actually went to
Social Services and reported to them that I was an abused parent by my own child!
Now that is something that is only occasionally discussed, parents who are abused by their own child and usually involves male children hitting out at their mothers.
I have two grown up sons and all of my grown-up kids live in their own places.
Even recently, my youngest son and my daughter were visiting me at the same time and I said something perfectly innocently to my daughter and she started to verbally attack me.
Luckily her brother stopped her and said, "I HAVE LISTENED TO EVERY WORD THAT MUM SAID AND SHE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO MAKE YOU ANGRY OR DEFENSIVE."
That stopped her in her tracks.
Summer :(
-
That is so true Summer, I have a friend in a similar situation and there's no help from anywhere. In this particular case the grown up daughter still lives with her mother and bullies her and makes her life a misery.
-
Poor you, Summer. Can I ask how old your daughter is and how often she verbally attacks you in this way? Do you get on alright between the rows?
-
But Jeremy said Sheila was a happy and contented child who only became disturbed in her teens. Schizophrenia can develop from early teenage years although most females develop it slightly later than boys. The symptoms could have been showing from puberty and causing her all sorts of problems not at that time recognised as illness but more as difficult or bizarre behaviour. The sort of behaviour which may have caused her to be expelled from two schools for disinterest and later from jobs. She was probably incapable of holding down any sort of job. Colin blamed June for Sheila's problems but we don't know if that was the whole truth, her depression and withdrawal from the world are both symptoms of schizophrenia.
Hi maggie
I agree with what you are saying. From what I have read from Jeremy and Sheila's cousin...Her illness started when she met Colin...I don't mean to disrespect Colin in any way....
From the moment she had her abortion, she started to feel unwell in her self.... Colin also talks about her when she went to Japan for a month doing some modeling...She came back thin and gaunt looking...and had written him a letter and asked him to make her an appointment for when she got back...she knew something was happening to her....she was becoming alienated from the others that she was working with.....I'd best stop quoting from this book... :) :)
-
Hi maggie
I agree with what you are saying. From what I have read from Jeremy and Sheila's cousin...Her illness started when she met Colin...I don't mean to disrespect Colin in any way....
From the moment she had her abortion, she started to feel unwell in her self.... Colin also talks about her when she went to Japan for a month doing some modeling...She came back thin and gaunt looking...and had written him a letter and asked him to make her an appointment for when she got back...she knew something was happening to her....she was becoming alienated from the others that she was working with.....I'd best stop quoting from this book... :) :)
No, Patti, you carry on quoting, I'm the same with the Claire Powell book at present because this is fresh in my mind. We can draw some useful insights from these books as each one touches on various aspects of the case that the others don't cover
-
Plus it saves me buying them.
-
That is so true Summer, I have a friend in a similar situation and there's no help from anywhere. In this particular case the grown up daughter still lives with her mother and bullies her and makes her life a misery.
maggie, my daughter, who, by the way, is 34 now, lived with me temporarily for 7 weeks very recently.
I love this girl very much, but the strain, probably for both of us, was unbelievable.
I want to help her but I am not a Psychologist - I am graduate in Sociology - and have studied Law and Psychology too during my degree - but I am firstly far too close to her to be completely impartial and too tired of it all as well!
Summer :(
-
Well april, I have had some experience with my grown up only daughters depression and mood swings over the previous two years and all I can say is there are days, like today, when all I want to do is stay away from it all.
It's exhausting, demoralizing and deeply upsetting to be verbally attacked by a grown up child of your own because they are depressed.
Yes, she would love to blame me for all her mistakes because then she doesn't have to accept responsibility for her own actions.
It is hard to put into words how emotionally exhausting dealing with her can be.
One wrong word, and world war three starts to break out.
The worry is indescribable. Help is non-existant.
In the end all I can do is hope for the best. For better things for her.
On good days, if I see her, I try to give constructive advice, if she is in the mood to listen, but on bad days I feel like she is verbally using me as a punch bag because she is unhappy.
To be honest with you that is a trait she has shown since she was about 14 and I actually went to
Social Services and reported to them that I was an abused parent by my own child!
Now that is something that is only occasionally discussed, parents who are abused by their own child and usually involves male children hitting out at their mothers.
I have two grown up sons and all of my grown-up kids live in their own places.
Even recently, my youngest son and my daughter were visiting me at the same time and I said something perfectly innocently to my daughter and she started to verbally attack me.
Luckily her brother stopped her and said, "I HAVE LISTENED TO EVERY WORD THAT MUM SAID AND SHE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO MAKE YOU ANGRY OR DEFENSIVE."
That stopped her in her tracks.
Summer :(
Hi Summer
Sometimes we as parents need to back off a bit and allow our children to grow. Most of the arguments I have had with my children have been in the home.
A friend of mine told me that is where the problem is....I asked her what she meant and she told me that I needed to allow my children their own space to grow up...and, that sometimes our opinions are not what they want to hear......
She told me combat this by taking some quality time with one of them outside the home....away from the comfort zone. I took my daughter out for an evening meal....We got dressed up and off we went. For once in my life I listened to what she had to say and, I felt sorry that I had judged because and, tried to turn her into a person she did not want to be...The cruelest thing I realised was that I hated her father and saw him in her....and, for the past 16 years we have never had a cross word....I am so proud of her, she is a lovely mother of 4. She is the most caring and thoughtful person I have ever met in my life....She would give you the souls of her shoes.....She is strong and beautiful and she is marrying her childhood sweetheart of 16 years........
Yes, my daughter got pregnant 16 years ago....she was 16. I am so sorry I judged her.
So Summer, maybe it might help if you went out with your daughter for a coffee or something....It might help... :)
-
Poor you, Summer. Can I ask how old your daughter is and how often she verbally attacks you in this way? Do you get on alright between the rows?
Keira, my daughter is 34 and we get into these verbal battles very frequently and if we are alone then it is just dreadful.
However, in between these "incidents" we are actually the best of friends and she is highly protective of both myself and her two brothers! (They are 31 and 35.) She also fights with them too, in a similar pattern!
None of it makes sense!
But there is definately something wrong and it leaves me with a terrific sense of helplessness to do anything about the situation.
Luckily we have managed to get her another place to live so the tension has gone down a lot for all of us.
Summer ;)
-
maggie, my daughter, who, by the way, is 34 now, lived with me temporarily for 7 weeks very recently.
I love this girl very much, but the strain, probably for both of us, was unbelievable.
I want to help her but I am not a Psychologist - I am graduate in Sociology - and have studied Law and Psychology too during my degree - but I am firstly far too close to her to be completely impartial and too tired of it all as well!
Summer :(
Yes, I understand summer, is she on medication? One of my daughters suffers chronically from depression but anti depressants sort her out. She takes them all the time.
-
Hi Summer
Sometimes we as parents need to back off a bit and allow our children to grow. Most of the arguments I have had with my children have been in the home.
A friend of mine told me that is where the problem is....I asked her what she meant and she told me that I needed to allow my children their own space to grow up...and, that sometimes our opinions are not what they want to hear......
She told me combat this by taking some quality time with one of them outside the home....away from the comfort zone. I took my daughter out for an evening meal....We got dressed up and off we went. For once in my life I listened to what she had to say and, I felt sorry that I had judged because and, tried to turn her into a person she did not want to be...The cruelest thing I realised was that I hated her father and saw him in her....and, for the past 16 years we have never had a cross word....I am so proud of her, she is a lovely mother of 4. She is the most caring and thoughtful person I have ever met in my life....She would give you the souls of her shoes.....She is strong and beautiful and she is marrying her childhood sweetheart of 16 years........
Yes, my daughter got pregnant 16 years ago....she was 16. I am so sorry I judged her.
So Summer, maybe it might help if you went out with your daughter for a coffee or something....It might help... :)
Patti, thank you for your kind and thoughtful post.
My daughter has lived away from home since she was 16.
At her request, I may add.
We do go out for Coffee, etc and have lovely times together.
But there is the light side and then there is the dark side and it is impossible to predict which "side" of my daughter is going to come out to play! (Particularly over the previous 2 years since she began suffering with depression.)
Over the years its been a roller coaster.
She has no children as her relationships have not worked out.
She is still lovely looking, a real head turner, because she won't eat enough most of the time!
Summer ;)
-
Patti, thank you for your kind and thoughtful post.
My daughter has lived away from home since she was 16.
At her request, I may add.
We do go out for Coffee, etc and have lovely times together.
But there is the light side and then there is the dark side and it is impossible to predict which "side" of my daughter is going to come out to play! (Particularly over the previous 2 years since she began suffering with depression.)
Over the years its been a roller coaster.
She has no children as her relationships have not worked out.
She is still lovely looking, a real head turner, because she won't eat enough most of the time!
Summer ;)
Will she go to the doctors summer or does she refuse to acknowledge that she needs to.?
-
Yes, I understand summer, is she on medication? One of my daughters suffers chronically from depression but anti depressants sort her out. She takes them all the time.
Maggie, yes she tried medication and it made her gain weight and get more aggressive so she stopped it gradually and had to go to the gymn for 6 weeks to lose the weight!
Imagine, someone who is always so slim balooning like that.
She felt even more depressed then!
Summer ???
-
Maggie, yes she tried medication and it made her gain weight and get more aggressive so she stopped it gradually and had to go to the gymn for 6 weeks to lose the weight!
Imagine, someone who is always so slim balooning like that.
She felt even more depressed then!
Summer ???
I know some of them can make you put on weight almost overnight, prozac doesnt usually do that but it doesnt suit everyone. But that was the kiss of death I suppose, so no more medication!! Its a really difficult problem, as you say emotionally exhausting and draining, Im sorry summer.
-
Keira, my daughter is 34 and we get into these verbal battles very frequently and if we are alone then it is just dreadful.
However, in between these "incidents" we are actually the best of friends and she is highly protective of both myself and her two brothers! (They are 31 and 35.) She also fights with them too, in a similar pattern!
None of it makes sense!
But there is definately something wrong and it leaves me with a terrific sense of helplessness to do anything about the situation.
Luckily we have managed to get her another place to live so the tension has gone down a lot for all of us.
Summer ;)
Summer,
I hope your daughter's move to her own place will relieve a lot more pressure from both of you. If not, you might consider asking for an appointment with Relate, they provide counselling for parents and older children as well as for couples. My daughter and I had counselling with Relate when we went through a difficult patch and in my experience they do help. One useful outcome of our counselling was that we were given strategies for avoiding and dealing with conflict which helped. It was mostly about trying to see things from the other's perspective, putting yourself in their shoes. You know how Atticus, in To Kill a Mocking Bird said that you never really know a person until you climb inside their skin and walk around in it? I think our experience was much like Patti's. Although I didn't see it at the time, I was as responsible for the rows as my daughter was because I was not giving her the space to lead her own life or fully respecting her as the adult she is. My daughter and I still have rows from time to time, but we have fewer rows now, they don't seem like the end of the world as they once did and we make up quicker.
-
....... parents can't ALWAYS be held responsible for childrens' behaviour, however they can't NOT be a contributory factor.
Summer, I feel I must stand by what I've said here but this is in no way saying that everthing parents contribute is bad. Parents ARE responsible until children reach a certain age because they can't be expected to be responsible for themselves but there comes a point when they/we must take responsibility for ourselves.
I'm so sorry that you're having such a difficult time and I hope there's somebody you can talk to when the stress gets too much. Coping with someone with depression, I imagine feels like treading on eggshells. You must feel wrung out at times.
I feel certain that it will have been suggested to you already but is it possible that your daughter abuses you because you are the safest person she knows?
I hope that, in time, things will improve.
-
Another plus with Relate is that they can refer you to other, more suitable counselling services if your problem is beyond their remit.
-
interesting in Wilkes book at the end of chapter 3 that Nevill seemed to suggest to the secretary that his death may have been imminent, I'm guessing this may be where the outlandish secret service murder theory began. Also interesting were some of the comments about what Sheila said to the consultant.
-
Patti i will take a picture of the 1st part of the page i mentioned and post tomorrow.
-
interesting in Wilkes book at the end of chapter 3 that Nevill seemed to suggest to the secretary that his death may have been imminent, I'm guessing this may be where the outlandish secret service murder theory began. Also interesting were some of the comments about what Sheila said to the consultant.
Well, a handful of bullets had been thrown at Nevill's car in a car park and he'd been threatened in a rather frightening manner. I don't expect this played any small part in Nevill's sense of foreboding.
-
Well, a handful of bullets had been thrown at Nevill's car in a car park and he'd been threatened in a rather frightening manner. I don't expect this played any small part in Nevill's sense of foreboding.
We're told that a panic alarm was installed at WHF. If so, was this threat the reason for it's installation?
-
Well, a handful of bullets had been thrown at Nevill's car in a car park and he'd been threatened in a rather frightening manner. I don't expect this played any small part in Nevill's sense of foreboding.
I think the thing about it is the way Wilkes sets it up, he develops Nevill as a strong willed, strong character and then shows a very vulnerable side where he seems terrified. With the guns and history I don't see why he would have been so acutely afraid and aware all of a sudden, I shall read on though.
-
I think the thing about it is the way Wilkes sets it up, he develops Nevill as a strong willed, strong character and then shows a very vulnerable side where he seems terrified. With the guns and history I don't see why he would have been so acutely afraid and aware all of a sudden, I shall read on though.
I'm told by someone who knew Nevill and the man who threatened him that the man was a bit of a psychopath. Nevill, a local magistrate, had imprisoned him for 6 months for an attack on this man's wife and he lost his wife and children, possibly while in prison. He had a huge grudge against Nevill and threatened Nevill with revenge. Anyone in Nevill's position would have been afraid.
-
I'm told by someone who knew Nevill and the man who threatened him that the man was a bit of a psychopath. Nevill, a local magistrate, had imprisoned him for 6 months for an attack this man's wife and he lost his wife and children, possibly while in prison. He had a huge grudge against Nevill and threatened Nevill with revenge. Anyone in Nevill's position would have been afraid.
The figure walking away ??
-
I'm told by someone who knew Nevill and the man who threatened him that the man was a bit of a psychopath. Nevill, a local magistrate, had imprisoned him for 6 months for an attack this man's wife and he lost his wife and children, possibly while in prison. He had a huge grudge against Nevill and threatened Nevill with revenge. Anyone in Nevill's position would have been afraid.
Yes certainly, that all makes sense, but I think that Wilkes sets it up in a strange way in the book so as to somehow try and highlight a weakness or plant a seed of a conspiracy, I have only read the first four chapters so far though. I just wondered if this might have been the start of the conspiracy theory about the other ex-serviceman. I have also read about the panic alarm. I think the way it is worded in the book it suggests that Nevill expected to get shot. However, there is no way to know where the quotes came from either.
-
The figure walking away ??
My thoughts precisely, Mertol. Though I doubt if we will ever know for certain who that hunched and scruffy figure was who was seen walking away from WHF by police.
We know who he wasn't. He was Jeremy because he was with the police. He wasn't Fraser-Bell, because he was driving a tractor. So who was he?
-
My thoughts precisely, Mertol. Though I doubt if we will ever know for certain who that hunched and scruffy figure was who was seen walking away from WHF by police.
We know who he wasn't. He was Jeremy because he was with the police. He wasn't Fraser-Bell, because he was driving a tractor. So who was he?
I saw this figure mentioned on here the other day and I've yet to come across him/her properly, hopefully the book will shed some light. Completely irrelevant but I remember at my dad's house down the road from the farm around about the day this happened I was walking up the stairs at 04:00 in the morning and somebody threw a brick at me through the living room window, the police turned up and interviewed me (I was 8 ) but they weren't interested at all, they said it was just a local bloke that they knew of!
-
My thoughts precisely, Mertol. Though I doubt if we will ever know for certain who that hunched and scruffy figure was who was seen walking away from WHF by police.
We know who he wasn't. He was Jeremy because he was with the police. He wasn't Fraser-Bell, because he was driving a tractor. So who was he?
your reply 269 keira speaks of a grudge , a grievence if you will , a grudge can be very dangerous because they can be put on hold, pending from a month to years ahead never forgetting, the answer to your figure may exist though i read colins book finally not everything was picked up as i said to patti i will need to go over a few areas i missed it the first time but found it earlier this evening it sounds daft at first but now im not sure myself.
-
Yes certainly, that all makes sense, but I think that Wilkes sets it up in a strange way in the book so as to somehow try and highlight a weakness or plant a seed of a conspiracy, I have only read the first four chapters so far though. I just wondered if this might have been the start of the conspiracy theory about the other ex-serviceman. I have also read about the panic alarm. I think the way it is worded in the book it suggests that Nevill expected to get shot. However, there is no way to know where the quotes came from either.
Perhaps. I enjoyed the Wilkes book and, when I first read it, viewed it as the best researched of the books so the most reliable. The problem is though that Wilkes does not attribute his sources - though none of the other books do that either, or perhaps Claire Powell does. We're told that Wilkes interviewed a lot of witnesses, but he does not identify them or attribute who told him what. He spent a considerable amount of time interviewing Jeremy's extended family, who we know have a rather one sided view of the case.
-
I saw this figure mentioned on here the other day and I've yet to come across him/her properly, hopefully the book will shed some light. Completely irrelevant but I remember at my dad's house down the road from the farm around about the day this happened I was walking up the stairs at 04:00 in the morning and somebody threw a brick at me through the living room window, the police turned up and interviewed me (I was 8 ) but they weren't interested at all, they said it was just a local bloke that they knew of!
Thats really strange ajross.
-
interesting in Wilkes book at the end of chapter 3 that Nevill seemed to suggest to the secretary that his death may have been imminent, I'm guessing this may be where the outlandish secret service murder theory began. Also interesting were some of the comments about what Sheila said to the consultant.
ajross.......this is certainly where the outlandish theory from Robert Boutflour and Barbara Wilson came from that Nevill feared that Jeremy wanted to kill him!
This,even though a witness (have forgotten his name)had been present went Nevill had received at least a couple of threatening telephone calls.
-
I saw this figure mentioned on here the other day and I've yet to come across him/her properly, hopefully the book will shed some light. Completely irrelevant but I remember at my dad's house down the road from the farm around about the day this happened I was walking up the stairs at 04:00 in the morning and somebody threw a brick at me through the living room window, the police turned up and interviewed me (I was 8 ) but they weren't interested at all, they said it was just a local bloke that they knew of!
Wow! What did you and your father make of this? Did the police perhap tell your father more about this than they told you?
A local bloke they knew of...hmmm
-
Wow! What did you and your father make of this? Did the police perhap tell your father more about this than they told you?
A local bloke they knew of...hmmm
I thought of Jimmy Bell Keira. Do you know any others?
-
I thought of Jimmy Bell Keira. Do you know any others?
No, I 'm thinking of Jimmy Bell too, Mags. It's interesting that Mat seems to ignore the very clear evidence in respect of Jimmy Bell.
I wonder why that might be?
-
No, I 'm thinking of Jimmy Bell too, Mags. It's interesting that Mat seems to ignore the very clear evidence in respect of Jimmy Bell.
I wonder why that might be?
Well that might upset his dogmatic belief that Jeremy Bamber did it. No argument, no maybe.
-
Wow! What did you and your father make of this? Did the police perhap tell your father more about this than they told you?
A local bloke they knew of...hmmm
As I remember they asked me a few questions about what he looked like and what I saw and then I was sent back to bed. It's possible they stayed and talked to my father after, it's also possible he was involved in something he shouldn't have been, he had a mysterious fire in the same house a short while after. But they definitely said to me it was just a local chap that did that sort of thing and I shouldn't worry, although I'm now 35 and have never forgotten it!
-
The figure walking away ??
Now this incident that was reported by the police themselves has always puzzled me? Why did not the police themselves follow this up? This so called investigation was a complete shambles.
-
Now this incident that was reported by the police themselves has always puzzled me? Why did not the police themselves follow this up? This so called investigation was a complete shambles.
Certainty of Sheila having been responsible? I simply do not believe this is down to JB, who in actual fact blamed the raid team for the deaths in the house. This is a staggering fact which too many people steer clear of because it totally messes up the cliched theory of the cops acting not only for one morninng but for one month, on the say so of JB on the morning?
-
Certainty of Sheila having been responsible? I simply do not believe this is down to JB, who in actual fact blamed the raid team for the deaths in the house. This is a staggering fact which too many people steer clear of because it totally messes up the cliched theory of the cops acting not only for one morninng but for one month, on the say so of JB on the morning?
Yes, so true Roch, the theory that JB set up and implicated Sheila as the 'nutter' assasin is a mainstay of the guilty camp argument. He was bound to tell the police she was a 'nutter' because she was a diagnosed scizophrenic who had psychotic episodes. It would have been more strange if Jb hadn'ntt mentioned this.His choice of words wasn't great but he wasn't on trial for his vocabularly or attitude to mental health.
-
Yes, so true Roch, the theory that JB set up and implicated Sheila as the 'nutter' assasin is a mainstay of the guilty camp argument. He was bound to tell the police she was a 'nutter' because she was a diagnosed scizophrenic who had psychotic episodes. It would have been more strange if Jb hadn'ntt mentioned this.His choice of words wasn't great but he wasn't on trial for his vocabularly or attitude to mental health.
Totally agree. This kind of stuff is the mainstay of what I term the 'far right' of the guilty camp. Maybe it's time for an unofficial shot at myths and facts? The official site already has such a section and the .org site has a similar page. It would be interesting to see just how many of the accusations can be rebutted in total?
-
Well if anyone has the hardback of Colins book In search of the Rainbows End the 1st part of page 175 has some fireworks .
-
Well if anyone has the hardback of Colins book In search of the Rainbows End the 1st part of page 175 has some fireworks .
I have it but am reading Wilkes' book at the moment and that is already making me think it may have been some sort of 'hit' but in that case I can't understand the telephone calls
-
mertoll dont, have the book so do tell some of the first bit of page 175. Thanks. :)
-
As I remember they asked me a few questions about what he looked like and what I saw and then I was sent back to bed. It's possible they stayed and talked to my father after, it's also possible he was involved in something he shouldn't have been, he had a mysterious fire in the same house a short while after. But they definitely said to me it was just a local chap that did that sort of thing and I shouldn't worry, although I'm now 35 and have never forgotten it!
That's very interesting, AJ, if you recall any more about this please let me know as it may well link to someone I'm researching at present. Contacting me by pm may be best as I don't always see replies to queries on the main forum if they come in some time after I ask questions. Is there anyone in your family who might know more about this? Please ask around your family! Tolleshunt D'Arcy was just a small village, although there were of course a few oddballs around the village there would not have been that many people in the village who were known to the police for their habit of criminal damage. Even less, I suspect, who the police would have let off with something like this. It sounds to me as though whoever did this was known to be mentally ill or unstable. Also, if your father was involved in something he shouldn't have been then he was one of many. From what my family told me, most of the district were up to something or other, whether it be smuggling, selling or helping themselves to their employer's plants, unused equipment or booze, tax evasion, poaching, commercial or political corruption or turning a blind eye to something or other. Such things were the norm in that part of deepest, back of beyond Essex.
-
Well if anyone has the hardback of Colins book In search of the Rainbows End the 1st part of page 175 has some fireworks .
Hi Mertol, do you mean the fist few pages of chapter 17? Scott's signed book came today and I have left my glasses at work, so I typing blind... :) :) :) :)
-
I'm a bugger I know.....Is it me or is me? Did Jeremy ring Witham police before he rang Chelmsford...I have just gone straight to the back of Scott's book....Please tell me I am worng!!! Anyone????
-
Patti sorry I am lost to what you mean perhaps it is because you have no glasses what is at the back of Scott Lomax,s book. :)
-
That's very interesting, AJ, if you recall any more about this please let me know as it may well link to someone I'm researching at present. Contacting me by pm may be best as I don't always see replies to queries on the main forum if they come in some time after I ask questions. Is there anyone in your family who might know more about this? Please ask around your family! Tolleshunt D'Arcy was just a small village, although there were of course a few oddballs around the village there would not have been that many people in the village who were known to the police for their habit of criminal damage. Even less, I suspect, who the police would have let off with something like this. It sounds to me as though whoever did this was known to be mentally ill or unstable. Also, if your father was involved in something he shouldn't have been then he was one of many. From what my family told me, most of the district were up to something or other, whether it be smuggling, selling or helping themselves to their employer's plants, unused equipment or booze, tax evasion, poaching, commercial or political corruption or turning a blind eye to something or other. Such things were the norm in that part of deepest, back of beyond Essex.
Keira, how far beyond the parameters of TD did this iniquitous behaviour spread? !!!!! All I suspected was incest and a coven!!!
-
Patti sorry I am lost to what you mean perhaps it is because you have no glasses what is at the back of Scott Lomax,s book. :)
Hi Susan I am being critical.....I open Scott's book and the first thing i see it a timeline....He never mentions JB phoning Witham police station and it is important to mention it....because of the time scale. I want someone to tell me that JB didn't phone Witham first....I want to wrong...Lol..... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti I can,t tell you about the calls as I am unsure. Somebody on the forum will tell you quite shortly I think :)
-
mertoll dont, have the book so do tell some of the first bit of page 175. Thanks. :)
susan i will take a close up picture of the page in question and post , its clear the book patti has is different as i think page 175 in the softback .
-
mertoll thank you that is very kind of you and look forward to the read :)
-
Yes, so true Roch, the theory that JB set up and implicated Sheila as the 'nutter' assasin is a mainstay of the guilty camp argument. He was bound to tell the police she was a 'nutter' because she was a diagnosed scizophrenic who had psychotic episodes. It would have been more strange if Jb hadn't mentioned this.His choice of words wasn't great but he wasn't on trial for his vocabularly or attitude to mental health.
Possibly because JB himself was misled into believing it was Sheila by the voice on the end of the phone?
-
Possibly because JB himself was misled into believing it was Sheila by the voice on the end of the phone?
Absolutely Grahame.
-
I'm a bugger I know.....Is it me or is me? Did Jeremy ring Witham police before he rang Chelmsford...I have just gone straight to the back of Scott's book....Please tell me I am worng!!! Anyone????
I read that he did but that there was no answer at witham He rang Chelmsford and they then rang witham later I think
-
I read that he did but that there was no answer at witham He rang Chelmsford and they then rang witham later I think
I just checked and Wilkes' book quotes JB as saying he tried Witham but there was no answer so he rang Chelmsford. Another interesting point is that people often make a lot of his behaviour. Wilkes' states that while being interviewed at the cottage JB kept going upstairs with JM, is there any chance they were smoking pot in these interludes which might explain some of that behaviour?
-
Keira, how far beyond the parameters of TD did this iniquitous behaviour spread? !!!!! All I suspected was incest and a coven!!!
Well, my family have lived in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Tolleshunt Knights, Tolleshunt Major, Tudwick (comprised of parts of all three and Tiptree, I believe), Goldhanger, Tiptree, Inworth, Little Totham, Messing, Layer Marney, West Mersea, Kelvedon, Maldon, Springfield, Colchester and other villages nearby. They certainly told me there was a lot of inbreeding in the Blackwater villages, April. You can see the results of it in some of the old school photographs. Yet that was understandable because these were such small villages where many families lived for centuries, as mine have. There is supposed to have been witchcraft at Tolleshunt Knights, I don't know about a coven! The Maldon and Colchester districts were acknowledged to be among the worst of the rotten boroughs and centres for smuggling in days gone by. It's hard for districts to shake off that sort of reputation. Even the local baronet at Little Totham, Sir Claude Champion de Crespigny, and the local GP at D'Arcy (Dr Salter, one of the finest GPs and men that ever lived, according to my grandmother) admit in their diaries that they engaged in highly corrupt practices and behaved like street fighters. Though these days illicit loganberry seedlings seem more the order of the day ;D
-
I just checked and Wilkes' book quotes JB as saying he tried Witham but there was no answer so he rang Chelmsford. Another interesting point is that people often make a lot of his behaviour. Wilkes' states that while being interviewed at the cottage JB kept going upstairs with JM, is there any chance they were smoking pot in these interludes which might explain some of that behaviour?
Hi Ajross, who told Wilkes that Jeremy 'kept going upstairs' at the cottage, people exaggerate, he may have only gone upstairs a couple of times. It would make sense that he would need any help he could get to cope at that time so your guess is a possibility, I would think.
-
I just checked and Wilkes' book quotes JB as saying he tried Witham but there was no answer so he rang Chelmsford. Another interesting point is that people often make a lot of his behaviour. Wilkes' states that while being interviewed at the cottage JB kept going upstairs with JM, is there any chance they were smoking pot in these interludes which might explain some of that behaviour?
No, they just wanted a cuddle away from the prying eyes of the police. So would I if, God forbid, I had found myself in the dreadful situation that Jeremy was in.
-
I just checked and Wilkes' book quotes JB as saying he tried Witham but there was no answer so he rang Chelmsford. Another interesting point is that people often make a lot of his behaviour. Wilkes' states that while being interviewed at the cottage JB kept going upstairs with JM, is there any chance they were smoking pot in these interludes which might explain some of that behaviour?
I've always thought that JB had to wait on the phone because he was being trasnferred from one station to the other?
-
I read that he did but that there was no answer at witham He rang Chelmsford and they then rang witham later I think
Thank you ajross....It's the time he took to look it up...I'm surprised that Scott left that out in his timeline...I shall have to have words with him...LOL... :D
-
mertoll dont, have the book so do tell some of the first bit of page 175. Thanks. :)
Sorry susan its page 173 my mistake , i will post the page on this thread but its worth a mention , i believe this part of colins book has the date 16th Feb 1986 the year of the trial, during the day colin was told jeremy had displayed overt transvestite tendencies sometimes appearing around the village dressed as a woman , on one occasion in the supermarket at the family caravan site his disguise was so good the woman behind the cash register didn t even recognise him -until he spoke , could this be another clue? Having seen the copy of an extremely angry letter June had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury , complaining of the Church s decision to allow homosexual vicars, I could but wonder if this was another possible reason June and Nevill might have threatened to cut Jeremy out of their wills, Colin ends with this ;
Sounds to me Colin is picking straws.
-
Aww I remember now Mertol......They meaning you know who...accuses JB of dressing up as a woman, and using this disguise to travel between bot houses....Also that he had gay tendencies. Of course JB denies this and rightly so...I doubt his women would agree... :) :) :)
Sorry, did not see what you had written, just the image....My book has come today...So excited, but left glasses at work....:(
-
Hi Ajross, who told Wilkes that Jeremy 'kept going upstairs' at the cottage, people exaggerate, he may have only gone upstairs a couple of times. It would make sense that he would need any help he could get to cope at that time so your guess is a possibility, I would think.
Part of the problem with this book is that it doesn't attribute many quotes of information to any one person in particular i'm afraid, but I agree
-
No, they just wanted a cuddle away from the prying eyes of the police. So would I if, God forbid, I had found myself in the dreadful situation that Jeremy was in.
I didn't mean in it a judgemental way, more an understanding one, I wouldn't blame him if he did and supposedly the night before JM and her flat mates were drinking and smoking when he phoned after the call from Nevill and she could easily have taken some with her and said to him, lets go upstairs i have something to calm you down a little and take the edge off. However, you would hope that two police officers would have noticed and they would no doubt have used it later if they had. He was incriminated by his behaviour but he would also have been if he had been smoking. Can't win!
-
I've always thought that JB had to wait on the phone because he was being trasnferred from one station to the other?
There is a short dialogue quoted in Wilkes' book in the first chapter where he states that JB rang Witham but 'nobody was in so i rang you' meaning Chelmsford, it goes on to state that Chelmsford then contact Witham using their radios
-
I have a copy of the Roger Wilkes book Blood Relations and have read it a couple of times.
With regard to a question of pro / anti or impartial? In my opinion Roger Wilkes' book is impartial and he invites the reader to draw there own conclusions. However, I do recall Roger Wilkes' does conclude only Jeremy really knows the answer.
I am sure he concludes it was to close to call.
-
I remember reading about Jeremy phoning the police,who kept him waiting on the phone because they were transferring his call,,,and Jeremy,,who was quite frustrated,asked the desk sergeant " what kept him ".
Would anyone be so eager to get to a crime scene if they'd just " murdered " their family.? I don't think so.
I'm afraid you'd be miles away.!
-
Hi lookout I agree with you I think (I try to put myself in other people,s shoes) had Jeremy committed the murders he would have gone away leaving nothing behind to incriminate himself and cleaned himself up and gone to bed and waited. He would have left the bike at the farm and walked to and from through the fields in the dark and his car would have never left his house. I think people who commit cool calculating murders plan it to the last detail and I have never thought the murders at WHF were planned.
-
Hi Susan,,after that massacre,,he'd have been miles away.
-
Hi lookout he would have had plenty of time to give himself a water tight alibi and he certainly would not have confided in his then girlfriend even Jeremy would have not been that naive I really find it difficult to understand how he was found Guilty perhaps their are facts I am not aware of.
-
Susan,,the same man probably wouldn't even swat a fly,,let alone slaughter 5 people. It's ridiculous.
-
Hi lookout I do agree I would not think Jeremy has the profile of a killer he seemed more intent on playing around and I think quite immature and did crave attention but not the kind he got.
-
Hi lookout I do agree I would not think Jeremy has the profile of a killer he seemed more intent on playing around and I think quite immature and did crave attention but not the kind he got.
The desperation by some to defame Jeremy included stories of him driving his tractor dressed like Adam Ant. What on earth was that about, even if he did I shouldn't imagine for one minute that would incriminate him is 5 murders. No, it's true Susie he was no different from many priviledged kids, he was too busy having a good time. As for the caravan breakin, I would think that was the sort of stupid thing many young people have done in different ways....shoplifting etc., a bit of excitement, just to see if they could. When your'e young and priviledged, you can feel invincible.
-
Hi Susan,,after that massacre,,he'd have been miles away.
Had he killed them and then fled he would instantly have been the number one suspect and would have gained nothing. The day after the murders he was at the family solicitor (says Wikes) discussing finances. That I find a little strange!
-
The following week in front of the relatives entered his parents room and also sheilas while he was at WHF.
-
Hi ajdross I think personally he was an immature young man and if he did go to the Solicitors the day after the killings he would need to know what was the position about paying for the funerals etc and the farm workers and other staff would still want paying. He considered himself the man who had to take charge I don,t find it strange if indeed it is true. He was the only family member left to see to the affairs.
-
i wonder where jackie is ? she might have a lot of incoming through twitter.
-
Hi ajdross I think personally he was an immature young man and if he did go to the Solicitors the day after the killings he would need to know what was the position about paying for the funerals etc and the farm workers and other staff would still want paying. He considered himself the man who had to take charge I don,t find it strange if indeed it is true. He was the only family member left to see to the affairs.
Good point susan, a working farm and caravan site can not run on nothing, what was he supposed to do nothing, not one of the family solicitors came forward with concernes about jeremy why should they.
-
Hi ajdross I think personally he was an immature young man and if he did go to the Solicitors the day after the killings he would need to know what was the position about paying for the funerals etc and the farm workers and other staff would still want paying. He considered himself the man who had to take charge I don,t find it strange if indeed it is true. He was the only family member left to see to the affairs.
True susie, also shock and trauma can have really strange effects on people, some become calm and move almost in a trance doing what needs to be done, while others scream and weep and others laugh and joke. You can't judge someone in total trauma. It may have been the only way he could function at all to concentrate on almost unimportant things but also as you say susie, the finances had to be sorted. None of us know how we'd behave and cope in such a situation, at some point Jeremy had to be propped up with valium as well as drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis. Where his head was then, goodness only knows, it's a lethal dose and I would guess he must have hallucinated with the valium and the alcohol......
-
Hi Maggie
I think different people react differently Jeremy was only a boy really and suddenly he may have felt important everything was now resting on his shoulders and instead of weeping and wailing he behaved in a practical manner if we can believe of course about it being the day after and got on with things he was doped up with valium and other things so all his emotions would have been subdued it is a well known fact that the like of valium subdues your feelings. Poor Jeremy.
-
mertoll had jeremy done nothing he would have been scorned for that he could not win
-
mertoll I have been wondering where Jackie has gone it does not seem right without her Jackie please come and join us we are missing you :) :) :)
-
Had he killed them and then fled he would instantly have been the number one suspect and would have gained nothing. The day after the murders he was at the family solicitor (says Wikes) discussing finances. That I find a little strange!
Nothing strange about that,Ross. Just making sure he wasn't diddled. Though it ended up a bittersweet visit anyway. He was probably trying to find out who died first and last,because a lot depended on those sets of circumstances,financially.
What was strange was the fact that nobody seemed to know who died in what order.! Mmm.?
-
Hi ajdross I think personally he was an immature young man and if he did go to the Solicitors the day after the killings he would need to know what was the position about paying for the funerals etc and the farm workers and other staff would still want paying. He considered himself the man who had to take charge I don,t find it strange if indeed it is true. He was the only family member left to see to the affairs.
If you don't like my point then that is fine but I suspect a surreptitious attempt to undermine my points by continually getting my name wrong, were it a mistake or slip of the finger you would press one of many keys surely, not just the 'd' which thus makes my name 'dross'.
-
Nothing strange about that,Ross. Just making sure he wasn't diddled. Though it ended up a bittersweet visit anyway. He was probably trying to find out who died first and last,because a lot depended on those sets of circumstances,financially.
What was strange was the fact that nobody seemed to know who died in what order.! Mmm.?
I suppose it is a matter of opinion, I have never had the five closest members of my family slain in a malicious and brutal fashion so do not know how I would feel, however, I think that even with my callous views on many things, money and work would be far from my mind until at least a few days later. I do not believe JB guilty incidentally, however, I do wish to discuss why other people may and I think that his behaviour could have fuelled many fires.
-
I suppose it is a matter of opinion, I have never had the five closest members of my family slain in a malicious and brutal fashion so do not know how I would feel, however, I think that even with my callous views on many things, money and work would be far from my mind until at least a few days later. I do not believe JB guilty incidentally, however, I do wish to discuss why other people may and I think that his behaviour could have fuelled many fires.
Simply put ajross to stop the relatives wading in and taking the lot.
-
If you don't like my point then that is fine but I suspect a surreptitious attempt to undermine my points by continually getting my name wrong, were it a mistake or slip of the finger you would press one of many keys surely, not just the 'd' which thus makes my name 'dross'.
Oh, ajross, susie can't help it, she's a little dizzy but she's lovely she wouldn't do such a thing.
-
Hi Maggie
I think different people react differently Jeremy was only a boy really and suddenly he may have felt important everything was now resting on his shoulders and instead of weeping and wailing he behaved in a practical manner if we can believe of course about it being the day after and got on with things he was doped up with valium and other things so all his emotions would have been subdued it is a well known fact that the like of valium subdues your feelings. Poor Jeremy.
I agree maggie. Perhaps he is one of these that tried to hide his emotions...He was certainly in disbelief for when his statement was taken he kept mentioning them as though they were still alive.....It must have been difficult to come to terms with...No one knows what he was like behind closed doors...He was never left alone either....which makes it even harder to grieve.. :) :) :)
-
Hi ajross I am so so sorry for that I use to get it wrong then I got it right I would never disrespect you by deliberately spelling your name wrong and all I can do is offer my sincere apologies and it wont happen again. I don,t necessary disagree with your views I know many people would have looked down on Jeremy for what would appear callous behaviour but sometimes people behave in such a manner that they deal with deaths differently and grieve differently. Again so sorry if I upset you spelling your name wrong I can assure it was a genuine error but I will take more care in future.
-
I agree maggie. Perhaps he is one of these that tried to hide his emotions...He was certainly in disbelief for when his statement was taken he kept mentioning them as though they were still alive.....It must have been difficult to come to terms with...No one knows what he was like behind closed doors...He was never left alone either....which makes it even harder to grieve.. :) :) :)
Hi Pats
People can judge and think what they will about bereaved or traumatised people but none of us have the right to judge others in such a situation and as I said we all react differently.
-
Hi Pats
People can judge and think what they will about bereaved or traumatised people but none of us have the right to judge others in such a situation and as I said we all react differently.
So true maggie...we shouldn't sit in judgement......
Raining cats and dogs here.....I hope Susan forgives you for calling her dizzy....lololol
Got to go to Morrison's....I will need me flippers on. :o :o :o
-
So true maggie...we shouldn't sit in judgement......
Raining cats and dogs here.....I hope Susan forgives you for calling her dizzy....lololol
Got to go to Morrison's....I will need me flippers on. :o :o :o
Finished work early today patti? It's pouring and cold and miserable here too.
-
So true maggie...we shouldn't sit in judgement......
Raining cats and dogs here.....I hope Susan forgives you for calling her dizzy....lololol
Got to go to Morrison's....I will need me flippers on. :o :o :o
watch out for those stupid homer simpsons in morrisons patti slouching around with a trolley picking things up without a blindest clue what they are buying .
-
Hi ajross I am so so sorry for that I use to get it wrong then I got it right I would never disrespect you by deliberately spelling your name wrong and all I can do is offer my sincere apologies and it wont happen again. I don,t necessary disagree with your views I know many people would have looked down on Jeremy for what would appear callous behaviour but sometimes people behave in such a manner that they deal with deaths differently and grieve differently. Again so sorry if I upset you spelling your name wrong I can assure it was a genuine error but I will take more care in future.
I have no doubt overreacted and do not wish to start a 'spat' apology accepted and I apologise for the accusation, we have always got on well in the past. I don't necessarily question his actions, I am just looking at what other people may have thought. I do not believe him to be guilty but am not as vehement in my protestations of innocence as others and sometimes post things that may seem contrary to a 'defence' stance.
-
So true maggie...we shouldn't sit in judgement......
Raining cats and dogs here.....I hope Susan forgives you for calling her dizzy....lololol
Got to go to Morrison's....I will need me flippers on. :o :o :o
raining cats and dogs here patti some bods in garden wet through tough little nuts.
-
Simply put ajross to stop the relatives wading in and taking the lot.
It may be the writing or just my interpretation but when reading that JB told the relatives of a £1000 and £500 windfall after the visit to the solicitor I sensed a certain glee. As I have said, I am taking issue with many aspects of Wilkes' writing although the book is very interesting. To the point I am at it seems as if from the beginning he relatives colluded in some way with Stan Jones on the basis of a 'feeling' he had. Although intuition is a fundamental part of detective work it then needs support and I will hopefully find some of that in the following chapters
-
Hi ajross Many thanks for the apology very gracious of you as I was at fault :)
-
watch out for those stupid homer simpsons in morrisons patti slouching around with a trolley picking things up without a blindest clue what they are buying .
Oh mertol, what am I going to do with you....hahahahahah I went for a salad and it cost me £32.00.
I am one of these that goes into a corner shop for a laf and comes out with 3 carrier bags full of food.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maggie it's like a swimming pool here...I need to look up Noah's telephone number and be kind to him...for there is only one of me.... :) :) :) :)
-
Oh mertol, what am I going to do with you....hahahahahah I went for a salad and it cost me £32.00.
I am one of these that goes into a corner shop for a laf and comes out with 3 carrier bags full of food.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maggie it's like a swimming pool here...I need to look up Noah's telephone number and be kind to him...for there is only one of me.... :) :) :) :)
Patti how much dyou pay for a laf in a corner shop? ;D ;D
-
Patti how much dyou pay for a laf in a corner shop? ;D ;D
hey maggie, you can't buy laughter can you...I could tell you some stories and you would howl with laughter...Someone once told me that they wished they could put my laughter into a bottle and save it....silly buggers... ;D ;D
I meant loaf... :'(
-
Hi mertoll you seem to be very unlucky and meet so many stupid people in supermarkets probably think that about me as I put things in my trolley and when I get home I can,t remember buying them hope I never caught your heels with my trolley :) ;) ;)
-
Hi mertoll you seem to be very unlucky and meet so many stupid people in supermarkets probably think that about me as I put things in my trolley and when I get home I can,t remember buying them hope I never caught your heels with my trolley :) ;) ;)
Susie, your'e soooo funny ;D ;D ;D
-
I didn't mean in it a judgemental way, more an understanding one, I wouldn't blame him if he did and supposedly the night before JM and her flat mates were drinking and smoking when he phoned after the call from Nevill and she could easily have taken some with her and said to him, lets go upstairs i have something to calm you down a little and take the edge off. However, you would hope that two police officers would have noticed and they would no doubt have used it later if they had. He was incriminated by his behaviour but he would also have been if he had been smoking. Can't win!
I know you didn't mean it in a judgmental sense, AJ. I doubt if Jeremy and JM would have used cannabis while the police were there, the smell is so strong and distinctive, the police would have picked it up on the two of them -and probably upstairs too - immediately.
-
Oh mertol, what am I going to do with you....hahahahahah I went for a salad and it cost me £32.00.
I am one of these that goes into a corner shop for a laf and comes out with 3 carrier bags full of food.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maggie it's like a swimming pool here...I need to look up Noah's telephone number and be kind to him...for there is only one of me.... :) :) :) :)
thats a hell of a lot for a salad ! asda a 5 min walk here £1 salad in a container or help yourself , at morrysons
-
Hi mertoll you seem to be very unlucky and meet so many stupid people in supermarkets probably think that about me as I put things in my trolley and when I get home I can,t remember buying them hope I never caught your heels with my trolley :) ;) ;)
female shoppers susan alone are not too bad they seem to know what to buy ,its men with a shopping list bending over the trolly striking out an item as its bought one yesterday in aldi was whistleing to the police message in a bottle grr i had another Dexter moment coming on i thought you dumb w@@@@r
-
Oh mertol, what am I going to do with you....hahahahahah I went for a salad and it cost me £32.00.
I am one of these that goes into a corner shop for a laf and comes out with 3 carrier bags full of food.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maggie it's like a swimming pool here...I need to look up Noah's telephone number and be kind to him...for there is only one of me.... :) :) :) :)
£32 for a salad! Holy Moses. What on earth did you put in it, Patti? ;D
-
mertoll I agree I hate people with lists crossing things off and I find it worse when the husband and wife are together she is at the shelves trying to decide what to buy he is right in the middle of the isle blocking everyone,s way. I saw a woman on Wednesday she must have opened a dozen bottles of Flash smelling at everyone I would have loved to have poured it over her head bet they are still there. They finish up spending about £15 and think it is a fortune. :) :) :)
-
mertoll I agree I hate people with lists crossing things off and I find it worse when the husband and wife are together she is at the shelves trying to decide what to buy he is right in the middle of the isle blocking everyone,s way. I saw a woman on Wednesday she must have opened a dozen bottles of Flash smelling at everyone I would have loved to have poured it over her head bet they are still there. They finish up spending about £15 and think it is a fortune. :) :) :)
ive been next to couples where the woman has said to him put that down, what the f are you doing, i swear if they did not put it back a fight would start i can picture patti now yelling theres gonna be a fight crowds flocking in fast
-
hi mertoll22 I know what would happen if I did that in the supermarket I would end up in the trolley amongst the groceries. :)
-
hi mertoll22 I know what would happen if I did that in the supermarket I would end up in the trolley amongst the groceries. :)
A typical bonehead male shopper
;D ;D ;D
-
Of course, the other issue with the Wilkes' book is that, no matter how quickly or slowly I read it and no matter how detailed my analysis I know that by the end I will be no closer to getting the answer I desire. I have however just had an answer to a question I posed some months ago and according to the book there were indeed prints found on the kitchen window and diluted blood.
-
A typical bonehead male shopper
;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
One day I'll stop clicking the modify button by mistake - sorry, Mertol!
-
Hi all
Sorry about not getting back to you last night. Had my head tucked in Scott's book.... :) :) :)
I'll be back!!!! ;D
-
Just read something very interesting in the book by Scott Lomax. Its about loading the 10th bullet into the magazine. It appears that Lomax contacted the makers of the gun and they had no reports or feedback that the 10th bullet was harder to load than the 1st one. The German company go one step further in saying that all their guns are fully tested and sold world wide and they have never had a complaint about loading the magazine.
If the jury had known this???????
-
Just read something very interesting in the book by Scott Lomax. Its about loading the 10th bullet into the magazine. It appears that Lomax contacted the makers of the gun and they had no reports or feedback that the 10th bullet was harder to load than the 1st one. The German company go one step further in saying that all their guns are fully tested and sold world wide and they have never had a complaint about loading the magazine.
If the jury had known this???????
Then again did the defence do their research properly?
-
Just read something very interesting in the book by Scott Lomax. Its about loading the 10th bullet into the magazine. It appears that Lomax contacted the makers of the gun and they had no reports or feedback that the 10th bullet was harder to load than the 1st one. The German company go one step further in saying that all their guns are fully tested and sold world wide and they have never had a complaint about loading the magazine.
If the jury had known this???????
Excellent point. Thank you for reminding us of this, Patti!
-
Hi Keira/Grahame
It makes you wonder if the defence did anything? I suppose it was 1986!
I have been reading up on the Ipswich murders...the Jury went to his house...in fact the jury was very involved.
There was none of this in regards JB's case. The only thing that springs to mind was the woman who demonstrated the rifle with the moderator on it. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
He also outlines the fact that Taff Jones fell off a STEP LADDER....and died of injuries to head? Would a fall from such a short height cause such head injuries.. :) :) :)
I thought he was on a long ladder...painting the house outside. :o :o
-
Hi Keira/Grahame
It makes you wonder if the defence did anything? I suppose it was 1986!
I have been reading up on the Ipswich murders...the Jury went to his house...in fact the jury was very involved.
There was none of this in regards JB's case. The only thing that springs to mind was the woman who demonstrated the rifle with the moderator on it. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
I could cry when I read about the deficiencies of Jeremy's defence, Patti. So much evidence went unexamined, unmentioned and unchallenged.
Some of the things that Rivlin said during his speeches and cross examinations of witnesses make me wince.
What on earth was he thinking of? A law student might have made a better job of defending Jeremy.
This ought to be grounds for an Appeal in itself.
-
He also outlines the fact that Taff Jones fell off a STEP LADDER....and died of injuries to head? Would a fall from such a short height cause such head injuries.. :) :) :)
I thought he was on a long ladder...painting the house outside. :o :o
A chap i knew was killed with a relatively tame, drunken puch to the head, it was banging his head on the floor that did it so I would suggest that yes, it could have killed him. Although it stills seems odd that he died but i'm sure it must have been a coincidence.
-
Just read something very interesting in the book by Scott Lomax. Its about loading the 10th bullet into the magazine. It appears that Lomax contacted the makers of the gun and they had no reports or feedback that the 10th bullet was harder to load than the 1st one. The German company go one step further in saying that all their guns are fully tested and sold world wide and they have never had a complaint about loading the magazine.
If the jury had known this???????
I thought the jury were given the chance to try for themselves weren't they?
-
I could cry when I read about the deficiencies of Jeremy's defence, Patti. So much evidence went unexamined, unmentioned and unchallenged.
Some of the things that Rivlin said during his speeches and cross examinations of witnesses make me wince.
What on earth was he thinking of? A law student might have made a better job of defending Jeremy.
This ought to be grounds for an Appeal in itself.
I agree Keira....The trial was shambles! All the evidence was provided by the relatives....Not one bit of evidence came from the police....It makes me grumpy :) :)
-
It may or may not be interesting of me to keep giving these updates but the beauty of a forum is that you can all choose to ignore me.
I am now up to chapter 16 of Wilkes' book and I have to think that if JB had killed himself in prison and this book was left as the only real document for me to decide what I thought of the case I would certainly suspect him of killing his family. Although it is striking how it all seems to be down in part to the greed/worry of the family members and the personal vendetta and obsession of one police officer. I almost get the feeling that Stan Jones painted himself into such a corner that he either convinced everybody else of JBs guilt or risked being completely discredited and ruining his career. How did his career turn out in light of this case?
-
It may or may not be interesting of me to keep giving these updates but the beauty of a forum is that you can all choose to ignore me.
I am now up to chapter 16 of Wilkes' book and I have to think that if JB had killed himself in prison and this book was left as the only real document for me to decide what I thought of the case I would certainly suspect him of killing his family. Although it is striking how it all seems to be down in part to the greed/worry of the family members and the personal vendetta and obsession of one police officer. I almost get the feeling that Stan Jones painted himself into such a corner that he either convinced everybody else of JBs guilt or risked being completely discredited and ruining his career. How did his career turn out in light of this case?
Hi agross, I wont ignore you and if I have then I am sorry.
So regarding your comment about the family members must signify that you are slightly unsure? If if doubt...and you was a juror what would you do? I mean based on the evidence that you know. :)
-
It may or may not be interesting of me to keep giving these updates but the beauty of a forum is that you can all choose to ignore me.
I am now up to chapter 16 of Wilkes' book and I have to think that if JB had killed himself in prison and this book was left as the only real document for me to decide what I thought of the case I would certainly suspect him of killing his family. Although it is striking how it all seems to be down in part to the greed/worry of the family members and the personal vendetta and obsession of one police officer. I almost get the feeling that Stan Jones painted himself into such a corner that he either convinced everybody else of JBs guilt or risked being completely discredited and ruining his career. How did his career turn out in light of this case?
Hi ajross............I think that Wilkes book is pretty much the best factual book out there,but tends to follow the "official" line?I think that is why the "antis" tend to constantly quote this book as gospel.Problem is,the book is now very outdated and many new things have come to light since.I feel that Wilkes was fairly influenced by the relatives (whom he interviewed for the book)and that makes it a little one sided.imo.
-
I must get that book after I have read Scott Lomax's book. :)
-
Hi ajross............I think that Wilkes book is pretty much the best factual book out there,but tends to follow the "official" line?I think that is why the "antis" tend to constantly quote this book as gospel.Problem is,the book is now very outdated and many new things have come to light since.I feel that Wilkes was fairly influenced by the relatives (whom he interviewed for the book)and that makes it a little one sided.imo.
Hello Tyler - very true, he seems to be very influenced by the relatives and sides a lot with Stan Jones and paints a very nasty picture of the treatment of Julie Mugford, his tone may change as I work through it but I'm finding the book to be a little all over the place. I could easily sit here now and write a book 'quoting' conversations and interviews without ever really attributing these quotes. The language and detail of the quotes tends to be a little sensational but also very specific, suggesting individual nuances in speech.
-
I know I keep going on, but after reading about the Ipswich murders I noted that Steve Wright appealed and lost his appeal..he tried again, but withdrew it....
He is guilty, his DNA was found....So here we have a guilty person backing down, where as Jeremy Bamber has never done this... 8) 8) 8)
-
Hi agross, I wont ignore you and if I have then I am sorry.
So regarding your comment about the family members must signify that you are slightly unsure? If if doubt...and you was a juror what would you do? I mean based on the evidence that you know. :)
Hello Patti, I don't want to be inconsistent or unfair so I feel I should mention the missing spelling of my name, I picked Susan up on this and while I apologised and said I had overreacted I feel I should mention it as I did before but, as Susan, I am sure it was unintentional. Regarding your question, I think that with the press coverage of the time and Wilkes' book I would think him guilty (with what I've read so far) or deserving of punishment for being a thoroughly horrible character. With what I know and the information I have read I could say that this book could still lead me to doubt my own opinion in some way.
-
Hello Patti, I don't want to be inconsistent or unfair so I feel I should mention the missing spelling of my name, I picked Susan up on this and while I apologised and said I had overreacted I feel I should mention it as I did before but, as Susan, I am sure it was unintentional. Regarding your question, I think that with the press coverage of the time and Wilkes' book I would think him guilty (with what I've read so far) or deserving of punishment for being a thoroughly horrible character. With what I know and the information I have read I could say that this book could still lead me to doubt my own opinion in some way.
Oh I am sorry, can I call you AJ...there are so many unusual names on here... :(
In regards to thinking he is guilty...how can you state this:
Although it is striking how it all seems to be down in part to the greed/worry of the family members and the personal vendetta and obsession of one police officer.
AJ I don't believe in all I read...I look at the evidence and forensic science to speak to me...
Can you tell me what evidence you have to support that fact you feel JB is guilty.....
I believe in fairness and try disregard JB'S arrogance, for that is not a sign of anyone being guilty of murder... :) :) :)
-
Oh I am sorry, can I call you AJ...there are so many unusual names on here... :(
In regards to thinking he is guilty...how can you state this:
Although it is striking how it all seems to be down in part to the greed/worry of the family members and the personal vendetta and obsession of one police officer.
AJ I don't believe in all I read...I look at the evidence and forensic science to speak to me...
Can you tell me what evidence you have to support that fact you feel JB is guilty.....
I believe in fairness and try disregard JB'S arrogance, for that is not a sign of anyone being guilty of murder... :) :) :)
I've probably articulated myself badly, what I mean to say is that if you read Wilkes' book it would be easy to assume his guilt (up to the point I have read) however, when reading the book it is written almost like fiction where Stan Jones is like a Columbo character, desperately trying to prove he is right and colluding with the relatives. What is so striking and unknown to me before is JBs character, he comes across as a very cynical, nasty piece of work. I do not believe he is guilty, I can see why others might.
-
Remember that at the end of Wilkes' book he concludes that it's too close to call.
-
Hello Ajross pardon my post, in the early days of joining i thought jeremy as this, what we may be forgetting now that was circa 1980s quite some time ago, do you think 26 years or so on he has mellowed and in fact nothing like he was ,there is one cricial point he may have been like that prior to all this ,in prison you are all equal.
-
Remember that at the end of Wilkes' book he concludes that it's too close to call.
I am constantly aware of the fact that it may all change and that is why I keep trying to make that clear, but with a thread named as this is i couldn't give up the chance to fully dissect as I read even if nobody is really too interested. I am enjoying the book although I find it to be badly written and prepared like crime fiction which I consciously avoid under normal circumstances.
-
I've probably articulated myself badly, what I mean to say is that if you read Wilkes' book it would be easy to assume his guilt (up to the point I have read) however, when reading the book it is written almost like fiction where Stan Jones is like a Columbo character, desperately trying to prove he is right and colluding with the relatives. What is so striking and unknown to me before is JBs character, he comes across as a very cynical, nasty piece of work. I do not believe he is guilty, I can see why others might.
Brilliant post AJ
I can see how the reader gets involved in the book and, is allowed to form their own opinions....
It's amazing how the mind works in conjunction to all the different projections surrounding the case.....We are only human and, we all differ in our opinions...even if we read the same book, we all interpretate it differently....I often wonder why this is?
I think I need to read the book AJ...I will definitely get it after I have read Scott's book. Have you read this one? :) :) :) :)
-
I dont have wilke s book nor scott lomax only colins out of the maiden post as ive said before i wanted to know how these families came together the early years what may make a change is a new one .
-
Brilliant post AJ
I can see how the reader gets involved in the book and, is allowed to form their own opinions....
It's amazing how the mind works in conjunction to all the different projections surrounding the case.....We are only human and, we all differ in our opinions...even if we read the same book, we all interpretate it differently....I often wonder why this is?
I think I need to read the book AJ...I will definitely get it after I have read Scott's book. Have you read this one? :) :) :) :)
I have it, I bought all of them when my sister reminded of the case. My intention was to write my own book or film script then the documentary appeared and I became aware of the forum. My interest in the writing then tailed off as there was too much to take in and I doubted getting JB to consent to any of it. Fortunately one of the books I was considering was a work of fict,ion with the events of that night as a sort of background story-center piece. I am now starting to read the three books that I bought. Wilkes' book won't take very long at all (but for the fact I only have 30 minutes a day to read)
-
I dont have wilke s book nor scott lomax only colins out of the maiden post as ive said before i wanted to know how these families came together the early years what may make a change is a new one .
Mertol, reading Scott's book will like reading my posts lol :) :) :)
Honestly I was amazed, it is a must buy....and he has a signed copy collectors copy on Amazon...but since I bought a signed copy the price has increased....Ha! :) :) :)
-
Hello Ajross pardon my post, in the early days of joining i thought Jeremy as this, what we may be forgetting now that was circa 1980s quite some time ago, do you think 26 years or so on he has mellowed and in fact nothing like he was ,there is one crucial point he may have been like that prior to all this ,in prison you are all equal.
In my opinion? I think he would have changed.
In the opinion of a person who had just read up to chapter 16 of Blood Relations? I would suggest that it would be impossible for the character portrayed to be able to change or even be aware that change would be needed. I either believe that he was incredibly shallow, callous and rather brutal or...he had a massive cannabis addiction which resulted in cannabis induced psychosis, paranoia, violent mood swings, vacant spells flippancy.
-
Mertol, reading Scott's book will like reading my posts lol :) :) :)
Honestly I was amazed, it is a must buy....and he has a signed copy collectors copy on Amazon...but since I bought a signed copy the price has increased....Ha! :) :) :)
yes miss marple i am aware of your steal you got lucky please find some concern for the minions missing out early...
-
I have it, I bought all of them when my sister reminded of the case. My intention was to write my own book or film script then the documentary appeared and I became aware of the forum. My interest in the writing then tailed off as there was too much to take in and I doubted getting JB to consent to any of it. Fortunately one of the books I was considering was a work of fict,ion with the events of that night as a sort of background story-center piece. I am now starting to read the three books that I bought. Wilkes' book won't take very long at all (but for the fact I only have 30 minutes a day to read)
AJ, do you need JB's consent to write a book?
There is a lot of criticism od Scott's book. But, I haven't read it all yet, but have picked up on the mistakes when I first opened it. To be a good crime writer, you need to do good research......Scott in my eyes has done this, but does get get certain facts wrong....The firs being Jeremy's call to Witham and other minor things....but overall it is a must read. to anyone who follows the case.
Write you book AJ......but be right with facts, that is what makes a best seller..... :) :) :)
-
In my opinion? I think he would have changed.
In the opinion of a person who had just read up to chapter 16 of Blood Relations? I would suggest that it would be impossible for the character portrayed to be able to change or even be aware that change would be needed. I either believe that he was incredibly shallow, callous and rather brutal or...he had a massive cannabis addiction which resulted in cannabis induced psychosis, paranoia, violent mood swings, vacant spells flippancy.
It was in the papers after the last failed ccrc application JB said they have given me a death sentence for my days to stay here why dont they bring back the death penalty, not the words to me of a murderer
-
AJ, do you need JB's consent to write a book?
There is a lot of criticism od Scott's book. But, I haven't read it all yet, but have picked up on the mistakes when I first opened it. To be a good crime writer, you need to do good research......Scott in my eyes has done this, but does get get certain facts wrong....The firs being Jeremy's call to Witham and other minor things....but overall it is a must read. to anyone who follows the case.
Write you book AJ......but be right with facts, that is what makes a best seller..... :) :) :)
It was more for the film I was considering the consent, i would imagine he holds the rights to that and very much hopes to make that money when he gets out. With only half an hour to read due to my excessively busy family life i doubt I will ever get the time to write anything! , :)
-
I've probably articulated myself badly, what I mean to say is that if you read Wilkes' book it would be easy to assume his guilt (up to the point I have read) however, when reading the book it is written almost like fiction where Stan Jones is like a Columbo character, desperately trying to prove he is right and colluding with the relatives. What is so striking and unknown to me before is JBs character, he comes across as a very cynical, nasty piece of work. I do not believe he is guilty, I can see why others might.
Good for you, AJ!
-
We all hear stories about what JB was like after the deaths of his family. No one, not anyone can put themselves in his shoes.
He was it total shock...It must have been very difficult for him to cry......How many times have you heard this, it will hit her/him when at the funeral?
Well it did hit him.....I have a real close up of Jeremy and you can see the tears coming out of his eyes and all his eye lashes are wet and joined up....
Yet the press says it was an act! Why? We read the press, so we believe what we read.....Not I :) :) :) :)
-
We all hear stories about what JB was like after the deaths of his family. No one, not anyone can put themselves in his shoes.
He was it total shock...It must have been very difficult for him to cry......How many times have you heard this, it will hit her/him when at the funeral?
Well it did hit him.....I have a real close up of Jeremy and you can see the tears coming out of his eyes and all his eye lashes are wet and joined up....
Yet the press says it was an act! Why? We read the press, so we believe what we read.....Not I :) :) :) :)
Too right patti. Good for you.x
-
We all hear stories about what JB was like after the deaths of his family. No one, not anyone can put themselves in his shoes.
He was it total shock...It must have been very difficult for him to cry......How many times have you heard this, it will hit her/him when at the funeral?
Well it did hit him.....I have a real close up of Jeremy and you can see the tears coming out of his eyes and all his eye lashes are wet and joined up....
Yet the press says it was an act! Why? We read the press, so we believe what we read.....Not I :) :) :) :)
What I find more shocking are some of the things that he has supposedly said and that he twisted Julie Mugford's arm up behind her back and went as if to hit her before she had given him up to the police and allegedly because she slapped him as a result of his own atrocious behaviour
-
We all hear stories about what JB was like after the deaths of his family. No one, not anyone can put themselves in his shoes.
He was it total shock...It must have been very difficult for him to cry......How many times have you heard this, it will hit her/him when at the funeral?
Well it did hit him.....I have a real close up of Jeremy and you can see the tears coming out of his eyes and all his eye lashes are wet and joined up....
Yet the press says it was an act! Why? We read the press, so we believe what we read.....Not I :) :) :) :)
i do not believe is possible to fake crying we are talking pure raw human emotion here look at colin not crying he is unable to understand a dream like emotion.
-
i do not believe is possible to fake crying we are talking pure raw human emotion here look at colin not crying he is unable to understand a dream like emotion.
You don't think a person can fake cry? :o
-
What I find more shocking are some of the things that he has supposedly said and that he twisted Julie Mugford's arm up behind her back and went as if to hit her before she had given him up to the police and allegedly because she slapped him as a result of his own atrocious behaviour
Woah, AJ...
JM did also smash Jeremy's mirror (and Chinese cabinet?) and admitted trying to kill Jeremy by smothering him in his sleep.
Anyone who smashes my Chinese cabinet has a good slap coming to them.
-
You don't think a person can fake cry? :o
i do not mat and ive seen thousands of people cry, there is laughter cry but thats something else and people do laugh on funerals be it in the church/crematorium chapel or after the service looking at floral tributes.
-
What I find more shocking are some of the things that he has supposedly said and that he twisted Julie Mugford's arm up behind her back and went as if to hit her before she had given him up to the police and allegedly because she slapped him as a result of his own atrocious behaviour
but that does not make someone guilty of 5 murders. He does admit to pushing her on the bed...but denies twisting her arm up her back.....
Come on AJ....She claimed to know that he had committed the murders, then in the next breath she claims he had hired someone to commit the murders....Which bit is true?
She put a pillow over his face whilst he was sleeping......He asked her why she had done that, and she states in her statement..."well If I can't have you no one can" her words....
Anyway, this is hearsay and no way is it proof that he picked up a gun and shot his family...is it? :) :) :)
-
but that does not make someone guilty of 5 murders. He does admit to pushing her on the bed...but denies twisting her arm up her back.....
Come on AJ....She claimed to know that he had committed the murders, then in the next breath she claims he had hired someone to commit the murders....Which bit is true?
She put a pillow over his face whilst he was sleeping......He asked her why she had done that, and she states in her statement..."well If I can't have you no one can" her words....
Anyway, this is hearsay and no way is it proof that he picked up a gun and shot his family...is it? :) :) :)
The problem with hearsay patti is on its own means little mixed with other things it starts to be taken as factual.
-
You don't think a person can fake cry? :o
Yes I do, but you can't fake real tears.....and it is a fact that psychopaths don't cry....Whilst I was reading the book...I found out that Jeremy Bamber was most upset about his dog dying it made him sick...he loved animals....this is why he was reluctant at killing them. :) :) :) :)
-
Yes I do, but you can't fake real tears.....and it is a fact that psychopaths don't cry....Whilst I was reading the book...I found out that Jeremy Bamber was most upset about his dog dying it made him sick...he loved animals....this is why he was reluctant at killing them. :) :) :) :)
Could explain why the dog at WHF wasn't killed and was locked in the cupboard.
-
Could explain why the dog at WHF wasn't killed and was locked in the cupboard.
the dog was found under the bed mat....The police put the dog in the wardrobe it wasn't locked. The poor thing was put there, so it would not ruin the crime scene.....
The dog Crispy.....was affectionally known as the pest.....:(
-
You don't think a person can fake cry? :o
I agree. Someone can fake cry. JM did it all the time in court.
-
the dog was found under the bed mat....The police put the dog in the wardrobe it wasn't locked. The poor thing was put there, so it would not ruin the crime scene.....
The dog Crispy.....was affectionally known as the pest.....:(
It's a pity they didn't examine the dog as well. He was part of the crime scene. It was the cops who trampled all over the crime scene with their great clumsy flat feet.
-
the dog was found under the bed mat....The police put the dog in the wardrobe it wasn't locked. The poor thing was put there, so it would not ruin the crime scene.....
The dog Crispy.....was affectionally known as the pest.....:(
Ah, right. Thanks Patti.
-
I agree. Someone can fake cry. JM did it all the time in court.
Shame she didn't cry Grahame when she went to identify the bodies of two young children and the rest of the family. :) :)
Yes, she cried in court....it was said she was difficult to cross-examine. :) :) :)
-
Ah, right. Thanks Patti.
i wouldn't lie to you mat...it is documented..... :) :) :)
-
the dog was found under the bed mat....The police put the dog in the wardrobe it wasn't locked. The poor thing was put there, so it would not ruin the crime scene.....
The dog Crispy.....was affectionally known as the pest.....:(
Patti Colin says in the book that the dog was running around for the best part of a hour before a officer realised he may be contaminating evidence ,i trust that officer was promoted , that grey hair in the silencer part of the same thing ??
-
Shame she didn't cry Grahame when she went to identify the bodies of two young children and the rest of the family. :) :)
Yes, she cried in court....it was said she was difficult to cross-examine. :) :) :)
Yeah, they should have told her to put a sock in it.
-
i wouldn't lie to you mat...it is documented..... :) :) :)
No I beleive you! :) Was saying thanks for the information.
-
It is a fact though, that the police found no evidence to convict Jeremy Bamber. :) :) :) :)
-
Could explain why the dog at WHF wasn't killed and was locked in the cupboard.
No, he disliked that one. I'm a great animal lover but, given the breed, I'm unsurprised. Those things pee and p**p in their owners' baths.
-
No, he disliked that one. I'm a great animal lover but, given the breed, I'm unsurprised. Those things pee and p**p in their owners' baths.
I like big dogs myself. Like a Husky with those wolflike features. I'd feel safe walking down the road with a dog like that.
-
I like big dogs myself. Like a Husky with those wolflike features. I'd feel safe walking down the road with a dog like that.
2 near us grahame guy trains them on a sleigh with wheels ,they went lupo in january all that snow howling like hell just like in a sherlock holmes film.
-
Woah, AJ...
JM did also smash Jeremy's mirror (and Chinese cabinet?) and admitted trying to kill Jeremy by smothering him in his sleep.
Anyone who smashes my Chinese cabinet has a good slap coming to them.
Sorry, I'm just trying to stick to the thread . My posts are from the point of view of 'the reader' in this particular scene Julie comes across very much as the maltreated victim an JB, in these couple of chapters, is painted as a spiteful violent nasty individual. Wilkes may have wanted to write a balanced book but this is the character that he establishes for JB from the beginning which makes it easier, as a reader, to stand against him. In Wilkes' defence he does also seem to suggest that JM is playing a bit of a game but he tries to explain this away as fear, love and emotional turmoil.
-
but that does not make someone guilty of 5 murders. He does admit to pushing her on the bed...but denies twisting her arm up her back.....
Come on AJ....She claimed to know that he had committed the murders, then in the next breath she claims he had hired someone to commit the murders....Which bit is true?
She put a pillow over his face whilst he was sleeping......He asked her why she had done that, and she states in her statement..."well If I can't have you no one can" her words....
Anyway, this is hearsay and no way is it proof that he picked up a gun and shot his family...is it? :) :) :)
Sorry, I am only discussing what I'm reading in his particular book and what is being presented, it is interesting that although there is reference to what is tantamount to an assault on Julie and her flat mate earlier, there has so far been no reference to a 'smothering'. This is exactly my point. After creating such a horrible character I think it will be hard to redeem him later in the book.
Keira - Wilkes mentions JM smashing a mirror and a small Chinese box before 'attacking' Julie, however his response to this is cold, emotionless and almost goading which again gives a bleak view of JB.
-
The problem with hearsay patti is on its own means little mixed with other things it starts to be taken as factual.
Excellent, because this book is presented as a factual account of the events and yet, as Wilkes doesn't give any times or dates or evidence of his quotes and facts, the book is reduced to nothing but hearsay, nothing concrete and at times inflammatory.
-
Morning ajross I have been reading through your posts and agree Jeremy did so many things to paint a bad picture of himself. I always thought he was is own worst enemy and can see how people thought him to be without emotion immature naive. I think he was an attention seeker perhaps he had none as a child I don,t know but even at the Trial I think he was play acting somewhat and enjoying the attention but, alas, he never expected the outcome of guilty. I am sure if he could go back he may have taken the matter of being accused of murder more seriously. But I for one feel this behaviour does not make him a Murderer.
-
Morning ajross I have been reading through your posts and agree Jeremy did so many things to paint a bad picture of himself. I always thought he was is own worst enemy and can see how people thought him to be without emotion immature naive. I think he was an attention seeker perhaps he had none as a child I don,t know but even at the Trial I think he was play acting somewhat and enjoying the attention but, alas, he never expected the outcome of guilty. I am sure if he could go back he may have taken the matter of being accused of murder more seriously. But I for one feel this behaviour does not make him a Murderer.
Unfortunately all this "goading" and mistreatment of JM by JB gives JM a very good reason to lie.
-
Morning Grahame I have never thought Jeremy to be a bad person just misguided in his young days. I feel due to is upbringing he became a bit of a rebel and an attention seeker but in no way do I think he could have been responsible for the murders of his family. As far as Julie goes not read much about her but she came over to me as somewhat strange.
-
Sorry, I am only discussing what I'm reading in his particular book and what is being presented, it is interesting that although there is reference to what is tantamount to an assault on Julie and her flat mate earlier, there has so far been no reference to a 'smothering'. This is exactly my point. After creating such a horrible character I think it will be hard to redeem him later in the book.
Keira - Wilkes mentions JM smashing a mirror and a small Chinese box before 'attacking' Julie, however his response to this is cold, emotionless and almost goading which again gives a bleak view of JB.
Was it Dr Carl Sagan who said the biggest liar is a book, the picture of JB painted in all of these books seem to have a pattern, they paint him with not too much favour, those deep dark eyes the eyes of a killer, i knew someone with the same eyes ,not a killer but a post mortem room technician who was previous in the army as a medic saving lives, most books are published to make the author money in not all but most cases reading is one thing believing is quite another.
-
Was it Dr Carl Sagan who said the biggest liar is a book, the picture of JB painted in all of these books seem to have a pattern, they paint him with not too much favour, those deep dark eyes the eyes of a killer, i knew someone with the same eyes ,not a killer but a post mortem room technician who was previous in the army as a medic saving lives, most books are published to make the author money in not all but most cases reading is one thing believing is quite another.
I agree mertol, what a load of rubbish, more than half the world has deep dark eyes, dont think theyre all killers.Any way I thought small cold eyes were supposed to be the mark of a killer. Its all supposition and mainly calculated to paint Jeremy in a bad light. and to make money. imo
-
I agree mertol, what a load of rubbish, more than half the world has deep dark eyes, dont think theyre all killers.Any way I thought small cold eyes were supposed to be the mark of a killer. Its all supposition and mainly calculated to paint Jeremy in a bad light. imo
Thats just the point maggie not one of these books speak in his favour because otherwise they would not sell, im into F1 those teams bosses dont want losers they want winners not far off the truth with authors is it ? by chance i believe Jeremy likes F1 also a small world.
-
Morning Grahame I have never thought Jeremy to be a bad person just misguided in his young days. I feel due to is upbringing he became a bit of a rebel and an attention seeker but in no way do I think he could have been responsible for the murders of his family. As far as Julie goes not read much about her but she came over to me as somewhat strange.
Hi Maggie. I agree with you. He was to my thinking rebelling against his upbringing and his parents and his actions prove this. A friend of mine did the same. His mother owned a country house and estate almost as large as Longleat. His aunt also had an equally large property. Mega rich they were. He shunned all that and actually treated that wealth with contempt. When his aunt died and then his mother he inherited a considerable amount of money. Which he used immediately to give away to those who were in need. He started his own carpenters business and he also does work for free. He lives in a comparatively humble dwelling in Cornwall with his wife and goes to Newquay Baptist Church.
-
Perhaps because the verdict would have hit jeremy like a express train changed him overnight with a decree absolute to fight for justice , to which he he still fighting where most men would have given up years ago jeremy does not seem to show defeat the moment he does its over so i guess for him its all he has got left pure resolve.
-
hi mertoll I was told Jeremy has so much fight in him as he knows he is innocent plus he knows the evidence against him was so weak and the Trial was flawed. He knows he only has to get documents released and it will prove he is innocent.
-
hi mertoll I was told Jeremy has so much fight in him as he knows he is innocent plus he knows the evidence against him was so weak and the Trial was flawed. He knows he only has to get documents released and it will prove he is innocent.
Which is why i think jeremy needs to re contact mike again and help each other , without mike i fear jeremy is doomed.
-
mertoll I agree Mike had Jeremy,s best interests at heart more than anyone and they need to be reunited. Hope you are reading this Mike.
-
hi mertoll I was told Jeremy has so much fight in him as he knows he is innocent plus he knows the evidence against him was so weak and the Trial was flawed. He knows he only has to get documents released and it will prove he is innocent.
Agreed susie but how long can Jeremy continue to fight on. He must be so worn out and diminished ...all these years of trying to be heard. Hes so lucky to have simon mckay who isin it for the long haul.I know some people like to rubbish him but that is more about these peoples inflated egos than anything to do with Simon Mckay
-
Hi Mags I think Jeremy would never give up and like mertoll I think he needs Mike back. He is at the moment being brain washed by the latest campaign team who are in it for themselves.
-
Hi Mags I think Jeremy would never give up and like mertoll I think he needs Mike back. He is at the moment being brain washed by the latest campaign team who are in it for themselves.
Thing is susie surely everyone who believes Jeremy's innocent should combine and put all their weight behind Jeremy. Its crazy that there are these divisions between like minded people. I dont think its Jeremys fault, it must be really difficult for him as he's so isolated.
-
Hi Mags I think Jeremy would never give up and like mertoll I think he needs Mike back. He is at the moment being brain washed by the latest campaign team who are in it for themselves.
Out of interest, in what way are they brain washing him?
-
Hi Bridget don,t know how they are brain washing him I was told that and you know me I just believe everything I am told it is no matter really as nobody takes any notice of me so I,m not dangerous :) ;) ;)
-
There is no easy answer is there when the world and its wife are against Jeremy.?
I wouldn't mind,,but all it takes are lifes' experiences and common sense to deal with this,,without the "sheep" mentality.
One only has to study this case and its discrepancies in the investigations to conclude that there's not a scrap of concrete evidence to support the conviction of Jeremy.
" Old " Taff Jones used his own senses,,and that was the " gut feeling " that very few officers use today,,but past experiences have/had taught the older members of the force who were dedicated to their profession and who had the knowledge that sadly not many have today.
Jeremy,,,and rightly so,,,thought it was an open and shut case. Little did he realise that he had so many enemies in the background waiting to see the handcuffs being put on him,,,including Stan Jones who must have delighted everyone at the time.. Imagine,,,a grown man,,,,a professional one at that,,stating that " he didn't like the man " ( Jeremy ) so on that,,a clash of personalities,,,he nailed him.
-
Hi Bridget don,t know how they are brain washing him I was told that and you know me I just believe everything I am told it is no matter really as nobody takes any notice of me so I,m not dangerous :) ;) ;)
Glad to hear it!
-
There is no easy answer is there when the world and its wife are against Jeremy.?
I wouldn't mind,,but all it takes are lifes' experiences and common sense to deal with this,,without the "sheep" mentality.
One only has to study this case and its discrepancies in the investigations to conclude that there's not a scrap of concrete evidence to support the conviction of Jeremy.
" Old " Taff Jones used his own senses,,and that was the " gut feeling " that very few officers use today,,but past experiences have/had taught the older members of the force who were dedicated to their profession and who had the knowledge that sadly not many have today.
Jeremy,,,and rightly so,,,thought it was an open and shut case. Little did he realise that he had so many enemies in the background waiting to see the handcuffs being put on him,,,including Stan Jones who must have delighted everyone at the time.. Imagine,,,a grown man,,,,a professional one at that,,stating that " he didn't like the man " ( Jeremy ) so on that,,a clash of personalities,,,he nailed him.
Jeremy did indeed behave as if he thought the case against him was bound to fail, but I wonder why? He must have known that the prosecution had the blood in the silencer as evidence, why was he so confident that would fail?
-
Whose blood in the silencer.?
-
Jeremy did indeed behave as if he thought the case against him was bound to fail, but I wonder why? He must have known that the prosecution had the blood in the silencer as evidence, why was he so confident that would fail?
Like Shona (and many on your side of the fence), he probably thought it was a "crock of shit".
-
Jeremy did indeed behave as if he thought the case against him was bound to fail, but I wonder why? He must have known that the prosecution had the blood in the silencer as evidence, why was he so confident that would fail?
Because he didn't do it.
-
Jeremy did indeed behave as if he thought the case against him was bound to fail, but I wonder why? He must have known that the prosecution had the blood in the silencer as evidence, why was he so confident that would fail?
I would imagine, bridget, Jeremy thought the case would fail because he had't done it and believed in British justice. He was unaware that people like yourself knew better than him.
-
I would imagine, bridget, Jeremy thought the case would fail because he had't done it and believed in British justice. He was unaware that people like yourself knew better than him.
He had lawyers, they must have told him what he was up against.
-
How can anyone ever be prepared for something that they didn't do.? It was because Jeremy was/is innocent that his defence had nothing,if anything to go on. There was no case to answer to,,simple as that.
Let's face it,,if they'd have known back then what's known now,,,the case would have been thrown from here to kingdom come.
-
Just a thought, but JB himself thinks it was ludicrous to think Shelia would have used a moderator and put it back in the gun cupboard or anyone for that matter, this is why, I suppose it has been a bone of contention for all these years....to prove the moderator was never used and to prove it had not got Sheila's blood on it....
We also have to remember that blood group O was also the same blood group of RB...
We also have to remember that the EP never found any evidence that proved JB guilty.
The only evidence that was found was by the family and that is a fact.
We are told that EP failed miserably to find evidence, but were they really that bad? :) :)
-
How can anyone ever be prepared for something that they didn't do.? It was because Jeremy was/is innocent that his defence had nothing,if anything to go on. There was no case to answer to,,simple as that.
Let's face it,,if they'd have known back then what's known now,,,the case would have been thrown from here to kingdom come.
Hi Lookout...I would love a retrial based on what is known now. JB hadn't got a clue about the court system, or what to expect...He had faith that he would be set free and why was that? Because he was innocent...All his friends said that he was a wimp. He never had the profile of a killer. :) :) :)
-
He had lawyers, they must have told him what he was up against.
I feel that, given his somewhat arrogant and contemptuous behaviour, they must have allowed him to go along with the belief that he couldn't lose. At the time, it came across as the behaviour of someone who had fooled everybody and was gloating. NOW it seems like the behaviour of someone who believed his innocence was so obvious that it was recognizable to all, and putting him on trial was a farce.
-
Just a thought, but JB himself thinks it was ludicrous to think Shelia would have used a moderator and put it back in the gun cupboard or anyone for that matter, this is why, I suppose it has been a bone of contention for all these years....to prove the moderator was never used and to prove it had not got Sheila's blood on it....
We also have to remember that blood group O was also the same blood group of RB...
We also have to remember that the EP never found any evidence that proved JB guilty.
The only evidence that was found was by the family and that is a fact.
We are told that EP failed miserably to find evidence, but were they really that bad? :) :)
Not wearing gloves on a crimescene reason enough to question them,there are pictures of jeremy with a smirk on his face i believe this was a personal wall to say this is a farce .
-
Hi Lookout...I would love a retrial based on what is known now. JB hadn't got a clue about the court system, or what to expect...He had faith that he would be set free and why was that? Because he was innocent...All his friends said that he was a wimp. He never had the profile of a killer. :) :) :)
Hi, Patti. YES to everthing you say........but over the last week I've been told that he must be guilty because:- "He was a villian", "He once broke somebody's arm", "He was ungrateful", "He was a horrid boy". I did point out to those who held these thoughts, that whilst they may be true, none of these "attributes" make him a killer. The last condemnation is really interesting, because how you interpret depends on whether you're pro or anti:- "His father said he could never turn his back on him."
-
Perhaps because the verdict would have hit jeremy like a express train changed him overnight with a decree absolute to fight for justice , to which he he still fighting where most men would have given up years ago jeremy does not seem to show defeat the moment he does its over so i guess for him its all he has got left pure resolve.
Also JB knows that he can't be down graded to a category B prisoner, because he refuses to carry out defence related work, because that would mean he had to admit his guilt and so stays a category A prisoner. Plus this could jeopardise his chances of an appeal.... :) :) :)
-
Also JB knows that he can't be down graded to a category B prisoner, because he refuses to carry out defence related work, because that would mean he had to admit his guilt and so stays a category A prisoner. Plus this could jeopardise his chances of an appeal.... :) :) :)
was he not going to be down graded patti ? the relatives complained and restored to cat A ?off out now will be back 9 ish after a dallas
-
It just beggars belief that this has been allowed to go on for so long. It is those who've put Jeremy where he is who seriously need questioning.
I wonder how many times he's asked himself " what am I doing here ?". I would hate to have to tell him the answer to that one.
Where are all these intellectual boffins with degrees as long as your arm.? Are there any to actually read this case from start to finish,,,without bias,,,,to reach the logical conclusion that's staring them in the face.?
I'm finding it more and more difficult to find anything that hasn't already been posted,,,to avoid going over old ground,,,often stopping to think that this shouldn't be happening,,and my thoughts about there not being a case to answer to. I do find the whole thing,,,in Shakespeare's words " Much Ado About Nothing."
Except that in Jeremy's case,,it's different because he's actually being incarcerated For Nothing.
The bigger the criminal you are,,,the better the options.! Justice.? Pah.!
-
It just beggars belief that this has been allowed to go on for so long. It is those who've put Jeremy where he is who seriously need questioning.
I wonder how many times he's asked himself " what am I doing here ?". I would hate to have to tell him the answer to that one.
Where are all these intellectual boffins with degrees as long as your arm.? Are there any to actually read this case from start to finish,,,without bias,,,,to reach the logical conclusion that's staring them in the face.?
I'm finding it more and more difficult to find anything that hasn't already been posted,,,to avoid going over old ground,,,often stopping to think that this shouldn't be happening,,and my thoughts about there not being a case to answer to. I do find the whole thing,,,in Shakespeare's words " Much Ado About Nothing."
Except that in Jeremy's case,,it's different because he's actually being incarcerated For Nothing.
The bigger the criminal you are,,,the better the options.! Justice.? Pah.!
I hear your frustration and concur with all you say.
-
You're dead right,April.
-
It just beggars belief that this has been allowed to go on for so long. It is those who've put Jeremy where he is who seriously need questioning.
I wonder how many times he's asked himself " what am I doing here ?". I would hate to have to tell him the answer to that one.
Where are all these intellectual boffins with degrees as long as your arm.? Are there any to actually read this case from start to finish,,,without bias,,,,to reach the logical conclusion that's staring them in the face.?
I'm finding it more and more difficult to find anything that hasn't already been posted,,,to avoid going over old ground,,,often stopping to think that this shouldn't be happening,,and my thoughts about there not being a case to answer to. I do find the whole thing,,,in Shakespeare's words " Much Ado About Nothing."
Except that in Jeremy's case,,it's different because he's actually being incarcerated For Nothing.
The bigger the criminal you are,,,the better the options.! Justice.? Pah.!
Great post Lookout. :) :) :)
-
Scott says photo's have been found with Sheila holding guns....Why aren't we seeing them? :-\
-
was he not going to be down graded patti ? the relatives complained and restored to cat A ?off out now will be back 9 ish after a dallas
Strange move that? He's inside so why worry where he is in the prison?
-
Did anyone know that Sheila's fingerprints were found on a shotgun? She had only been there 3 days, so how come her prints were on the shotgun? This was never brought up at the trial... :) :)
-
The first swabs on Sheila's hands were rejected, because they had arrived with guns, therefore there it would have been pointless for the lab to have done forensic work on them.
It's important then that the swabs were done again....BUT the pathologist had already washed Sheila down....leaving no traces of blood or powder.
However, this was never discussed at the trial, therefore the jury were not aware that the 1st swabs had been rejected and the 2nd set had been done after washing.... :) :)
-
The first swabs on Sheila's hands were rejected, because they had arrived with guns, therefore there it would have been pointless for the lab to have done forensic work on them.
It's important then that the swabs were done again....BUT the pathologist had already washed Sheila down....leaving no traces of blood or powder.
However, this was never discussed at the trial, therefore the jury were not aware that the 1st swabs had been rejected and the 2nd set had been done after washing.... :) :)
It seems that so much evidence that would have vindicated Jeremy was conveniently left out at the trial? Did I hear anyone mention a MOJ?
-
It seems that so much evidence that would have vindicated Jeremy was conveniently left out at the trial? Did I hear anyone mention a MOJ?
Definitely,,Grahame. A mega one.
-
The first swabs on Sheila's hands were rejected, because they had arrived with guns, therefore there it would have been pointless for the lab to have done forensic work on them.
It's important then that the swabs were done again....BUT the pathologist had already washed Sheila down....leaving no traces of blood or powder.
However, this was never discussed at the trial, therefore the jury were not aware that the 1st swabs had been rejected and the 2nd set had been done after washing.... :) :)
I don't think this is right. There was only ever one set of swabs,and you are correct that they were rejected because they arrived with some unconnected guns, so there was the possibility of contamination from those guns. They were then retested and found to be clear of gun shot residue anyway.
-
Greetings Harters, Nice to see you, to see you're back. Have you been on furlough?
Can you kindly let me know who Nevill and June Bamber's solicitors were' in respect of the drawing up of their Wills?
-
I don't think this is right. There was only ever one set of swabs,and you are correct that they were rejected because they arrived with some unconnected guns, so there was the possibility of contamination from those guns. They were then retested and found to be clear of gun shot residue anyway.
Yeah, this is what I read on something Mike posted.
-
I don't think this is right. There was only ever one set of swabs,and you are correct that they were rejected because they arrived with some unconnected guns, so there was the possibility of contamination from those guns. They were then retested and found to be clear of gun shot residue anyway.
It is right Bridget........and by the time they took more swabs she had been washed down. :) :) :)
-
Can you really say a wash down would remove the gun residue then? When I said that Jeremy could have showered people here were more than fast to reply that even if he had showered there would have been traces of gun residue on his hands.
-
Can you really say a wash down would remove the gun residue then? When I said that Jeremy could have showered people here were more than fast to reply that even if he had showered there would have been traces of gun residue on his hands.
There were traces of gun residue on sheilas hands mat.
-
It was the same when the CPS introduced someone who told the court that nothing was on her nightdress....This chap was no firearms expert and all he did was a visually look at the bottom of her nightdress. But since that evidence has been destroyed, further tests can't be made.
So the jury was mislead....into thinking there was no oil or residue on her nightdress. :) :) :)
-
But nothing like you'd expect if she has been firing a weapon so many times. Sorry, I just don't trust everything posted here anymore - a lot of it I have found to be wrong or that I'm being bullshitted by people who want certain things to go away. (Not talking about you Patti or Mags).
But when I first joined I brought up the pyscopath - and was told that he's never failed a test for that, no expert has called him it - which was all utter bullshit but people took as fact. I was also told that a sniffer dog was taken TO Jeremy to sniff him - which again was more spin and bullshit.
And people wonder why Jeremy is in prison still...even those those post for his innocent evither don't have their stories straight (they have blamed sheila, posted their 'evidence' sheila did it) but then they change their opinion and suddenly...it was James Bell....they've got a new theory.....it's all doing so much harm.
And for the first time since I've joined I've realised that the forum really is doing more harm than good for Bamber. His supporters don't like each other, they fight on twitter, they post conflicting evidence..they confuse issues and they feed the defence team with so much stuff that it all just goes wrong.
Infact, most of the members here have spent a while slagging down the campaign team.
But I'm sure people here won't agree and don't see it.
-
But nothing like you'd expect if she has been firing a weapon so many times. Sorry, I just don't trust everything posted here anymore - a lot of it I have found to be wrong or that I'm being bullshitted by people who want certain things to go away. (Not talking about you Patti or Mags).
But when I first joined I brought up the pyscopath - and was told that he's never failed a test for that, no expert has called him it - which was all utter bullshit but people took as fact. I was also told that a sniffer dog was taken TO Jeremy to sniff him - which again was more spin and bullshit.
And people wonder why Jeremy is in prison still...even those those post for his innocent evither don't have their stories straight (they have blamed sheila, posted their 'evidence' sheila did it) but then they change their opinion and suddenly...it was James Bell....they've got a new theory.....it's all doing so much harm.
And for the first time since I've joined I've realised that the forum really is doing more harm than good for Bamber. His supporters don't like each other, they fight on twitter, they post conflicting evidence..they confuse issues and they feed the defence team with so much stuff that it all just goes wrong.
Infact, most of the members here have spent a while slagging down the campaign team.
But I'm sure people here won't agree and don't see it.
Hi mat
It is very difficult to know what is true and what is false. For most of time, folk post their opinions, this is what the forum is for. There will always be an argument for and against, especially when the facts, evidence and forensic science is not available or never taken.
I am a big believer in having an open mind but, I am also a believer in facts, evidence and science if it is available and use this in part of my argument. I also create myths in my own mind and try to work out possibilities.....
If truth be known....I am not 100% certain in any of this and, this is why I go through so much reading and exploring; to me this is essential to the arguments presented on the forum.
We have little to go on, so much so that the theories develop and the debates begin......
I don't slag anyone of mat, we are all entitled to have an opinion and, this is what makes a great debate....
:) :) :) :)
-
But nothing like you'd expect if she has been firing a weapon so many times. Sorry, I just don't trust everything posted here anymore - a lot of it I have found to be wrong or that I'm being bullshitted by people who want certain things to go away. (Not talking about you Patti or Mags).
But when I first joined I brought up the pyscopath - and was told that he's never failed a test for that, no expert has called him it - which was all utter bullshit but people took as fact. I was also told that a sniffer dog was taken TO Jeremy to sniff him - which again was more spin and bullshit.
And people wonder why Jeremy is in prison still...even those those post for his innocent evither don't have their stories straight (they have blamed sheila, posted their 'evidence' sheila did it) but then they change their opinion and suddenly...it was James Bell....they've got a new theory.....it's all doing so much harm.
And for the first time since I've joined I've realised that the forum really is doing more harm than good for Bamber. His supporters don't like each other, they fight on twitter, they post conflicting evidence..they confuse issues and they feed the defence team with so much stuff that it all just goes wrong.
Infact, most of the members here have spent a while slagging down the campaign team.
But I'm sure people here won't agree and don't see it.
Forum is not an official site Mat. It's healthy for people top disagree / debate / reconsider / eliminate etc. There is disagreement on your side of the fence. Most longstanding guilty camp members have admitted via pm that the silencer is dodgy. Two of the members linked to JB's relatves and one other who is not, this admission is a step too far and they retain confidence in the silencer evidence, at least outwardly. Please post up the psychologists quotation re psychopathy. I believe you are referring to an excerpt from the Wilkes book?
Re Sheila, look at where her hand is placed (over the vents). You've been ripped off with those swabs.
-
Mat
Why are the psychopath etc tests jeremy has undertaken 'utter bullshit'?
-
Maggie he is just here to cause trouble again, ignore it and it will go away
He has his loyal band of supporters that believe everything they are told
Let them get on with it, it just damages things for Jeremy, which is why we are here
-
But nothing like you'd expect if she has been firing a weapon so many times. Sorry, I just don't trust everything posted here anymore - a lot of it I have found to be wrong or that I'm being bullshitted by people who want certain things to go away. (Not talking about you Patti or Mags).
But when I first joined I brought up the pyscopath - and was told that he's never failed a test for that, no expert has called him it - which was all utter bullshit but people took as fact. I was also told that a sniffer dog was taken TO Jeremy to sniff him - which again was more spin and bullshit.
And people wonder why Jeremy is in prison still...even those those post for his innocent evither don't have their stories straight (they have blamed sheila, posted their 'evidence' sheila did it) but then they change their opinion and suddenly...it was James Bell....they've got a new theory.....it's all doing so much harm.
And for the first time since I've joined I've realised that the forum really is doing more harm than good for Bamber. His supporters don't like each other, they fight on twitter, they post conflicting evidence..they confuse issues and they feed the defence team with so much stuff that it all just goes wrong.
Infact, most of the members here have spent a while slagging down the campaign team.
But I'm sure people here won't agree and don't see it.
Mat, you should not trust ANYTHING posted here or anywhere else from those for or against Bamber. You must only trust that which had documented proof. a forum is just that, a forum and nothing else. It is a place for airing views and nothing else. It is not for finding evidence for freeing Bamber. That is for the defence team and for them alone. I don't expect anything any of us say on this forum would do anything for Jeremy Bamber or will make him more guilty or less guilty. If you thought that the forum was the place where you could download documentary proof of Bamber's guilt or innocence then you have come to the wrong place. And I hate to say it. Butthis applies to any forum whether it be this or another.
-
Maggie he is just here to cause trouble again, ignore it and it will go away
He has his loyal band of supporters that believe everything they are told
Let them get on with it, it just damages things for Jeremy, which is why we are here
That is true Jackie but I am curious as to his example. I know a few people have claimed Jerremy is a psychopath but it becomes clear these people, tho qualified have never met Jeremy. No professional should diagnose on hearsay in my humble opinion.
-
That is true Jackie but I am curious as to his example. I know a few people have claimed Jerremy is a psychopath but it becomes clear these people, tho qualified have never met Jeremy. No professional should diagnose on hearsay in my humble opinion.
I think more evidence of being a psychopath is when you write to Jeremy and make out you are his friend but are also friendly with the dirty tricks brigade of people trying to keep Jeremy in prison by any means even though they have no proof of his guilt
-
Was it Dr Carl Sagan who said the biggest liar is a book
A wise observation, Mertol.
Where did much of Wilkes' information come from? From a witch hunt by the press and from those who opposed Jeremy being allowed a fair Appeal
the picture of JB painted in all of these books seem to have a pattern, they paint him with not too much favour, those deep dark eyes the eyes of a killer,
Which is just how Jeremy was misrepresented by the witch hunter generals of the tabloids
i knew someone with the same eyes ,not a killer but a post mortem room technician who was previous in the army as a medic saving lives, most books are published to make the author money in not all but most cases reading is one thing believing is quite another.
-
Still it must be great amusement for the official campaign team I bet it all gets filtered back to Jeremy
Poor bloke, imagine what it must feel like
-
Still it must be great amusement for the official campaign team I bet it all gets filtered back to Jeremy
Poor bloke, imagine what it must feel like
I cannot imagine what it must feel like Jackie but I wonder how Jeremy manages to go on.
-
Because he didn't do it.
Exactly! Well said, Lonny.
-
I would imagine, bridget, Jeremy thought the case would fail because he had't done it and believed in British justice. He was unaware that people like yourself knew better than him.
I believe that's very true, Maggie. We all like to believe in British justice. I don't believe Jeremy would have known how often the British justice system fails the innocent.
-
It is right Bridget........and by the time they took more swabs she had been washed down. :) :) :)
Sorry to disagree Patti, but it's not. This was dealt with at the appeal in 2002, read paragraph 175 onwards :)
-
At the end of chapter 20 of Wilkes' book it suggested that even 'Taff' Jones was disappointed that Jeremy was released on bail for the caravan park burglary, that isn't what I had been led to believe previously,I thought that 'Taff' took to his grave the belief that JB was innocent. I've also read Wilkes' account of Stan Jones' interviewing of JB and although I find the way it seems to be set out so as to suggest that Jeremy was possibly guilty I also think that I would like to behave the same way under interrogation for crime I honestly didn't commit. I found it a very honest and frank response to the questions, he simply refused to be drawn in by Stan Jones but that seems to have irked him more. He seems to have been a rather nasty chap.
-
I cannot imagine what it must feel like Jackie but I wonder how Jeremy manages to go on.
Maggie
Jeremy must get used to people being disloyal, I see it everywhere
I would never have anything to do with anybody who wasn't interested in getting to the truth
These people make my skin crawl
-
At the end of chapter 20 of Wilkes' book it suggested that even 'Taff' Jones was disappointed that Jeremy was released on bail for the caravan park burglary, that isn't what I had been led to believe previously,I thought that 'Taff' took to his grave the belief that JB was innocent. I've also read Wilkes' account of Stan Jones' interviewing of JB and although I find the way it seems to be set out so as to suggest that Jeremy was possibly guilty I also think that I would like to behave the same way under interrogation for crime I honestly didn't commit. I found it a very honest and frank response to the questions, he simply refused to be drawn in by Stan Jones but that seems to have irked him more. He seems to have been a rather nasty chap.
I wonder ajross if the fact that Jeremy was from a priviledged background and had been to public school went against him. There could have been an inverted snobbery and unrecognised jealousy towards Jeremy which influenced people like Stan Jones in a negative way. No doubt not helped by Jeremys attitude but maybe that was misinterpreted by Stan Jones et al.
-
I wonder ajross if the fact that Jeremy was from a priviledged background and had been to public school went against him. There could have been an inverted snobbery and unrecognised jealousy towards Jeremy which influenced people like Stan Jones in a negative way. No doubt not helped by Jeremys attitude but maybe that was misinterpreted by Stan Jones et al.
This Jones charcater definitely had it in for him and you have to wonder why, the book makes it out to be more than just about a crime, it really does seem very personal.
-
Sorry to disagree Patti, but it's not. This was dealt with at the appeal in 2002, read paragraph 175 onwards :)
I would imagine that there'd have been more than a trace of residue on Sheila judging by the pic of her with the rifle resting on her body. Also " bloody " handmarks on her nightdress. Whose hands.?
Included, were 4 other " unidentified " prints on the rifle itself. What did the cops do,,toss a coin.?
-
Maggie
Jeremy must get used to people being disloyal, I see it everywhere
I would never have anything to do with anybody who wasn't interested in getting to the truth
These people make my skin crawl
The nature of the beast attracts a certain amount of publicity seekers and egoists unfortunately, that is for sure but it must be so difficult to be alienated from the world. I believe Jeremy has had some terrible times when he's been totally alone (apart from Mike) without hope. I guess you hang on to anything that promises you some sort of emotional security, even if it ends up becoming another trap.imo
-
So right Maggie, how many times can you survive being let down
The good news is I know from my contact with MWT is he is still right behind Jeremys campaign and I am almost certain we will be hearing from Mark again when the time is right
-
Sorry to disagree Patti, but it's not. This was dealt with at the appeal in 2002, read paragraph 175 onwards :)
I disagree again Bridget. DRH33 serial number 17 DRH44 serial number 75? are two separate hand swabs. After DRH33 had been rejected, the police could never have resubmitted the same swabs, it would be ludicrous to even suggest it and, not good practice by the police, especially after being told of cross examination. Bridget it is a good argument for any defence team...Therefore, the jury was misled into thinking that she had no residue on her hands... ;) ;)
-
I disagree again Bridget. DRH33 serial number 17 DRH44 serial number 75? are two separate hand swabs. After DRH33 had been rejected, the police could never have resubmitted the same swabs, it would be ludicrous to even suggest it and, not good practice by the police, especially after being told of cross examination. Bridget it is a good argument for any defence team...Therefore, the jury was misled into thinking that she had no residue on her hands... ;) ;)
But you are making exactly the argument made at appeal, and even jeremy's lawyer gave up on it. The court of appeal rejected it with a very full explanation.
-
But you are making exactly the argument made at appeal, and even jeremy's lawyer gave up on it. The court of appeal rejected it with a very full explanation.
What was that Bridget?
-
But you are making exactly the argument made at appeal, and even jeremy's lawyer gave up on it. The court of appeal rejected it with a very full explanation.
Flawed evidence Bridget, which makes the test pointless. Two different numbers and two different serial numbers...Are you saying the police resubmitted evidence that was rejected? Prove it...lol :)
-
I disagree again Bridget. DRH33 serial number 17 DRH44 serial number 75? are two separate hand swabs. After DRH33 had been rejected, the police could never have resubmitted the same swabs, it would be ludicrous to even suggest it and, not good practice by the police, especially after being told of cross examination. Bridget it is a good argument for any defence team...Therefore, the jury was misled into thinking that she had no residue on her hands... ;) ;)
Very good points Patti and I look forward to the next Appeal Court Hearing it's going to be a whole different story.
Bridget your friend Mrs Hall is getting slaughtered on the dark site she might appreciate your help.
-
But nothing like you'd expect if she has been firing a weapon so many times.
The test was botched - contaminated. Yet lo and behold, when the swabs were tested again there was little or trace of that contamination. Sorry, there are too many question marks against those tests
Sorry, I just don't trust everything posted here anymore - a lot of it I have found to be wrong or that I'm being bullshitted by people who want certain things to go away. (Not talking about you Patti or Mags).
Resorting to personal attacks: that's a hallmark of a weak case and an all too transparent propaganda exercises
But when I first joined I brought up the pyscopath - and was told that he's never failed a test for that, no expert has called him it - which was all utter bullshit but people took as fact.
Failure to mention the 20 odd psychologists who found JB was a psychopath: biased cherry picking is another indicator or transparent propaganda
I was also told that a sniffer dog was taken TO Jeremy to sniff him - which again was more spin and bullshit.
The reports are on here, why not read them?
And people wonder why Jeremy is in prison still...even those those post for his innocent evither don't have their stories straight (they have blamed sheila, posted their 'evidence' sheila did it) but then they change their opinion and suddenly...it was James Bell....they've got a new theory.....it's all doing so much harm.
More personalised attacks, more propaganda. New evidence is emerging which suggests Bell was a psychopath, that he had a history of violence, that he was a murderer, that he threatened Nevill, that he threw bullets at Nevill and threatened more to come, that he had a deep grudge against Nevill and his family, that Bell killed his wife and himself and attacked others within a year of the WHF murders. Bell had the motive, the means and the opportunity and that this was never raised at the trial
As you want the truth why are you not calling for this to be investigated?
And for the first time since I've joined I've realised that the forum really is doing more harm than good for Bamber. His supporters don't like each other, they fight on twitter, they post conflicting evidence..they confuse issues and they feed the defence team with so much stuff that it all just goes wrong.
You wish...
Infact, most of the members here have spent a while slagging down the campaign team.
Slagging off re slagging off: more propaganda
But I'm sure people here won't agree and don't see it.
Anti JB propaganda exercises like this one are all too transparent.
-
I wonder ajross if the fact that Jeremy was from a priviledged background and had been to public school went against him. There could have been an inverted snobbery and unrecognised jealousy towards Jeremy which influenced people like Stan Jones in a negative way. No doubt not helped by Jeremys attitude but maybe that was misinterpreted by Stan Jones et al.
Maggie, without a shadow of doubt.!!!!! When I first left school, like Jeremy, without a qualification, save elocution and voice production!!!, to my name, I did several dead end jobs. My life was made a living hell. I was bullied relentlessly. Despite being at the bottom of the pile, THEY said I thought I was better than them and accused me of "talking posh". I never knew that I spoke differently from anybody else. The difference lay in the fact that I was never rude, I never answered back and I was always polite.......and then THEY accused me of being insolent!!!!! I really couldn't win.
I can easily see how a hardnosed copper, who may have had to claw his way to his, now lofty position, who may have had to fight hard to achieve something better than he had started with (and well done him, for effort) would have been more than a little resentful of Jeremy.
-
Mat
Why are the psychopath etc tests jeremy has undertaken 'utter bullshit'?
They aren't, Maggie, it's pure propaganda to claim that they are.
-
I one thing just occured, I'm sure Mike posted that there was an empty tampon applicator in the living room, Wlkes states that Ann Eaton saw a tampon applicator with either half a tampon or half a tampon protruding. Does anybody know the truth of the matter? The reason I ask is that Robert Boutflour seems convinced that the tampon was used to clean the silencer somehow (according to Wilkes)
-
At the end of chapter 20 of Wilkes' book it suggested that even 'Taff' Jones was disappointed that Jeremy was released on bail for the caravan park burglary, that isn't what I had been led to believe previously,I thought that 'Taff' took to his grave the belief that JB was innocent. I've also read Wilkes' account of Stan Jones' interviewing of JB and although I find the way it seems to be set out so as to suggest that Jeremy was possibly guilty I also think that I would like to behave the same way under interrogation for crime I honestly didn't commit. I found it a very honest and frank response to the questions, he simply refused to be drawn in by Stan Jones but that seems to have irked him more. He seems to have been a rather nasty chap.
Excellent points, AJ, I agree with you.
-
Flawed evidence Bridget, which makes the test pointless. Two different numbers and two different serial numbers...Are you saying the police resubmitted evidence that was rejected? Prove it...lol :)
Yes they did and I don't need to, that was done at the appeal.
-
What was that Bridget?
Read the appeal Grahame - its too long winded to post here, especially from a phone :)
-
I one thing just occured, I'm sure Mike posted that there was an empty tampon applicator in the living room, Wlkes states that Ann Eaton saw a tampon applicator with either half a tampon or half a tampon protruding. Does anybody know the truth of the matter? The reason I ask is that Robert Boutflour seems convinced that the tampon was used to clean the silencer somehow (according to Wilkes)
Correct,,ajross,,,and also ( trying to be sensitive ) one was removed from Sheila.
-
Maggie, without a shadow of doubt.!!!!! When I first left school, like Jeremy, without a qualification, save elocution and voice production!!!, to my name, I did several dead end jobs. My life was made a living hell. I was bullied relentlessly. Despite being at the bottom of the pile, THEY said I thought I was better than them and accused me of "talking posh". I never knew that I spoke differently from anybody else. The difference lay in the fact that I was never rude, I never answered back and I was always polite.......and then THEY accused me of being insolent!!!!! I really couldn't win.
I can easily see how a hardnosed copper, who may have had to claw his way to his, now lofty position, who may have had to fight hard to achieve something better than he had started with (and well done him, for effort) would have been more than a little resentful of Jeremy.
I've often thought that inverted snobbery on the part of the police - Stan Jones, in particular - may have played a massive role in Jeremy's case.
-
Yes they did and I don't need to, that was done at the appeal.
So what you are saying then Bridget is that the police acted corruptly by resubmitting the swabs again and, that the lab was deceived into thinking the swabs had been retaken. For if the lab had known they were the same swabs, they would have rejected them again for they were meaningless as being treated as evidence.... :P :P :P
-
Mat, you should not trust ANYTHING posted here or anywhere else from those for or against Bamber. You must only trust that which had documented proof. a forum is just that, a forum and nothing else. It is a place for airing views and nothing else. It is not for finding evidence for freeing Bamber. That is for the defence team and for them alone. I don't expect anything any of us say on this forum would do anything for Jeremy Bamber or will make him more guilty or less guilty. If you thought that the forum was the place where you could download documentary proof of Bamber's guilt or innocence then you have come to the wrong place. And I hate to say it. Butthis applies to any forum whether it be this or another.
I know you shouldn't trust on a forum but the problem is when posters know that statements don't back up their claims yet they still go on and on trying to convince people that their latest theory is the one to listen to.
That's true propaganda.
-
Correct,,ajross,,,and also ( trying to be sensitive ) one was removed from Sheila.
Sorry, so who was correct, the suggestion that it was empty or the suggestion that it was half-full or at least present? It seems important not because of her period but because it was an important part of Robert Boutflour's theory that this was just the right size to have been prodded down the silencer with the barrel of the toy plastic gun in the living rom. Now, if the tampon wasn't there when the police were there but was there laster when Ann Eaton claims to have seen it, that it rather important.
-
This Jones charcater definitely had it in for him and you have to wonder why, the book makes it out to be more than just about a crime, it really does seem very personal.
These days, Stan Jones would not be allowed to interrogate anyone in the manner with he interrogated Jeremy in 1985.
Also, Stan Jones seemed unable to string a question together with any clarity. Far too many of his question's were hopelessly confused, confusing and totally misleading. Time after time Jeremy understandably had no option but to request clarification of what exactly Jones was asking him and each time Jeremy made such a request Jones took it as Jeremy taking the mickey out of Jones - and as an indication of Jeremy's guilt! What a disgraceful interrogation it was.
-
Anti JB propaganda exercises like this one are all too transparent.
Mat, your arguments really are weak and your knowledge is surprisingly poor.
-
These days, Stan Jones would not be allowed to interrogate anyone in the manner with he interrogated Jeremy in 1985.
Also, Stan Jones seemed unable to string a question together with any clarity. Far too many of his question's were hopelessly confused, confusing and totally misleading. Time after time Jeremy understandably had no option but to request clarification of what exactly Jones was asking him and each time Jeremy made such a request Jones took it as Jeremy taking the mickey out of Jones - and as an indication of Jeremy's guilt! What a disgraceful interrogation it was.
Hi Keira
You only have to read JB's statement to realise that he was trying to put words into his mouth.....He went on and and on for hours about the telephone calls.....asking the same questions over and over again....Jeremy called him a hard bastard...in the end. :) :)
-
I know you shouldn't trust on a forum but the problem is when posters know that statements don't back up their claims yet they still go on and on trying to convince people that their latest theory is the one to listen to.
That's true propaganda.
Are you suggesting we all work for the Sun? Hahaha ;)
-
Mat, your arguments really are weak and your knowledge is surprisingly poor.
Maggie - maybe you've just spent too much time listening to the wrong people on this forum and being fed what they want you to believe about the case - yet they dismiss so much.
Instead of listening to what people want you to believe then you should just read all of the information that is out there.
You'll be suprised.
Are you suggesting we all work for the Sun? Hahaha ;)
no, when has the sun shown any interest in Bamber lately?
-
These days, Stan Jones would not be allowed to interrogate anyone in the manner with he interrogated Jeremy in 1985.
Also, Stan Jones seemed unable to string a question together with any clarity. Far too many of his question's were hopelessly confused, confusing and totally misleading. Time after time Jeremy understandably had no option but to request clarification of what exactly Jones was asking him and each time Jeremy made such a request Jones took it as Jeremy taking the mickey out of Jones - and as an indication of Jeremy's guilt! What a disgraceful interrogation it was.
Makes one wonder what qualifications a person needs to be able to join the Police. An IQ test maybe, or, at least, a basic English Language test?
-
Just stating that,, yes,,the tampons were used to clean out the gun barrel,,,which would probably account for there not being as much residue as might have been. Also coincidence that the said tampons should be at hand for the use of,,,by Sheila.
-
Mat
I really object to being treated like some sort of saddo who just wants to make things I don't like go away. Have lived long enough mat to realise quite the opposite that things I don't like mainly don't go away and the way you get through is to face them. Neither Patti nor I deserve to be subliminally accused of being bimbos, we are both intelligent women and are able to reason and work things out as well as you are.
-
Mat
I really object to being treated like some sort of saddo who just wants to make things I don't like go away. Have lived long enough mat to realise quite the opposite that things I don't like mainly don't go away and the way you get through is to face them. Neither Patti nor I deserve to be subliminally accused of being bimbos, we are both intelligent women and are able to reason and work things out as well as you are.
I don't know why you're bringing Patti or yourself into this. If you look at my first post Maggie, I say that my statements AREN'T aimed at Maggie or Patti.
-
Maggie - maybe you've just spent too much time listening to the wrong people on this forum and being fed what they want you to believe about the case - yet they dismiss so much.
Instead of listening to what people want you to believe then you should just read all of the information that is out there.
You'll be suprised.
no, when has the sun shown any interest in Bamber lately?
Likewise. Take your own advice!!
-
I know you shouldn't trust on a forum but the problem is when posters know that statements don't back up their claims yet they still go on and on trying to convince people that their latest theory is the one to listen to.
That's true propaganda.
Why are you so anxious about the James Bell evidence being examined?
Why are you trying to close down debate on this?
What this evidence means is that there are now two compelling alternative suspects. It does not rule out Sheila as a suspect.
-
Likewise. Take your own advice!!
I did, HMESSEX. But who can double check everything they are told here?
I trusted that statements said what people here said they did. I trusted one person who said that a dog was used to sniff Bamber.
But when you look into it, you realise not everything is as it seems.
-
Maggie - maybe you've just spent too much time listening to the wrong people on this forum and being fed what they want you to believe about the case - yet they dismiss so much.
Instead of listening to what people want you to believe then you should just read all of the information that is out there.
You'll be suprised.
no, when has the sun shown any interest in Bamber lately?
Hilarious post, since when did Maggie not make her own mind up about anything
Intelligent, honest, loyal and very strong minded girl
That's Maggie
-
Where's my Mertol.....He said he would be here at 9pm. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Why are you so anxious about the James Bell evidence being examined?
Why are you trying to close down debate on this?
What this evidence means is that there are now two compelling alternative suspects. It does not rule out Sheila as a suspect.
I have you on ignore - so you're lucky I saw this I have to download each post.
You've been the one person sending me PM after PM because you wanted to bring me 'up to date' with all the evidence that was pointing to Sheila. It's countless how much you've sent to me and how many links you've sent - I'm sure you agree.
So for you to now be so sure that James Bell needs to be looked into - what happened to all of this proof you had for Sheila?
If you want to look into James Bell... then go for it...but one minute you're trying to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxat the defence for more tests..and the next you're following another lead.
-
Hilarious post, since when did Maggie not make her own mind up about anything
Intelligent, honest, loyal and very strong minded girl
That's Maggie
Thank you Jackie. Also thank you mat, I do appreciate hearing your opinion of me. ;D ;D
-
I did, HMESSEX. But who can double check everything they are told here?
I trusted that statements said what people here said they did. I trusted one person who said that a dog was used to sniff Bamber.
More personal attacks and propanda, Do you not have any arguments that don't rely on personal attacks? So weak.
EP's reports already posted here show Mercer took the dog up to Bamber.
But when you look into it, you realise not everything is as it seems.
-
Keira, how is it a personal attack to say that I've been told things on this website that were not true?
-
I did, HMESSEX. But who can double check everything they are told here?
I trusted that statements said what people here said they did. I trusted one person who said that a dog was used to sniff Bamber.
But when you look into it, you realise not everything is as it seems.
Mat, there are people on this site who have spoken to the dog handler, strangely he's still around in that part of the world. because this isn't an intellectual struggle but a true life and death situation. He apparently says he is convinced Jeremy is innocent.
-
I have you on ignore - so you're lucky I saw this I have to download each post.
You've been the one person sending me PM after PM because you wanted to bring me 'up to date' with all the evidence that was pointing to Sheila. It's countless how much you've sent to me and how many links you've sent - I'm sure you agree.
So for you to now be so sure that James Bell needs to be looked into - what happened to all of this proof you had for Sheila?
If you want to look into James Bell... then go for it...but one minute you're trying to throw your money at the defence for more tests..and the next you're following another lead.
Why will you not answer my questions? Because you can't.
Why are you so anxious about the James Bell evidence being examined?
Why are you trying to close down debate on this?
-
Hilarious post, since when did Maggie not make her own mind up about anything
Intelligent, honest, loyal and very strong minded girl
That's Maggie
Maggie like many of the female members are strong witty and are very valued members anyone who has a issue with that walk into the sunset you wont be missed.
-
Mat, there are people on this site who have spoken to the dog handler, strangely he's still around in that part of the world. because this isn't an intellectual struggle but a true life and death situation. He apparently says he is convinced Jeremy is innocent.
I understand you believe that, Maggie. But don't you also think it is important to keep an open mind - because someoen tells you that they have spoken to the dog handler does not mean that it is true.
-
Where's my Mertol.....He said he would be here at 9pm. ;D ;D ;D ;D
mertol is here miss marple
-
I have you on ignore - so you're lucky I saw this I have to download each post.
You've been the one person sending me PM after PM because you wanted to bring me 'up to date' with all the evidence that was pointing to Sheila. It's countless how much you've sent to me and how many links you've sent - I'm sure you agree.So for you to now be so sure that James Bell needs to be looked into - what happened to all of this proof you had for Sheila?
If you want to look into James Bell... then go for it...but one minute you're trying to throw your money at the defence for more tests..and the next you're following another lead.
Oh God! Here we go again.
Give it rest, Mat.
-
Oh God! Here we go again.
Give it rest, Mat.
No, she has. She'll tell you. It's not a bad thing. Since I joined Keira has sent me a lot of information that she believes points to Sheila being guilty and Jeremy being innocent. It's not an attack she will tell you the same thing.
-
I understand you believe that, Maggie. But don't you also think it is important to keep an open mind - because someoen tells you that they have spoken to the dog handler does not mean that it is true.
Julie Mugford I rest my case
Did you believe Mugford mat
-
Patti how far have you read into the Scott Lomax book ?
-
Julie Mugford I rest my case
Did you believe Mugford mat
I believe that Jeremy spoke about the want to kill his family to her, yes. I believe that he called her the night he killed them - which he says he did too - which seems strange to me.
Bamber is a liar, he stole money and terrorfied people and hid behind the fact that he was testing security - yet he never gave the money back.
I believe the silencer evidence. I think it's true which is why the defence has tried so many different ways to discredit it but it hasn't worked.
-
I have you on ignore - so you're lucky I saw this I have to download each post.
You've been the one person sending me PM after PM because you wanted to bring me 'up to date' with all the evidence that was pointing to Sheila. It's countless how much you've sent to me and how many links you've sent - I'm sure you agree.
So for you to now be so sure that James Bell needs to be looked into - what happened to all of this proof you had for Sheila?
If you want to look into James Bell... then go for it...but one minute xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxat the defence for more tests..and the next you're following another lead.
Wrong! I'm continuing to study both Sheila and Bell as they are equally strong candidates.
And yes, I shall contribute towards the cost of the next tests.
-
Wrong! I'm continuing to study both Sheila and Bell as they are equally strong candidates.
And yes, I shall contribute towards the cost of the next tests.
Not when I first joined, Keira. When we spoke - and we did every night - you believed it to be Sheila completely. Don't you agree?
-
I understand you believe that, Maggie. But don't you also think it is important to keep an open mind - because someoen tells you that they have spoken to the dog handler does not mean that it is true.
I have an open mind mat, it's so open that when someone tells me that they work for an agency who works for the CCRC, I keep an open mind. ;D ;D
-
I have you on ignore - so you're lucky I saw this I have to download each post.
Rubbish, once is luck, several times is akin to desperation.
-
I have an open mind mat, it's so open that when someone tells me that they work for an agency who works for the CCRC, I keep an open mind. ;D ;D
Do you really though?
-
I have an open mind mat, it's so open that when someone tells me that they work for an agency who works for the CCRC, I keep an open mind. ;D ;D
Maggie mat works for jack diddly nowt we have been fooled too often in the past its complete rowlocks.
-
I believe that Jeremy spoke about the want to kill his family to her, yes. I believe that he called her the night he killed them - which he says he did too - which seems strange to me.
Bamber is a liar, he stole money and terrorfied people and hid behind the fact that he was testing security - yet he never gave the money back.
I believe the silencer evidence. I think it's true which is why the defence has tried so many different ways to discredit it but it hasn't worked.
Weak weak weak you believe all that but don't believe about the impartial dog handler
-
No, she has. She'll tell you. It's not a bad thing. Since I joined Keira has sent me a lot of information that she
Mat, I believe keeping an open mind means that we can all consider more than one possibility.
-
Patti how far have you read into the Scott Lomax book ?
Hi Mertol :) Could have sworn I had answered you. I am on chapter 9 the sound moderator. It is a must buy Mertol... :) :) :)
-
Not when I first joined, Keira. When we spoke - and we did every night - you believed it to be Sheila completely. Don't you agree?
I had not then seen what I regard as the strong evidence of an equally compelling candidate.
-
I mean why would a killer leave evidence like a sound moderator around, knowing that the police could find it in their search. Opps...they didn't the family did.. 8)
-
Hi Mertol :) Could have sworn I had answered you. I am on chapter 9 the sound moderator. It is a must buy Mertol... :) :) :)
Ah the dodgy sound moderator ..i see a columbo question for you patti is there anything documented that the room the silencer was found in was lit that night ?
-
Maggie mat works for jack diddly nowt we have been fooled too often in the past its complete rowlocks.
If you believe that, you're wrong.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
So keep an open mind, Mertol.
I had not then seen what I regard as the strong evidence of an equally compelling candidate.
So the evidence you saw that it was Sheila suddenly leaves doubt that it could have been someone else?
-
I believe that Jeremy spoke about the want to kill his family to her, yes. I believe that he called her the night he killed them - which he says he did too - which seems strange to me.
Bamber is a liar, he stole money and terrorfied people and hid behind the fact that he was testing security - yet he never gave the money back.
I believe the silencer evidence. I think it's true which is why the defence has tried so many different ways to discredit it but it hasn't worked.
|Mat whatever Jeremy and Julie did with the caravan park break in it was a family problem, if the family hadn't died it would have been another problem for the long suffering parents to sort. Did you never in your youth do anything your family didn't like? If you never rebelled and did stupid things well I think your'e unusual.
-
|Mat whatever Jeremy and Julie did with the caravan park break in it was a family problem, if the family hadn't died it would have been another problem for the long suffering parents to sort. Did you never in your youth do anything your family didn't like? If you never rebelled and did stupid things well I think your'e unusual.
I'm not saying I am perfect. But did I ever steal from my family? No I never did that.
I've seen people here saying that Jeremy can't have done it because he loved his parents. But I think stealing from them and scaring them is enough to question how strong that love was.
-
Do you really though?
I really do mat. It has been tested on many occasions and I have struggled sometimes to learn acceptance and understanding. I think my mind is open.
-
Ah the dodgy sound moderator ..i see a columbo question for you patti is there anything documented that the room the silencer was found in was lit that night ?
No mertol...The only lights on were, main bedroom at the front of the house. Twins bedroom, upstairs bathroom, and Kitchen. :) :) :) :)
-
If you believe that, you're wrong.
I managed to convince Keira - even though when I joined she disliked me right away and goaded me all the time by calling me Matt when I asked her not to. But then I sent her a PM and we became friends because she saw through most of the bullshit people were saying about me.
And a month after I joined and the CCRC released their letter. Keira sent me and said "You were right all along!" because the letter was bascially the words I have been using the entire time.
So keep an open mind, Mertol.
So the evidence you saw that it was Sheila suddenly leaves doubt that it could have been someone else?
Grahame is right mikes forum is an interactive portal for people who have a intrest in the case be that for or against jb, i refuse to believe you know anymore than me or anyone else one thing you may have forgot mikes forum is a pro forum once some screwball had issues with that.
-
Maggie like many of the female members are strong witty and are very valued members anyone who has a issue with that walk into the sunset you wont be missed.
Thank you mertol, I do appreciate that, you are very kind.x
-
No mertol...The only lights on were, main bedroom at the front of the house. Twins bedroom, upstairs bathroom, and Kitchen. :) :) :) :)
Thanks patti , were these lights still on , at the event of the storming at or around 07.30am ?
-
I believe that Jeremy spoke about the want to kill his family to her, yes. I believe that he called her the night he killed them - which he says he did too - which seems strange to me.
Bamber is a liar, he stole money and terrorfied people and hid behind the fact that he was testing security - yet he never gave the money back.
I believe the silencer evidence. I think it's true which is why the defence has tried so many different ways to discredit it but it hasn't worked.
Mat, when did Jeremy ever terrify people?
-
If you believe that, you're wrong.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
So keep an open mind, Mertol.
So the evidence you saw that it was Sheila suddenly leaves doubt that it could have been someone else?
Read my posts again: "equally strong candidate"
-
I mean why would a killer leave evidence like a sound moderator around, knowing that the police could find it in their search. Opps...they didn't the family did.. 8)
Nice one Pattix
-
Read my posts again: "equally strong candidate"
Well it would make more sense if you weren't editing tons of my posts again, Keira. How can I debate with you or anyone when you edit the posts so they don't make sense?
-
I'm not saying I am perfect. But did I ever steal from my family? No I never did that.
I've seen people here saying that Jeremy can't have done it because he loved his parents. But I think stealing from them and scaring them is enough to question how strong that love was.
Well mat, kids do stuff. Mostly they don't think about scaring their parents. Sometimes it takes a big lesson to realise that your parents actually get scared and are human.
-
Thanks patti , were these lights still on , at the event of the storming at or around 07.30am ?
I know the bedroom light was on when photo's were taken, you can see the reflection...Don't know about the rest of the lights being on when they went in...I suppose they were....
But, Bews doesn't mention a light being on when Myall see movement in a room, which i find interesting... :) :) :)
-
Well mat, kids do stuff. Mostly they don't think about scaring their parents. Sometimes it takes a big lesson to realise that your parents actually get scared and are human.
Kids, sure. But do you think Jeremy was a kid at the time?
-
Well it would make more sense if you weren't editing tons of my posts again, Keira. How can I debate with you or anyone when you edit the posts so they don't make sense?
Avoid personal attacks directed at members and the posts won't be mod'd.
-
I know the bedroom light was on when photo's were taken, you can see the reflection...Don't know about the rest of the lights being on when they went in...I suppose they were....
But, Bews doesn't mention a light being on when Myall see movement in a room, which i find interesting... :) :) :)
That is interesting Patti because other PCs say all the lights were on. The lights issue is different in every statement.
-
Nice one Pattix
Thanks maggie....that's not all they found though...in fact they found everything and were the prosecutors. The police just left it too them, for they found nothing which resulted in JB being found guilty.... :) :) :) :)
-
Mat...........If you feel that Jeremy stealing from the caravan park make him a good candidate for a murderer,what does that make Peter Eaton,who xxxx from the Bamber company after the murders?Can we trust the witness statements of this xxxx?Or should we just dismiss everything he has said because if he is a xxxx,then surely he is a xxx and possibly a xxxx too?
For your own sake, Tyler, please be careful about allegations in your post. Could you do this again quoting the statement? Then you're covered
-
I know the bedroom light was on when photo's were taken, you can see the reflection...Don't know about the rest of the lights being on when they went in...I suppose they were....
But, Bews doesn't mention a light being on when Myall see movement in a room, which i find interesting... :) :) :)
it may be nothing patti but im sure bews said both him and jeremy thought they saw movement in the upstairs window 2 people cant be wrong.
-
Avoid personal attacks directed at members and the posts won't be mod'd.
Is that your official line? That it was a personal attack? Because you have made it look like you've edited out one line when in reality you've deleted about 20. Including what I said about the CCRC's letter regarding the defence submissions.
Mat...........If you feel that Jeremy stealing from the caravan park make him a good candidate for a murderer,what does that make Peter Eaton,who xxxx from the Bamber company after the murders?Can we trust the witness statements of thisxxxx?Or should we just dismiss everything he has said because if he is a xxxxxthen surely he is a xxxx and possibly a xxxxx too?
Not that it makes him a good candidate for murder, I'm not saying that. But that it doesn't co-exist with members saying he loved his family and would never do ANYTHING to hurt them.
-
Kids, sure. But do you think Jeremy was a kid at the time?
Jeremy at 24 was a kid. most young men who have been sheltered and haven't had to worry about where the money's coming from at 24 are 'kids' in a wider sense of the word. More 24 year olds are kids today because life has been easier for them growing up.
-
That is interesting Patti because other PCs say all the lights were on. The lights issue is different in every statement.
Hi maggie, I know JB is adamant that it was the main bedroom that Myall sees movement, but Bews tells a different story...he claims it was at the back of the house, he noted a light on in the kitchen....top right hand window...to me sounds like the box room....the same room as Jeapes sees a rifle leaning at the window...Brown also sees a rifle at the window, but I his statement is not available...:( X
-
Jeremy at 24 was a kid. most young men who have been sheltered and haven't had to worry about where the money's coming from at 24 are 'kids' in a wider sense of the word. More 24 year olds are kids today because life has been easier for them growing up.
I've called Jeremy a kid before on here Maggie and people did not like it. I said kids kill their parents all the time and the response I got was that he wasn't a kid! he was in his twenties!
Yet I always found him to be immature, a craver of attention and childlike so yeah I am inclined to agree with you.
-
Mat........when Jeremy stole from the caravan park,he was in effect stealing from himself as it was partly his business too.And he held his hands up to it didnt he?He could have denied it as there was no proof.Most of his family were deceitful...doesnt make them murderers!
-
it may be nothing patti but im sure bews said both him and jeremy thought they saw movement in the upstairs window 2 people cant be wrong.
He does Mertol. Bews is not consistent first he says it was JB that sees movement, then his latest video he says it was Myall. It's confusing...lol makes me drink more... :) :) ;)
-
Mat........when Jeremy stole from the caravan park,he was in effect stealing from himself as it was partly his business too.And he held his hands up to it didnt he?He could have denied it as there was no proof.Most of his family were deceitful...doesnt make them murderers!
Tyler, I've JUST told you. I am not saying it makes them murderers.
-
Lets see the time 11.45 pm , yeah jeremy would be now most likely finishing off a scotch before hitting the sack, he would have if he did not go to the continent after the events because no one would have snooped around the house would they ? think that over
-
Mat...........If you feel that Jeremy stealing from the caravan park make him a good candidate for a murderer,what does that make Peter Eaton,who xxxx from the Bamber company after the murders?Can we trust the witness statements of this xxxx?Or should we just dismiss everything he has said because if he is a xxxx,then surely he is a xxx and possibly a xxxx too?
For your own sake, Tyler, please be careful about allegations in your post. Could you do this again quoting the statement? Then you're covered
They are not my allegations Keira,they are Barbara Wilsons,but..........understood anyway :)
-
They are not my allegations Keira,they are Barbara Wilsons,but..........understood anyway :)
I know, Tyker, I want to hear them could you post what she stated?
-
He does Mertol. Bews is not consistent first he says it was JB that sees movement, then his latest video he says it was Myall. It's confusing...lol makes me drink more... :) :) ;)
ive had 2 cans of gaymers cider but can still type patti...
-
Tyler, I've JUST told you. I am not saying it makes them murderers.
Then why do you "anti's" always bring up the burglary?We all make mistakes dont we?And do things that we regret?
-
I know, Jackie.
-
Hi maggie, I know JB is adamant that it was the main bedroom that Myall sees movement, but Bews tells a different story...he claims it was at the back of the house, he noted a light on in the kitchen....top right hand window...to me sounds like the box room....the same room as Jeapes sees a rifle leaning at the window...Brown also sees a rifle at the window, but I his statement is not available...:( X
I know the whole rifle window thing is a connundrum. The fact is they may both be right, someone may have been moving around. However, one thing is for sure Bews ian't the best witness in the world. The kitchen light was on, or was it the laundry/scullery room that the light was on. There seems to be confusion about whether it was the kitchen or the scullery. Whether the first body seen through the window was in the laundry/scullery or the kitchen. It's so confusing.
-
I know, Tyker, I want to hear them could you post what she stated?
Keira,her statement is on the forum somewhere,but I dont fancy wading through to find it.You are much better at searching out things than me! :)
-
I know the whole rifle window thing is a connundrum. The fact is they may both be right, someone may have been moving around. However, one thing is for sure Bews ian't the best witness in the world. The kitchen light was on, or was it the laundry/scullery room that the light was on. There seems to be confusion about whether it was the kitchen or the scullery. Whether the first body seen through the window was in the laundry/scullery or the kitchen. It's so confusing.
The witheld video recordings if they exist would end this here and now maggie.
-
Keira,her statement is on the forum somewhere,but I dont fancy wading through to find it.You are much better at searching out things than me! :)
Not at present, the search facility's gone down
-
Not at present, the search facility's gone down
Oh dear :( x
-
Keira, why are you deleting posts where xxxx is mentioned? Even though he's mentioned here a hundred times a day and he isnt being mentioned in a negative fashion?
-
Any more personal attacks or personal references to member of Jeremy's defence team or others and I shall be recommending bans
-
Any more personal attacks or personal references to member of Jeremy's defence team or others and I shall be recommending bans
Is this for everyone? Or just me? I can't mention his name? Even though it isn't in a negative fashion?
-
Keira, why are you deleting posts where xxxxx is mentioned? Even though he's mentioned here a hundred times a day and he isnt being mentioned in a negative fashion?
I will not allow his name to be abused
-
I know the whole rifle window thing is a connundrum. The fact is they may both be right, someone may have been moving around. However, one thing is for sure Bews ian't the best witness in the world. The kitchen light was on, or was it the laundry/scullery room that the light was on. There seems to be confusion about whether it was the kitchen or the scullery. Whether the first body seen through the window was in the laundry/scullery or the kitchen. It's so confusing.
So true maggie. I am really surprised the jury wasn't taken there, to understand the layout of the place.
I must admit for months I had thought a bullet case was found on the back stairs, which leads up form the kitchen....but I was so wrong....The poor jury got 19 days...mind you I am slow when it comes to things like that...I can get lost in my own city... :) :) :)
-
I will not allow his name to be abused
How's his name being abused when I say that I will send the information to him so that he see what has been done and that someone is pretending to be him?
-
Is this for everyone? Or just me? I can't mention his name? Even though it isn't in a negative fashion?
The post was used in a manner which allied his name with misconduct, I will not allow that.
-
The post was used in a manner which allied his name with misconduct, I will not allow that.
No, what was said it that I would pass the information onto him for him to deal with becuase I know it wasn't actually him.
-
Mat I could not be bothered to phone McDonalds on a Saturday morning
-
Anyone for tennis? Lol...........
-
Mat I could not be bothered to phone McDonalds on a Saturday morning
This is the last time I am going to say this - it was A MAN. A MAN! MAN VOICE. I'm not saying it was you.
MAN
MAN
MAN.
-
Anyone for tennis? Lol...........
You cannot be serious man..
-
I've called Jeremy a kid before on here Maggie and people did not like it. I said kids kill their parents all the time and the response I got was that he wasn't a kid! he was in his twenties!
Yet I always found him to be immature, a craver of attention and childlike so yeah I am inclined to agree with you.
Mat
Jeremy may well have been imature, he hadn't exactly had to get his hands dirty (well actually he had come to think of it) but he was priviledged. He was very good looking ( pissed loads of people off I should think, it's amazing how hated a good looking person can be). He may have craved attention, adopted children have problems of rejection and insecurity even when growing up in a secure family. None of these things in any way make someone a killer. Always there is this belief, it was easier for Jeremy to kill his adopted parents, who he had never bonded with than a natural child. This is so unfair and completely missing the point that the majority of adopted children love their adopted parents no matter what their attitude to their natural parents is. Jeremy, of course wasn't interested in meeting his natural parents, this is quoted as tho there is a lack in Jeremy. Some adopted children need to meet their natural mother and some do not. I have two adopted children with two different attitudes. More to do with their genes than anything. They both love me their mum to exactly the same degree.
-
You cannot be serious man..
the ball was definitely out....hahahaha
-
Anyone for tennis? Lol...........
Discussing the case would be even better.
-
The witheld video recordings if they exist would end this here and now maggie.
Yes, they would mertol, if only.
-
Mat
Jeremy may well have been imature, he hadn't exactly had to get his hands dirty (well actually he had come to think of it) but he was priviledged. He was very good looking ( pissed loads of people off I should think, it's amazing how hated a good looking person can be). He may have craved attention, adopted children have problems of rejection and insecurity even when growing up in a secure family. None of these things in any way make someone a killer. Always there is this thing, it was easier for Jeremy to kill his adopted parents, who he had never bonded with than a natural child. This is so unfair and completely missing the point that the majority of adopted children love their adopted parents no matter what their attitude to their natural parents is. Jeremy, of course wasn't interested in meeting his natural parents, this is quoted as tho there is a lack in Jeremy. Some adopted children need to meet their natural mother and some do not. I have two adopted children with two different attitudes. More to do with their genes than anything. They both love me their mum to exactly the same degree.
maggie that is a lovely post... :) :) :) :)
-
So true maggie. I am really surprised the jury wasn't taken there, to understand the layout of the place.
I must admit for months I had thought a bullet case was found on the back stairs, which leads up form the kitchen....but I was so wrong....The poor jury got 19 days...mind you I am slow when it comes to things like that...I can get lost in my own city... :) :) :)
Patti, so can I my sense of direction is chronic but you are not slow at sussing stuff.xx
-
Mat
Jeremy may well have been imature, he hadn't exactly had to get his hands dirty (well actually he had come to think of it) but he was priviledged. He was very good looking ( pissed loads of people off I should think, it's amazing how hated a good looking person can be). He may have craved attention, adopted children have problems of rejection and insecurity even when growing up in a secure family. None of these things in any way make someone a killer. Always there is this thing, it was easier for Jeremy to kill his adopted parents, who he had never bonded with than a natural child. This is so unfair and completely missing the point that the majority of adopted children love their adopted parents no matter what their attitude to their natural parents is. Jeremy, of course wasn't interested in meeting his natural parents, this is quoted as tho there is a lack in Jeremy. Some adopted children need to meet their natural mother and some do not. I have two adopted children with two different attitudes. More to do with their genes than anything. They both love me their mum to exactly the same degree.
maggie there are some things about jeremy that need noting
He did not get involved in fights every night
He was no idle slob eating pizza watching video rentals
He worked long hours on the farm
He did not steal motorbikes every week riding around Essex
He did not dress like a tramp
He had a job and paid his way not begging to the dole office.
-
Patti, so can I my sense of direction is chronic but you are not slow at sussing stuff.xx
And you are one sweet lady...X
-
maggie there are some things about jeremy that need noting
He did not get involved in fights every night
He was no idle slob eating pizza watching video rentals
He worked long hours on the farm
He did not steal motorbikes every week riding around Essex
He did not dress like a tramp
He had a job and paid his way not begging to the dole office.
Good points, Mertol
-
And he didn't have a string of convictions as a teenager
-
Patti, so can I my sense of direction is chronic but you are not slow at sussing stuff.xx
Take a look at any post patti makes maggie, they all share a common theme , brisk to get on with it , sharp, so im going to give patti a 1% share in my ice cream van revenue.
-
And you are one sweet lady...X
Thank you patti, so are youxx
-
And he didn't live the high life that the papers said he did.
He went to clubs 3 or 4 times a month and drank at the local pub...
When he went the Amsterdam, with BC and JM all 3 shared a room at the cost of 29 quid a night...it wan't the posh hotel that the papers said he stayed in...
Night all, don't have nightmares.... :) :) :) :)
-
Night, Patti
-
maggie there are some things about jeremy that need noting
He did not get involved in fights every night
He was no idle slob eating pizza watching video rentals
He worked long hours on the farm
He did not steal motorbikes every week riding around Essex
He did not dress like a tramp
He had a job and paid his way not begging to the dole office.
Totally true mertolx
-
Take a look at any post patti makes maggie, they all share a common theme , brisk to get on with it , sharp, so im going to give patti a 1% share in my ice cream van revenue.
Awwww thank you Mertol, you know I love ice cream. Your a star! X
-
And he didn't live the high life that the papers said he did.
He went to clubs 3 or 4 times a month and drank at the local pub...
When he went the Amsterdam, with BC and JM all 3 shared a room at the cost of 29 quid a night...it wan't the posh hotel that the papers said he stayed in...
Night all, don't have nightmares.... :) :) :) :)
nite patti kip well.
-
Take a look at any post patti makes maggie, they all share a common theme , brisk to get on with it , sharp, so im going to give patti a 1% share in my ice cream van revenue.
I think that is a fair return mertol.xx
-
And he didn't live the high life that the papers said he did.
He went to clubs 3 or 4 times a month and drank at the local pub...
When he went the Amsterdam, with BC and JM all 3 shared a room at the cost of 29 quid a night...it wan't the posh hotel that the papers said he stayed in...
Night all, don't have nightmares.... :) :) :) :)
Night Pattsx
-
Mat, you should not trust ANYTHING posted here or anywhere else from those for or against Bamber. You must only trust that which had documented proof. a forum is just that, a forum and nothing else. It is a place for airing views and nothing else. It is not for finding evidence for freeing Bamber. That is for the defence team and for them alone. I don't expect anything any of us say on this forum would do anything for Jeremy Bamber or will make him more guilty or less guilty. If you thought that the forum was the place where you could download documentary proof of Bamber's guilt or innocence then you have come to the wrong place. And I hate to say it. Butthis applies to any forum whether it be this or another.
Good post.
-
So what you are saying then Bridget is that the police acted corruptly by resubmitting the swabs again and, that the lab was deceived into thinking the swabs had been retaken. For if the lab had known they were the same swabs, they would have rejected them again for they were meaningless as being treated as evidence.... :P :P :P
In what way is it corrupt to resubmit the swabs? The worst that could have happened is that they could have been contaminated by the firearms they were originally submitted with, but in fact they were clean. All of this is in the appeal court decision.
-
I have you on ignore - so you're lucky I saw this I have to download each post.
You've been the one person sending me PM after PM because you wanted to bring me 'up to date' with all the evidence that was pointing to Sheila. It's countless how much you've sent to me and how many links you've sent - I'm sure you agree.
So for you to now be so sure that James Bell needs to be looked into - what happened to all of this proof you had for Sheila?
If you want to look into James Bell... then go for it...but one minute you're trying to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxat the defence for more tests..and the next you're following another lead.
Mat, perhaps we are only doing what the police should have done in the beginning? That is to follow every lead and there were leads that they simply did not follow up. That is what we are doing here on the forum. A bit like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. You try one bit and if it doesn't fit then try another bit and so on. That's how I look at it anyway. Unfortunately those who think JB to be guilty only seem to follow one path, the official line of things. But if you look at the evidence that was presented in court and the wealth of evidence that was witheld it soon becomes apparent that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
What is more all enquiries into the case recognise this. But still refuse to act upon it.
-
I disagree that all enquries into the case recognise it. In fact it is the opposite and they are happy that Jeremy's conviction is safe.
-
Mat, perhaps we are only doing what the police should have done in the beginning? That is to follow every lead and there were leads that they simply did not follow up. That is what we are doing here on the forum. A bit like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. You try one bit and if it doesn't fit then try another bit and so on. That's how I look at it anyway. Unfortunately those who think JB to be guilty only seem to follow one path, the official line of things. But if you look at the evidence that was presented in court and the wealth of evidence that was witheld it soon becomes apparent that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
What is more all enquiries into the case recognise this. But still refuse to act upon it.
What enquiries recognise that?
-
I disagree that all enquries into the case recognise it. In fact it is the opposite and they are happy that Jeremy's conviction is safe.
In this country, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the truth though is it?
-
In this country, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the truth though is it?
I would say so. They are happy that the convicition is correct and safe and that anything offered up after the conviction has been either hear-say or incomplete.
I see the CCRC bashed so much - but what do you want them to do with incomplete tests? Let him out of prison?
-
I disagree that all enquries into the case recognise it. In fact it is the opposite and they are happy that Jeremy's conviction is safe.
Will you state your alleged authority for this claim?
-
Will you state your alleged authority for this claim?
The entire appeal process....
The case is heard and he is trying to overturn the conviction but he fails...
-
was the conviction safe for the birmingham 6 at ALL times, prior to the quashing if this country still had the death penalty they would now all be dead.
-
The entire appeal process....
The case is heard and he is trying to overturn the conviction but he fails...
No one can make this claim while the case is subject to a JR
-
was the conviction safe for the birmingham 6 at ALL times, prior to the quashing if this country still had the death penalty they would now all be dead.
No. That is why in the end they were released.
If you have strong evidence as they did - for Bamber - I'd love to hear it.
-
No one can make this claim while the case is subject to a JR
Of course the claim can be made that enquries have found his conviction safe. It happenend again just a few months ago!
It's being discussed whether that was fair and just. But it still happened.
-
No. That is why in the end they were released.
If you have strong evidence as they did - for Bamber - I'd love to hear it.
You have indicated here many times that your mind is closed on this case. You refuse to see the flaws in the grounds for convicition.
-
No one can make this claim while the case is subject to a JR
The JR can at best result in the decision being retaken. It's not a review of the case.
-
Anyone for tennis? Lol...........
Not in this weather. And with all these x's in the posts it's making me thirsty.
-
The JR can at best result in the decision being retaken. It's not a review of the case.
Thanks, Bridget, good point.
-
You have indicated here many times that your mind is closed on this case. You refuse to see the flaws in the grounds for convicition.
Well sure, I sleep fine at night over the case because nothing has ever come forward to convince me otherwise. There has been claims over and over that new evidence has been found, a new witness, new photo, new test, phone records, recorded phone calls.............
But nothing has ever materialised.
Remember the joy about the notebook? People thought Bamber would be out because of all the promises that were made about this new notebook - when it was looked at though.......it was useless.
That's what happens in the Bamber case time and time again.
-
What enquiries recognise that?
The enquiry into how the police handled and investigated the case for one.
-
The enquiry into how the police handled and investigated the case for one.
Again, what enquiry? You said that all enquiries had concluded that this is a MoJ. I don't know of any enquiry that has come to that conclusion.
-
Again, what enquiry? You said that all enquiries had concluded that this is a MoJ. I don't know of any enquiry that has come to that conclusion.
I took Grahame to be speaking euphemistically
-
Again, what enquiry? You said that all enquiries had concluded that this is a MoJ. I don't know of any enquiry that has come to that conclusion.
I don't think I said that?
-
I took Grahame to be speaking euphemistically
A euphemism for what?
-
I don't think I said that?
Yes you did if you read your post. Perhaps you didn't mean to.
-
A euphemism for what?
Bit if a clumsy expression, I mean to suggest that I took Grahame to be referring to enquiries here and in the press.
-
Bit if a clumsy expression, I mean to suggest that I took Grahame to be referring to enquiries here and in the press.
Still, I don't think so? Because ALL the press don't believe Bamber innocent?
-
Still, I don't think so? Because ALL the press don't believe Bamber innocent?
Thanks, Mat, good point. I was taking nonsense.
-
Thanks, Mat, good point. I was taking nonsense.
Lol, refreshing!
-
Lol, refreshing!
It was the truth.
-
Yes you did if you read your post. Perhaps you didn't mean to.
No. What I meant to say but it it came over badly was that these enquiries have shown that there was a lot of evidence that was not looked at. Like the submission of new photos of the crime scene for instance on which the CCRC ruled that the testimonies of the police officers were greater evidence than any photographic evidence. This in itself indicates that there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Mat said that any new photograph would be sufficient. But new photographic evidence WAS presented but was dismissed by the CCRC as not being evidence because the sworn police statements were stronger evidence. That surely may be the law, But it certainly is not justice. New evidence seen to be dismissed by the CCRC.
-
No. What I meant to say but it it came over badly was that these enquiries have shown that there was a lot of evidence that was not looked at. Like the submission of new photos of the crime scene for instance on which the CCRC ruled that the testimonies of the police officers were greater evidence than any photographic evidence. This in itself indicates that there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Mat said that any new photograph would be sufficient. But new photographic evidence WAS presented but was dismissed by the CCRC as not being evidence because the sworn police statements were stronger evidence. That surely may be the law, But it certainly is not justice. New evidence seen to be dismissed by the CCRC.
Maybe you've quoted me a little wrong there, Grahame. I said any photo would be sufficient for what?
-
Maybe you've quoted me a little wrong there, Grahame. I said any photo would be sufficient for what?
Certainly a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound would be sufficient to throw a spanner in the prosecution works but...
-
Certainly a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound would be sufficient to throw a spanner in the prosecution works but...
Oh absolutely! If that picture existed then I'd be the first calling for it to be revealed. But other than that, I can't think of any other picture that would make a difference in this case.
I remember in one of the submissions there was a picture submitted regarding the scratch marks.....even though the actual area that was scratched wasn't fully visible.....Seriously.
Not just ANY picture can be used - it has to DIRECTLY - go against something already decided as fact in the case.
-
No. What I meant to say but it it came over badly was that these enquiries have shown that there was a lot of evidence that was not looked at. Like the submission of new photos of the crime scene for instance on which the CCRC ruled that the testimonies of the police officers were greater evidence than any photographic evidence. This in itself indicates that there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Mat said that any new photograph would be sufficient. But new photographic evidence WAS presented but was dismissed by the CCRC as not being evidence because the sworn police statements were stronger evidence. That surely may be the law, But it certainly is not justice. New evidence seen to be dismissed by the CCRC.
I'm not sure, are you referring to Suthersts evidence? I don't think I've ever seen that in full, is it available?
-
Oh absolutely! If that picture existed then I'd be the first calling for it to be revealed. But other than that, I can't think of any other picture that would make a difference in this case.
I remember in one of the submissions there was a picture submitted regarding the scratch marks.....even though the actual area that was scratched wasn't fully visible.....Seriously.
Not just ANY picture can be used - it has to DIRECTLY - go against something already decided as fact in the case.
Yes, again Suthersts evidence I think.
-
Maybe you've quoted me a little wrong there, Grahame. I said any photo would be sufficient for what?
Just here
Well sure, I sleep fine at night over the case because nothing has ever come forward to convince me otherwise. There has been claims over and over that new evidence has been found, a new witness, new photo, new test, phone records, recorded phone calls.............
But nothing has ever materialised.
-
Ah, right. We're talking about the same thing then. I read about it on here, someone directed me to the statement. But then I also got directed to the other forum.
The scratch marks were found not to be there on a certain date....so it was believed that they had been created after the murders and the silencer has been used to scratch, etc, etc. This was actually a pretty big thing at the time.
It completely fell apart though - mainly because the picture the expert looked at wasn't quite the right place and also because the photo was terrible quality.
Yet this was still used as evidence..
Just here
Well yeah. But within reason, Grahame.
-
Yes, again Suthersts evidence I think.
No, it was something to do with the moving of Sheila's body I think? I can't be sure. I don't think it was southerst evidence? I can't be bothered to look for it tonight I'm too tired. My eyelids have broken two matchsticks already.
-
Ah, right. We're talking about the same thing then. I read about it on here, someone directed me to the statement. But then I also got directed to the other forum.
The scratch marks were found not to be there on a certain date....so it was believed that they had been created after the murders and the silencer has been used to scratch, etc, etc. This was actually a pretty big thing at the time.
It completely fell apart though - mainly because the picture the expert looked at wasn't quite the right place and also because the photo was terrible quality.
Yet this was still used as evidence..
Well yeah. But within reason, Grahame.
Meaning...?
-
Ah, right. We're talking about the same thing then. I read about it on here, someone directed me to the statement. But then I also got directed to the other forum.
The scratch marks were found not to be there on a certain date....so it was believed that they had been created after the murders and the silencer has been used to scratch, etc, etc. This was actually a pretty big thing at the time.
It completely fell apart though - mainly because the picture the expert looked at wasn't quite the right place and also because the photo was terrible quality.
Yet this was still used as evidence..
Well yeah. But within reason, Grahame.
No it wasn't that. It'll come to me tomorrow I think. My mind's not working all that well tonight. I'll look it up.
-
Meaning...?
You know what I mean, we work in the same world.
The photo would have to DIRECTLY go against something that the police claim as truth. Like Bridget said - a photo with one wound would do it.
A photo of Sheila on the bed would not.
-
You know what I mean, we work in the same world.
No we don't
The photo would have to DIRECTLY go against something that the police claim as truth. Like Bridget said - a photo with one wound would do it.
A witness statement would do it too
A photo of Sheila on the bed would not.
-
We don't? You're the one who said we do!
Don't think a witness statement would. IMO.
-
A witness statement would do it too
From someone who was actually there, yes.
-
From someone who was actually there, yes.
Even then, it wouldn't help at the CCRC.
-
We don't? You're the one who said we do!
Don't think a witness statement would. IMO.
How you've described your job here does not sound like my job
-
Well we both know what we need, how to get it.. and then we go and get it.
-
Where does that ugly rabbit avatar come from?
-
Where does that ugly rabbit avatar come from?
I had to change my avatar twice, got my hand slapped. Had no idea what I should use. It's from a computer game Toby has.....it's not a rabbit, is a rabbid. :)
-
Where does that ugly rabbit avatar come from?
Ha ha! You've made him change his avatar at least once and maybe twice, don't say your taking against that one now!
-
Ha ha! You've made him change his avatar at least once and maybe twice, don't say your taking against that one now!
Twice!
-
I had to change my avatar twice, got my hand slapped. Had no idea what I should use. It's from a computer game Toby has.....it's not a rabbit, is a rabbid. :)
Ah, right, it's rabid alright. You were aware that your mobile - breakdown-suicide - avatar would have driven members mad, weren't you. Especially mods who are on here for hours. It played and replayed around 60 to 70 times and hour. Quite aside from the subject matter, it's far too distracting for this sort of forum where members need to read lengthy documents - yes?
-
Ah, right, it's rabid alright. You were aware that your mobile - breakdown-suicide - avatar would have driven members mad, weren't you. Especially mods who are on here for hours. It played and replayed around 60 to 70 times and hour. Quite aside from the subject matter, it's far too distracting for this sort of forum where members need to read lengthy documents - yes?
Maybe it would have been annoying.
Truth is Keira - all you needed to do was PM me and say that. To PM me that I'd get banned unless I changed my avatar just didn't help at the time.
-
Ha ha! You've made him change his avatar at least once and maybe twice, don't say your taking against that one now!
The rabbit is fine. I just wondered why it was so ugly, rabbits are sweet little creatures.
I asked Mat to change his mobile avatar because it was offensive and very distracting.
I asked him to change the Supermario bonking a female - who looked date raped or unconscious - avatar because it's sexist.
-
The rabbit is fine. I just wondered why it was so ugly, rabbits are sweet little creatures.
I asked Mat to change his mobile avatar because it was offensive and very distracting.
I asked him to change the Supermario bonking a female - who looked date raped or unconscious - avatar because it's sexist.
.....I wouldn't have an avatar of someone who looked date raped.
I give up with you.
-
I'm still looking for that photographic evidence that was turned down in favour of the police sworn statements. But in the meantime this makes interesting reading, especially from paragraph 51 on.
-
Maybe it would have been annoying.
Truth is Keira - all you needed to do was PM me and say that. To PM me that I'd get banned unless I changed my avatar just didn't help at the time.
My brain was bouncing with that dratted avatar playing over and over. It's unreasonable to expect rationality or civility from mods when you torment them with mobile avatars like that.
-
My brain was bouncing with that dratted avatar playing over and over. It's unreasonable to expect rationality or civility from mods when you torment them with mobile avatars like that.
I expect civility from friends, always. But I've learned better.
-
My brain was bouncing with that dratted avatar playing over and over. It's unreasonable to expect rationality or civility from mods when you torment them with mobile avatars like that.
I agree that moving avatars are irritating.
-
I'm still looking for that photographic evidence that was turned down in favour of the police sworn statements. But in the meantime this makes interesting reading, especially from paragraph 51 on.
I'm too tired to read that Grahame, I will do tomorrow. What do you find interesting and why?
-
I'm still looking for that photographic evidence that was turned down in favour of the police sworn statements. But in the meantime this makes interesting reading, especially from paragraph 51 on.
Thanks for this, Grahame, It's ages since I last read it, I'll have another look tomorrow.
-
I'm too tired for it tonight too, Grahame. Bookmarked it and will read tomo.
Night, Bridget.
-
I'm too tired for it tonight too, Grahame. Bookmarked it and will read tomo.
Night, Bridget.
Night all x
-
Night all x
Night, Bridget x
-
You know what I mean, we work in the same world.
The photo would have to DIRECTLY go against something that the police claim as truth. Like Bridget said - a photo with one wound would do it.
A photo of Sheila on the bed would not.
Nonesense every murder victim i have removed were always at the location of death be that on the floor or hanging from the opening of a false roof.
-
My brain was bouncing with that dratted avatar playing over and over. It's unreasonable to expect rationality or civility from mods when you torment them with mobile avatars like that.
seen this tripe avatar somewhere its not all it makes out to be .
-
Nonesense every murder victim i have removed were always at the location of death be that on the floor or hanging from the opening of a false roof.
That may be true but it doesn't mean it's always true. How many murder victims have you had to remove Mertol?
-
That may be true but it doesn't mean it's always true. How many murder victims have you had to remove Mertol?
i would say 20 perhaps from children to adults.
-
In what way is it corrupt to resubmit the swabs? The worst that could have happened is that they could have been contaminated by the firearms they were originally submitted with, but in fact they were clean. All of this is in the appeal court decision.
Because the lab would have rejected them again and, if this was know at the trail, the lab would have told the court, that swabs were meaningless, in other words inadmissible evidence.
If they resubmitted them, then the police were fooling the science lab. :) :) :)
-
i would say 20 perhaps from children to adults.
Wow - over quite a period of time I hope! Do individual police forces tend to use a particular firm all the time?
-
Because the lab would have rejected them again and, if this was know at the trail, the lab would have told the court, that swabs were meaningless, in other words inadmissible evidence.
If they resubmitted them, then the police were fooling the science lab. :) :) :)
I don't see why a lab wouldn't just test whatever the police want tested. If the swabs showed gun shot residue on the second submission then that would have implicated Sheila not Jeremy, but in any case would have been inadmissable because of the potential for contamination. But they were clean, so clearly that wasn't an issue. To start with the assumption that the lab would have automatically rejected a second submission, and use that to support a theory that therefore the police must have gone and taken a second set of swabs after she was washed just doesn't work.
-
I don't see why a lab wouldn't just test whatever the police want tested. If the swabs showed gun shot residue on the second submission then that would have implicated Sheila not Jeremy, but in any case would have been inadmissable because of the potential for contamination. But they were clean, so clearly that wasn't an issue. To start with the assumption that the lab would have automatically rejected a second submission, and use that to support a theory that therefore the police must have gone and taken a second set of swabs after she was washed just doesn't work.
It's not how a lab works Bridget. The fact is they were rejected on the 1st submission, so even if the same swabs were tested again, that evidence would have still been rejected by the lab. If the lab knew this they would have rejected them.
The fact the police made another submission not a resubmission DRH44 serial number 75 The lab had been fooled into thinking this was new evidence. Had they known that it could have been a resubmission they would have rejected it. It doesn't matter what the outcome was. They rejected that evidence in the first place, therefore the resubmission of the same swabs still applied. Therefore the swabs would have been inadmissible in court.
Had the jury known this? No...Standard procedure was not followed and the lab rejected the swabs making those swabs invalid upon resubmission. :) :)
-
The other thing to consider is that the appeal judges in 2002 claimed that this alone would not have had any impact on the jury. I'm sorry to say, but it would have had an impact, this was crucial evidence based on the fact that Shelia had not fired a gun.
Yet, her hand was on the gun and her body was close to gun when it was fired, even if it had been fired by someone else, therefore some amount of residue must have been present. The Jury was never given any information regarding this...it was never argued in court. Yet the appeal judges said the outcome would have been the same...and therefore it would not have had any impact on the Jury....I say it would have. In fact I would go further and say the judge would have rejected the swabs as being evidence in chambers...simply because the lab had rejected them... :) :) :)
-
It's not how a lab works Bridget. The fact is they were rejected on the 1st submission, so even if the same swabs were tested again, that evidence would have still been rejected by the lab. If the lab knew this they would have rejected them. The fact the police made another submission not a resubmission DRH44 serial number 75 The lab had been fooled into thinking this was new evidence. Had they known that it could have been a resubmission they would have rejected it. It doesn't matter what the outcome was. They rejected that evidence in the first place, therefore the resubmission of the same swabs still applied. Therefore the swabs would have been inadmissible in court.
Had the jury known this? No...Standard procedure was not followed and the lab rejected the swabs making those swabs invalid upon resubmission. :) :)
No they wouldn't have. Peter Wingard's (senior scientific officer at the lab) evidence at the appeal was this:
Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.
-
Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.
Is that not confirming what I have been saying? :) :)
-
Mr Wingard explained that the rejection of the item would be made by the police liaison officer acting upon standing instructions that where swabs were submitted having been in the vicinity of firearms they should be rejected. The liaison officer would not necessarily consult a scientist before making such a decision. He rejected the suggestion that once rejected in this way, there would be no way in which the laboratory would examine such items thereafter if it was aware that they had been resubmitted. He explained that there was a significant difference between an examination of the swabs required to provide evidence that a person had discharged a firearm where the testing could as a result of the contamination produce a false result suggesting that the person had had contact with guns, and a test the purpose of which was to provide evidence that a person had not been in contact with a gun. In the latter case the issue of contamination ceased to be a factor since it could never decrease any findings only add to them.
Is that not confirming what I have been saying? :) :)
No, it confirms what I've been saying.
-
No, it confirms what I've been saying.
You have to read the whole sentance, not just the bit that suits! ;D
-
Patti
I agree with you but as I say when the appeal happens lot more will be challenged
-
You have to read the whole sentance, not just the bit that suits! ;D
Hi Bdrget I know you don't like to lose an argument :P But, you need to read the full document not just bits.
The fact remains the swabs were rejected and the police used malpractice to resubmit evidence that was originally rejected by relabelling the evidence and writing submission on the lab documents and not resubmission. This is bad practice.
If this was known in 1985 then this would not have been admissible in court...it would have been rejected....for initially the swabs were rejected, thus making the resubmission of the swabs invalid. The 2002 judges should never have ruled this out, nor could they predict what the jury may have thought. I rest my case on this....you know I am right...you just wont say it lol ;D ;D
-
Patti
I agree with you but as I say when the appeal happens lot more will be challenged
Hi Jackie
This was crucial evidence that was put before the jury in 1985....Yet, the whole scenario of Sheila having no residue on her hands was false...because those swabs had been rejected making them invalid. The outcome was that the jury believed the evidence, even though it was invalid.....They did not know that they had been rejected...had they known, then the outcome may have been different.....because it was malpractice by the police to what they did..... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Bdrget I know you don't like to lose an argument :P But, you need to read the full document not just bits.
The fact remains the swabs were rejected and the police used malpractice to resubmit evidence that was originally rejected by relabelling the evidence and writing submission on the lab documents and not resubmission. This is bad practice.
If this was known in 1985 then this would not have been admissible in court...it would have been rejected....for initially the swabs were rejected, thus making the resubmission of the swabs invalid. The 2002 judges should never have ruled this out, nor could they predict what the jury may have thought. I rest my case on this....you know I am right...you just wont say it lol ;D ;D
Hi Patti, I have read the whole document numerous times and it's crystal clear thet your assertion that the lab would have rejected the swabs had they have known they were being resubmitted is quite simply wrong. It's there in black and white. Sorry! If you are saying that someone from the lab contradicted Wingard's evidence and I've missed it please give me the paragraph number and I'll take another look.
-
For those currently crossing swords re the hand swabs, I found this thread from not too long back. Happy battling :D ...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2479.0.html
-
Patti
I obviously don't know exactly what is going on with the case and I am not completely up to date as when I used to talk to Jeremy a few times a week but there will be so much more challenged when the case goes to an appeal court and you are thinking on the right lines about what might be happening.
Wouldn't it be great to watch what went on
-
Hi Patti, I have read the whole document numerous times and it's crystal clear thet your assertion that the lab would have rejected the swabs had they have known they were being resubmitted is quite simply wrong. It's there in black and white. Sorry! If you are saying that someone from the lab contradicted Wingard's evidence and I've missed it please give me the paragraph number and I'll take another look.
It doesn't alter the fact that the jury did not know about the swab submission and it was never argued upon in court in 1986. Neither me you or the court judges in 2002 can be 100% sure about how the jury would have interpreted this situation. :) :)
-
For those currently crossing swords re the hand swabs, I found this thread from not too long back. Happy battling :D ...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2479.0.html
You can't actually tell from that photo whether or not her hand is in contact with the relevant part of the gun, but anyway, although for ease I have been describing the swabs as clean, there were in fact very low levels of lead detected on the swabs, but nowhere near as much as the scientists would expect had she have loaded and fired the gun 25 times.
-
It doesn't alter the fact that the jury did not know about the swab submission and it was never argued upon in court in 1986. Neither me you or the court judges in 2002 can be 100% sure about how the jury would have interpreted this situation. :) :)
Even if they had known, I don't see how it would have made any difference at all to the jury since the tests were negative. If they were relying on a positive test I would agree with you.
-
Even if they had known, I don't see how it would have made any difference at all to the jury since the tests were negative. If they were relying on a positive test I would agree with you.
One can't assume that it would not have made any difference to the jury, just like I can't assume that it would.....The fact is they were not aware....and the other fact is that the outcome may have been different if they had known. :) :)
-
One can't assume that it would not have made any difference to the jury, just like I can't assume that it would.....The fact is they were not aware....and the other fact is that the outcome may have been different if they had known. :) :)
So.. scenario 1:
We had hand swabs tested and they showed only very low levels of lead, far lower than would be expected if she had loaded and fired the gun.
Or scenario 2:
We submitted the hand swabs and they were at first rejected because they could have been contaminated by other weapons, so we submitted them again and they showed only very low levels of lead, far lower than would be expected if she had loaded and fired the gun.
What difference does it make?
In any case, the court of appeal will decide firstly whether or not the new evidence renders the verdict unsafe and only if they can't make a decision on that will they ask whether or not it would have affected the decision of the jury. In the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy to submit falsified swabs the answer to both of those questions must be no.
-
I'm still looking for that photographic evidence that was turned down in favour of the police sworn statements. But in the meantime this makes interesting reading, especially from paragraph 51 on.
I can only find this connection to what I have stated so far. But cannot find the actual CCRC statement to that effect?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2091.0
-
I can only find this connection to what I have stated so far. But cannot find the actual CCRC statement to that effect?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2091.0
If the CCRC said that then I think it's important to know the context. They may have been referring to a specific issue rather than making a generalised comment.
-
If the CCRC said that then I think it's important to know the context. They may have been referring to a specific issue rather than making a generalised comment.
Yes it would be helpful. But I know I've seen their actual statement somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot find it for some reason?
-
Yes it would be helpful. But I know I've seen their actual statement somewhere, but for the life of me I cannot find it for some reason?
Hmmm I don't recall ever seeing it, but I've often seen it spoken about. Maybe Mike knows?
-
Try this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=371.0
The link in that thread to the blog doesn't work for me though.
-
So.. scenario 1:
We had hand swabs tested and they showed only very low levels of lead, far lower than would be expected if she had loaded and fired the gun.
Or scenario 2:
We submitted the hand swabs and they were at first rejected because they could have been contaminated by other weapons, so we submitted them again and they showed only very low levels of lead, far lower than would be expected if she had loaded and fired the gun.
What difference does it make?
In any case, the court of appeal will decide firstly whether or not the new evidence renders the verdict unsafe and only if they can't make a decision on that will they ask whether or not it would have affected the decision of the jury. In the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy to submit falsified swabs the answer to both of those questions must be no.
It makes a difference that the jury was not told.
Look at DC Hammersley report....He states clearly that he went to lab on the 9th August 1985 with swabs DRH 33.
Yet on this report of McDonalds it states DRH 44 sent to lab on the 7th August.
-
It makes a difference that the jury was not told.
Look at DC Hammersley report....He states clearly that he went to lab on the 9th August 1985 with swabs DRH 33.
Yet on this report of McDonalds it states DRH 44 sent to lab on the 7th August.
The title of that column on the form is the date the evidence was found, not the date it was sent to the lab.
-
Try this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=371.0
The link in that thread to the blog doesn't work for me though.
That was probably where I saw it? It was posted by Hartley if that adds any weight to it? ;D
-
The title of that column on the form is the date the evidence was found, not the date it was sent to the lab.
Well if you move the slide bar across it says to the lab on that date... :) :)
-
Also read this:
-
Well if you move the slide bar across it says to the lab on that date... :) :)
I'm talking about the first document you posted, the one which says the 7th.
-
Also read this:
They were given the opportunity to cross examine at the appeal, and literally gave up as the evidence given by the witnesses was entirely credible.
-
That was probably where I saw it? It was posted by Hartley if that adds any weight to it? ;D
I think he was just being helpful ;)
-
They were given the opportunity to cross examine at the appeal, and literally gave up as the evidence given by the witnesses was entirely credible.
The major methods for detection of primer residues are analytical and qualitative. Analytical methods include atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive analysis (SEM-EDA) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) are used to identify the primer residue qualitatively. For these methods, samples must be obtained from the skin surfaces of a victim at the scene. Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues. :-\
-
The major methods for detection of primer residues are analytical and qualitative. Analytical methods include atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive analysis (SEM-EDA) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) are used to identify the primer residue qualitatively. For these methods, samples must be obtained from the skin surfaces of a victim at the scene. Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues. :-\
I'm not sure I'm seeing your point?
-
Hi Patti are you a Scientist by any chance can,t understand one word of your post but it sounds very impressive :)
-
Patti is amaaaazing !!!! Jeremy is lucky to have her!!!!!
-
I'm not sure I'm seeing your point?
I just like arguing with you Bridget Ha!
My point is this. Swabs should have been taken at the crime scene, in order for them to be preserved this was not done.
Her hands were bagged up, this could have caused the residue to diminish.
Initial swabs were taken on the 8th but were not taken to the lab till the 9th....again residue levels could
have have diminished.
These swabs were rejected by the lab, because they arrived with guns.
The swabs then were resubmitted under a different DRH number....
We see documented evidence which is flawed and false.
We have DRH32 and DRH 31 becoming DRH 33 then changes to DRH44 which is the same DRH number for the bible...
How can DRH 44 be sent to lab before DRH 33 ?
It's a mess....a complete mess....hahahahah
-
wow Patti you certainly delve into things and deserve a medal for all your hard work keep up the good work I love reading your posts you are the best poster on the forum :) :) :)
-
wow Patti you certainly delve into things and deserve a medal for all your hard work keep up the good work I love reading your posts you are the best poster on the forum :) :) :)
No way Susan...I am the most confused person in real life....don't make me blush :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
I just like arguing with you Bridget Ha!
Likewise! ;D
My point is this. Swabs should have been taken at the crime scene, in order for them to be preserved this was not done.
Her hands were bagged up, this could have caused the residue to diminish.
Ok, that's a fair point, but that would be from rubbing off onto the bags, and I think they were tested too, but can't be sure.
Initial swabs were taken on the 8th but were not taken to the lab till the 9th....again residue levels could have have diminished.
No, they were taken on the 7th, at the mortuary. The information you posted previously indicates that swab should be taken asap, but it doesn't state that they will diminish once taken. What I'm saying is that once taken they don't 'evaporate' - well they might, but that's not what your previous post says and I am not a scientist!
How can DRH 44 be sent to lab before DRH 33 ?
It wasn't, and there's no indication that it was. There was a discrepancy mentioned at court in as to the time the swabs were taken (DRH33 listed as 3.15 on the 7th and DRH44 at 11am on the 7th) but no discrepancy as to the dates. DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September.
It's a mess....a complete mess....hahahahah
Yep!
-
wow Patti you certainly delve into things and deserve a medal for all your hard work keep up the good work I love reading your posts you are the best poster on the forum :) :) :)
A proper little Columbo is she not Susan ??
-
mertoll has she got the mack and the cigar :) :) :)
-
Likewise! ;D
Ok, that's a fair point, but that would be from rubbing off onto the bags, and I think they were tested too, but can't be sure.
No, they were taken on the 7th, at the mortuary. The information you posted previously indicates that swab should be taken asap, but it doesn't state that they will diminish once taken. What I'm saying is that once taken they don't 'evaporate' - well they might, but that's not what your previous post says and I am not a scientist!
No they were not, think about it, those that were taken initially were rejected, therefore prolonging the examination of the swabs even further, which could mean the residue could have been diminished....Don't think residue evaporates does it? But you could be a juror and you are unsure...lolol
It wasn't, and there's no indication that it was. There was a discrepancy mentioned at court in as to the time the swabs were taken (DRH33 listed as 3.15 on the 7th and DRH44 at 11am on the 7th) but no discrepancy as to the dates. DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September.
Do you agree that the documentation differs. The DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September....Oh Dear! :) :)
Yep!
-
No they were not, think about it, those that were taken initially were rejected, therefore prolonging the examination of the swabs even further, which could mean the residue could have been diminished....Don't think residue evaporates does it? But you could be a juror and you are unsure...lolol
If it is the case that it 'evaporates' or whatever, the lab would have mentioned it, either in their report or in evidence, or perhaps even rejected it at the time based on the premise that it could have no evidential value. There was never any doubt about when the swabs were finally tested, and the defence had their own forensic experts too. Why wouldn't they have brought that up if it was an issue? Remember that the defence knew about the September test, they didn't know about the earlier rejection.
Do you agree that the documentation differs. The DRH44 was sent to the lab on the 17th of September....Oh Dear!
Only in that someone put the wrong time on the form.
-
A proper little Columbo is she not Susan ??
Mertol :) I need an ice cream.....from my 1% share. ;D ;D ;D
-
mertoll has she got the mack and the cigar :) :) :)
just needs this now
-
Mertol :) I need an ice cream.....from my 1% share. ;D ;D ;D
i will discount 1p off a 99 flake will cost ya £1.49p
-
Patti
You should write to Jeremy he will love writing back and discussing the case with you.
He will be careful at first though because you could be the nasty evil rat that tried to make Simon walk away from the case
He will love your letters
-
Patti
You should write to Jeremy he will love writing back and discussing the case with you.
He will be careful at first though because you could be the nasty evil rat that tried to make Simon walk away from the case
He will love your letters
Well said Jackie , Jeremy remembered me a year on from my 1st letter i wrote to him.
-
If it is the case that it 'evaporates' or whatever, the lab would have mentioned it, either in their report or in evidence, or perhaps even rejected it at the time based on the premise that it could have no evidential value. There was never any doubt about when the swabs were finally tested, and the defence had their own forensic experts too. Why wouldn't they have brought that up if it was an issue? Remember that the defence knew about the September test, they didn't know about the earlier rejection.
Maybe the experts that were never asked the question about the residue diminishing, or how long the swabs were kept, or where they had been kept or who handled them? It certainly wasn't asked in the 2002 appeal. There can only be two possibilities regarding the swabs and that was, they was resubmitted, in which case the absence of residue is not significant because they had bee rejected at the onset. Secondly, the swabs were retaken after Sheila was washed, which would be after the 7th of August. So, if the swabs were not submitted till the 17th....the residue could have diminished...
I think I have put my argument clearly Bridget and the fact remains this was held back in 1986....even you have to admit that...
Only in that someone put the wrong time on the form.
And date Bridget....it is careless police work....and you yourself have said yes it is a mess.... ;D ;D :P
-
The Letters i wrote to jeremy were both related to the 2 sets of ccrc verdicts they were simply wishing a positive outcome and not asking about the case i feel the forum is the place for this, i do know he recieves mail daily and not solely from the UK but around the world, his replies are in perfect English putting my writing skills to shame.
-
Patti, sent you a PM about writing to Jeremy.
Bridget - I think you're completely right about the hand swabs - I tried to get this point across re: negative result but the people at the time didn't care. Also posted the same testimony. I just dont think some people understood it.
-
Well said Jackie , Jeremy remembered me a year on from my 1st letter i wrote to him.
Mertol, I had no idea you had wrote to JB......£1.30 and it's a deal 8) :P :P :P
-
If anyone wishes to write to Jeremy the best way is to use the email a prisoner scheme. It costs 30 pence per email. He receives the printed email with his post the following morning.
-
Mertol, I had no idea you had wrote to JB......£1.30 and it's a deal 8) :P :P :P
should have gone to specsavers patti its £1.49 a cheque is acceptable...
-
Patti, sent you a PM about writing to Jeremy.
Bridget - I think you're completely right about the hand swabs - I tried to get this point across re: negative result but the people at the time didn't care. Also posted the same testimony. I just dont think some people understood it.
Now you listen me mat....and take no notice of Bridget, she gets it all wrong hahahahahahah I do like her though... :) :) :)
-
Now you listen me mat....and take no notice of Bridget, she gets it all wrong hahahahahahah I do like her though... :) :) :)
I think the truth sits in between you and Bridget IMO.
-
should have gone to specsavers patti its £1.49 a cheque is acceptable...
£1,49 for a ice cream...Awww Mertol :'( :'( :'(
-
If anyone wishes to write to Jeremy the best way is to use the email a prisoner scheme. It costs 30 pence per email. He receives the printed email with his post the following morning.
im aware of the email method but i think handwritten is better everyone likes recieving mail bar bills, think of those prisoners around the world who recieve nothing 50 to a cell.
-
Maybe the experts that were never asked the question about the residue diminishing, or how long the swabs were kept, or where they had been kept or who handled them? It certainly wasn't asked in the 2002 appeal.
If it wasn't an issue for the defence expert why should they be asked? In any case, any expert witness has a duty to the court, withholding information such as 'residue diminishes therefore the swab test a month later is irrelevant' would seriously undermine the prosecution case (because the witness would be seen to be unreliable) and probably end a career.
There can only be two possibilities regarding the swabs and that was, they was resubmitted, in which case the absence of residue is not significant because they had bee rejected at the onset. Secondly, the swabs were retaken after Sheila was washed, which would be after the 7th of August. So, if the swabs were not submitted till the 17th....the residue could have diminished...
Well no, there is a 3rd possibility, and that is that the swabs were taken on the 7th, sent to the lab on the 9th, resubmitted on the 17th of September and found to contain only very low levels of lead - just like the police and scientists say.
And date Bridget....it is careless police work....and you yourself have said yes it is a mess....
No, there is still no discrepancy as to the date. You are looking at two forms on one of which is recorded the date the swabs were taken, and on the other the date they were sent to the lab the first time. On another form which you haven't posted will be the date it was resubmitted.
-
Now you listen me mat....and take no notice of Bridget, she gets it all wrong hahahahahahah I do like her though... :) :) :)
Are you tweeting the Scott Lomax book now patti ?
-
Now you listen me mat....and take no notice of Bridget, she gets it all wrong hahahahahahah I do like her though... :) :) :)
;D ;D ;D
-
im aware of the email method but i think handwritten is better everyone likes recieving mail bar bills, think of those prisoners around the world who recieve nothing 50 to a cell.
Yes, you make a fair point.
-
Patti
It is quite safe to write or email Jeremy and you will enjoy his letters, don't let anyone put you off if you want to
-
Are you tweeting the Scott Lomax book now patti ?
Mertol I have no idea how to use Twitter...I feel like a twit
I have retweeted a couple...you can find me williamspat.....Not sure If I am doing the right thing being on there...we will see. ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti
It is quite safe to write or email Jeremy and you will enjoy his letters, don't let anyone put you off if you want to
Jackie, I wouldn't know what to say to him and I wouldn't like him to think I was being nosey or anything. ;) ;) ;)
-
;D ;D ;D
I have something else for you Bridget...but I will let you have an hour or two off hahahah
-
I have something else for you Bridget...but I will let you have an hour or two off hahahah
Good, I'm about to get my dinner so I'll look forward to doing battle with you later! ;)
-
Mertol I have no idea how to use Twitter...I feel like a twit
I have retweeted a couple...you can find me williamspat.....Not sure If I am doing the right thing being on there...we will see. ;D ;D ;D
neither do i patti i figured you have cracked it .
-
Good, I'm about to get my dinner so I'll look forward to doing battle with you later! ;)
ooh! tea time. Must go.
-
im aware of the email method but i think handwritten is better everyone likes recieving mail bar bills, think of those prisoners around the world who recieve nothing 50 to a cell.
I agree, Mertol, nothing compares with a hand written letter.
-
I'm up to chapter 23 and Bamber has just been arrested in Dover, I still think that Wilkes is setting up JB as guilty while painting a picture of Jones as some form of intrepid and triumphant day time TV detective. Although I'm not sure I should pay too much attention to somebody who uses the past particples of the verbs 'to buy' and 'to bring' incorrectly, that niggles me!
-
I'm up to chapter 23 and Bamber has just been arrested in Dover, I still think that Wilkes is setting up JB as guilty while painting a picture of Jones as some form of intrepid and triumphant day time TV detective. Although I'm not sure I should pay too much attention to somebody who uses the past particples of the verbs 'to buy' and 'to bring' incorrectly, that niggles me!
Oh the 'brought' thing? Me too, the OH says that all the time - just to irritate I think.
-
Oh the 'brought' thing? Me too, the OH says that all the time - just to irritate I think.
It's also a sad indictment of his writing that the only stand out comment in the last two chapters was a common spelling mistake!
-
It's also a sad indictment of his writing that the only stand out comment in the last two chapters was a common spelling mistake!
I have the book on order, so don't tell me how it ends! ;)
-
I have the book on order, so don't tell me how it ends! ;)
Lol! From the library I hope?
-
It's also a sad indictment of his writing that the only stand out comment in the last two chapters was a common spelling mistake!
;D ;D ;D
-
Somebody posted the other day that psychopaths can't cry and that is a fact, while I'm not suggesting that the post is wrong, can anybody substantiate this claim? Personally, I just don't see it but it isn't my field.
-
Lol! From the library I hope?
No, second hand on Amazon. I'll just stick it on eBay when I've read it.
-
No, second hand on Amazon. I'll just stick it on eBay when I've read it.
I just hope that any prospective ebay purchasers aren't reading this thread as I may well do you out of a sale and end up having to buy myself a second copy as recompense!
-
In retrospect, I'm being unfair. Another interesting point of the last two chapters is a serious one and it is interesting to see how Wilkes highlights the pressure on the police from the press. It seems almost as if their hand was forced to arrest somebody or 'prove' something by the way the press were reporting on the 'failed' 'botched' police investigation, and for one of first times so far, this is something that could feasibly be checked by the reader.
-
I just hope that any prospective ebay purchasers aren't reading this thread as I may well do you out of a sale and end up having to buy myself a second copy as recompense!
True, I may have to wait a while. Mind you it'll probably take me months to read it anyway. If it doesn't sell I'll hold you to that, you may have cost me a tenner!
-
True, I may have to wait a while. Mind you it'll probably take me months to read it anyway. If it doesn't sell I'll hold you to that, you may have cost me a tenner!
A tenner! Blimey, I got mine for £6 on Amazon. I have posted on here before that before the documentary I picked up three of the four books for £23, then Colin's book was on Amazon and ebay for £5k and mine is a signed copy. My wife wanted me to sell and I wish I had now.
-
Somebody posted the other day that psychopaths can't cry and that is a fact, while I'm not suggesting that the post is wrong, can anybody substantiate this claim? Personally, I just don't see it but it isn't my field.
Ajross it may have been myself, i base that on 2 issues as in image form in colins book and in issue 7 murder case book while colin is not crying he is in strong denial,remember colin had done his crying earlier and will do so later but not at his sons funerals, jeremy is crying to replicate such an emotion in front of many mourners and family is simply highly unlikely.
-
Somebody posted the other day that psychopaths can't cry and that is a fact, while I'm not suggesting that the post is wrong, can anybody substantiate this claim? Personally, I just don't see it but it isn't my field.
I believe that some people can shed tears at will. That doesn't necessarily mean that they feel the emotion behind the tears. Psychopaths lack empathy with others but being egocentric, react when things go wrong for them, IMO.
-
I'm paraphrasing but the post defintely said it was a fact that psychopaths can't cry which is why I asked my wife, however it's not her area of expertise (although she did work with psychopaths in Ashworth). It may have been in a discussion with Bridget and after something I may have started regarding the depiction of JBs behaviour in Wilkes' book. The arguement went that JB cried when a dog died and as psychopaths can't cry he couldn't be one. I would just like proof that none of these psychopaths have ever cried real tears. Ed Gein was incredibly messed up because of the relationship with his mother, depictions of him and many psychopaths are often of sad characters, I find it hard to believe that they actually 'cannot' cry. Even if it is just through some form of epiphany/reflexive thought surely they would be real tears, is it really that easy to generalise about all 'psychopaths'?
-
I'm paraphrasing but the post defintely said it was a fact that psychopaths can't cry which is why I asked my wife, however it's not her area of expertise (although she did work with psychopaths in Ashworth). It may have been in a discussion with Bridget and after something I may have started regarding the depiction of JBs behaviour in Wilkes' book. The arguement went that JB cried when a dog died and as psychopaths can't cry he couldn't be one. I would just like proof that none of these psychopaths have ever cried real tears. Ed Gein was incredibly messed up because of the relationship with his mother, depictions of him and many psychopaths are often of sad characters, I find it hard to believe that they actually 'cannot' cry. Even if it is just through some form of epiphany/reflexive thought surely they would be real tears, is it really that easy to generalise about all 'psychopaths'?
I do remember the conversation but it wasn't me that said it. Maybe 'lookout'?
-
I do remember the conversation but it wasn't me that said it. Maybe 'lookout'?
If you look on line there are loads of examples of psychopaths crying. Theyr'e usually very self absorbed and can cry at anything which may affect them negatively. imo
-
I do remember the conversation but it wasn't me that said it. Maybe 'lookout'?
Sorry Bridget, I didn't mean to suggest you, it isn't the sort of thing inwould expect you to say and if youbid, you would back it up.
-
If you look on line there are loads of examples of psychopaths crying. Theyr'e usually very self absorbed and can cry at anything which may affect them negatively. imo
Yes, that's my general impression, I remember reading about John Wayne Gacy crying. But not just the killers, I'm sure the sociopath/psychopath businessman can cry. I assumed that there was some sort of catalyst for their behaviour which could also make them hyper- sensitive to some things. I do wonder actually if JB was sensitive to certin things and a lot of his reaction was just posturing to try and impress
-
I think I have said Psychopaths lack emotion and have no empathy, therefore I would think it very difficult for a true psychopath to cry, but I come to that assumption because of the things I have read, which in all fairness is very little...
I think there is a brain scan which shows the chemical imbalance of a psychopath and in the next 10 years scientist are developing a micro chip to put into the brain to correct the chemical imbalance....How true this is I have no idea, but I have read it...on the net. :) :)
-
I believe that some people can shed tears at will. That doesn't necessarily mean that they feel the emotion behind the tears. Psychopaths lack empathy with others but being egocentric, react when things go wrong for them, IMO.
Patti, hi. I too have read about micro chips being implanted but I think that could be seen as moving in to dangerous territory. The majority of psychopaths aren't sex offenders or murderers. We may think it sad that they go through life without feeling its' highs and lows, but unless they become aware of this and choose to change (and here I would have to argue that such a person is not a real psychopath, but someone who for one reason or another has had to surpress their emotions) I feel that nothing can be done. Many psychopaths are highly successful simply because they are psychopaths.
It may be possible to employ this "cure" using psychopaths who are serving sentences for murders or sex crimes, as part of a release package, but not all of them will be
psychopaths, and whilst, as we know, tabloids love to bandy the word at every oportunity, proving psychopathy isn't easy. I have visions of people being dragged kicking and screaming along corridors to have these chips unnecessarily implanted and it reminds me that we once performed frontal lobotomys as a means of controlling people.
-
I think I have said Psychopaths lack emotion and have no empathy, therefore I would think it very difficult for a true psychopath to cry, but I come to that assumption because of the things I have read, which in all fairness is very little...
I think there is a brain scan which shows the chemical imbalance of a psychopath and in the next 10 years scientist are developing a micro chip to put into the brain to correct the chemical imbalance....How true this is I have no idea, but I have read it...on the net. :) :)
I find that absolutely shocking!
-
I find that absolutely shocking!
Hi AJ. Do you mean the chip?
I don't because if a psychopath has a chemical imbalance which makes that person kill and have no empathy....the implant of a chip could correct that imbalance in the brain. What I read was that scientists had studied scans of normal brains as opposed to pyschopaths' brains and the scans revealed a chemical imbalance.....And are working on a chip to rectify the imbalance.....It's all on the internet...:)
-
Patti, hi. I too have read about micro chips being implanted but I think that could be seen as moving in to dangerous territory. The majority of psychopaths aren't sex offenders or murderers. We may think it sad that they go through life without feeling its' highs and lows, but unless they become aware of this and choose to change (and here I would have to argue that such a person is not a real psychopath, but someone who for one reason or another has had to surpress their emotions) I feel that nothing can be done. Many psychopaths are highly successful simply because they are psychopaths.
It may be possible to employ this "cure" using psychopaths who are serving sentences for murders or sex crimes, as part of a release package, but not all of them will be
psychopaths, and whilst, as we know, tabloids love to bandy the word at every oportunity, proving psychopathy isn't easy. I have visions of people being dragged kicking and screaming along corridors to have these chips unnecessarily implanted and it reminds me that we once performed frontal lobotomys as a means of controlling people.
Patti, part of the problem with psychopaths is that as far as they are concerned there is nothing wrong with them-it's the others. I which case it would be like someone telling you, or me, that there's a chemical inbalance in our brains but if we let the put a chip in it will rectify the problem. I don't know what you'd do, but I feel I might be inclined to tell them to put the chip in their own brain.
-
Patti, part of the problem with psychopaths is that as far as they are concerned there is nothing wrong with them-it's the others. I which case it would be like someone telling you, or me, that there's a chemical inbalance in our brains but if we let the put a chip in it will rectify the problem. I don't know what you'd do, but I feel I might be inclined to tell them to put the chip in their own brain.
Hi april :) Brilliant post as always and absolutely correct in everything you say.....We must have read the same thing...I wonder if they will really try it out...I also watched a short documentary about it. ;) :) :) :)
-
April, I watched this. Note the psychopaths interviewed have no empathy for those they have killed...they only share what they have done... :) :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ7ck8Q_RII&feature=related
-
Hi AJ. Do you mean the chip?
I don't because if a psychopath has a chemical imbalance which makes that person kill and have no empathy....the implant of a chip could correct that imbalance in the brain. What I read was that scientists had studied scans of normal brains as opposed to pyschopaths' brains and the scans revealed a chemical imbalance.....And are working on a chip to rectify the imbalance.....It's all on the internet...:)
I am really not sure that I can believe this as I do not believe it is possible to 'cure' a psychopath with a 'chip'. Psychopaths are also influenced by social conditioning and disfunctional families not just by a chemical imbalance in the brain, it is both nurture and natue!. I am also unsure how a brain scan can actually show up a chemical imbalance!
-
April, I watched this. Note the psychopaths interviewed have no empathy for those they have killed...they only share what they have done... :) :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ7ck8Q_RII&feature=related
Patti, hi and your words are really kind, thank you. I watched the video. Had I not known in advance what It was about, I would have said he was a reasonable young man!!!! That's chilling in itself. I read some of Hare's papers at college, he was probably one of those who convinced me that psychopathy is a mixture of socialization and genetics, actually he could have been speaking of my mother, who was truly incapable of considering anybody elses feelings in any way, other than how they impacted on her. I'm certain she was on the psychopathic spectrum.
I was told something today which I found, at best thought provoking, at worst, chilling. I hope you don't mind if I run it by you. I was paid a visit by the person who manages the complex where I live. Still in my jarmies and on line, I explained what it was that was holding my interest-and discovered just how small the world is. She had previously worked for a mental health trust whose senior psychiatrists were required to assess prisoners deemed to have committed serious crimes. Two of their number visited Jeremy and both assessed him as a psychopath. I pointed out that he had been tested on 27(?) different occasions and the results for psychopathy were negative. She said that none of those tests were random and had all been done at Jeremy's request and he knew when they were going to happen which would have enabled him to have control of how he
presented himself. She did however, agree that there is room for doubt, she was fully aware of the cock up made by EP, and she agreed that being a psychopath doesn't necessarily make him a killer........
......Which is the one thing I would take the video to task over. I know it was sensationalism to hold the viewers attention, but I think she rather overstressed the potential danger of psychopaths, when we know the vast majority are out there, living their lives, albeit with a different mindset, like the rest of us.
At the moment, I probably put microchips in the same catagory as chemical castration, genetic engineering and embryonic research.
-
Patti, hi and your words are really kind, thank you. I watched the video. Had I not known in advance what It was about, I would have said he was a reasonable young man!!!! That's chilling in itself. I read some of Hare's papers at college, he was probably one of those who convinced me that psychopathy is a mixture of socialization and genetics, actually he could have been speaking of my mother, who was truly incapable of considering anybody elses feelings in any way, other than how they impacted on her. I'm certain she was on the psychopathic spectrum.
I was told something today which I found, at best thought provoking, at worst, chilling. I hope you don't mind if I run it by you. I was paid a visit by the person who manages the complex where I live. Still in my jarmies and on line, I explained what it was that was holding my interest-and discovered just how small the world is. She had previously worked for a mental health trust whose senior psychiatrists were required to assess prisoners deemed to have committed serious crimes. Two of their number visited Jeremy and both assessed him as a psychopath. I pointed out that he had been tested on 27(?) different occasions and the results for psychopathy were negative. She said that none of those tests were random and had all been done at Jeremy's request and he knew when they were going to happen which would have enabled him to have control of how he
presented himself. She did however, agree that there is room for doubt, she was fully aware of the cock up made by EP, and she agreed that being a psychopath doesn't necessarily make him a killer........
......Which is the one thing I would take the video to task over. I know it was sensationalism to hold the viewers attention, but I think she rather overstressed the potential danger of psychopaths, when we know the vast majority are out there, living their lives, albeit with a different mindset, like the rest of us.
At the moment, I probably put microchips in the same catagory as chemical castration, genetic engineering and embryonic research.
April, was this woman in any way qualified to comment on the results of psychiatrists tests on Jeremy? She may have been mistaken and Jeremy has also been tested to ensure he is not hiding his psychopathy from other people or even himself so I would doubt the autheticity of her statement. imo
-
Patti, hi and your words are really kind, thank you. I watched the video. Had I not known in advance what It was about, I would have said he was a reasonable young man!!!! That's chilling in itself. I read some of Hare's papers at college, he was probably one of those who convinced me that psychopathy is a mixture of socialization and genetics, actually he could have been speaking of my mother, who was truly incapable of considering anybody elses feelings in any way, other than how they impacted on her. I'm certain she was on the psychopathic spectrum.
I was told something today which I found, at best thought provoking, at worst, chilling. I hope you don't mind if I run it by you. I was paid a visit by the person who manages the complex where I live. Still in my jarmies and on line, I explained what it was that was holding my interest-and discovered just how small the world is. She had previously worked for a mental health trust whose senior psychiatrists were required to assess prisoners deemed to have committed serious crimes. Two of their number visited Jeremy and both assessed him as a psychopath. I pointed out that he had been tested on 27(?) different occasions and the results for psychopathy were negative. She said that none of those tests were random and had all been done at Jeremy's request and he knew when they were going to happen which would have enabled him to have control of how he
presented himself. She did however, agree that there is room for doubt, she was fully aware of the cock up made by EP, and she agreed that being a psychopath doesn't necessarily make him a killer........
......Which is the one thing I would take the video to task over. I know it was sensationalism to hold the viewers attention, but I think she rather overstressed the potential danger of psychopaths, when we know the vast majority are out there, living their lives, albeit with a different mindset, like the rest of us.
At the moment, I probably put microchips in the same catagory as chemical castration, genetic engineering and embryonic research.
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
-
Not very professional I must say.
-
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
Mat this is hearsay.
-
Mat this is hearsay.
Oh, I know, I just found the conversation interesting.
-
Just to clarify April, it was two of the senior psychiatrists who are said to have assessed him?
-
April, was this woman in any way qualified to comment on the results of psychiatrists tests on Jeremy? She may have been mistaken and Jeremy has also been tested to ensure he is not hiding his psychopathy from other people or even himself so I would doubt the autheticity of her statement. imo
Maggie, hi. I believe she has a psych degree and has held various positions in NHS, in what sounds like a supporting capacity. Certainly, she remains open minded enough to accept that the diagnosis was only the opinion of two people. I think you all know me well enough to know that I always question agendas and I have the feeling that these professional gentlemen would not take kindly to their findings being challenged by other professionals.
-
Not very professional I must say.
Hello, lookout, I feel that the lack of professionalism must rest on my own shoulders. It was remiss of me to pass it on, but, like Mat, I found it interesting and thought that you, too, would think the same.
-
Just to clarify April, it was two of the senior psychiatrists who are said to have assessed him?
Bridget, hi. Gosh, this would be so much easier if I was clever enough to get it all into one post!!! The "two" were, I guess, who ever were responsible for assessing the mental health of prisoners, within that particular health authority.
-
April,
Mat has an agenda just like Bridget they are both members of the Lamberton forum where they put all sorts of propaganda over the internet
-
April,
Mat has an agenda just like Bridget they are both members of the Lamberton forum where they put all sorts of propaganda over the internet
What the heck? I didn't post anything, I just said it was an interesting post.
-
April, was this woman in any way qualified to comment on the results of psychiatrists tests on Jeremy? She may have been mistaken and Jeremy has also been tested to ensure he is not hiding his psychopathy from other people or even himself so I would doubt the autheticity of her statement. imo
I would question whether or not patient confidentiality had been broken somewhere along the line there!
-
So Mat will you be going over to the anti-bamber forum tonight or are you already logged on
-
I would question whether or not patient confidentiality had been broken somewhere along the line there!
Very good point, if its true, April didnt sound too sure
-
So Mat will you be going over to the anti-bamber forum tonight or are you already logged on
I'm sure you'll be on there longer than me - Jackie. You normally are taking screen shots and quoting posts to show on here. You xxxx.
-
Hello, lookout, I feel that the lack of professionalism must rest on my own shoulders. It was remiss of me to pass it on, but, like Mat, I found it interesting and thought that you, too, would think the same.
Do you work in this field then?
-
Bridget, hi. Gosh, this would be so much easier if I was clever enough to get it all into one post!!! The "two" were, I guess, who ever were responsible for assessing the mental health of prisoners, within that particular health authority.
Thanks April.
To reply to more than one post, once you've finished typing one reply and before clicking 'post', scroll down and look for the next one you want to address (they appear below the reply box) and click the 'insert quote' button in the top right hand corner. Then you get this:
What the heck? I didn't post anything, I just said it was an interesting post.
Ignore it Mat, she wants you to react.
-
Mat look up the defination of a troll and yes I take screen shots of everything, I have new software on my computer
If I hadnt taken a screenshot a couple of weeks ago I couldnt have proved you were a liar
It is my favourite hobby at the moment and only since you have been around
-
Can we have an end to the goading and rows. Thankyou.
-
Mat look up the defination of a troll and yes I take screen shots of everything, I have new software on my computer
If I hadnt taken a screenshot a couple of weeks ago I couldnt have proved you were a liar
It is my favourite hobby at the moment and only since you have been around
Jackie, this kind of posting is inflammatory. You had made some peace with Mat very recently.
-
Sorry to contiune my running commentary of Wilkes but I have read a few more chapters which have posed a question? What is general opinion of the original defence team? Wilkes sets them up as sort A-team with a challenge, they believed they could win but don't necessarily believe his innocence rather than the idea of an 'angle'. Wilkes then goes on to change tack a little, he moves away from the police and Bamber and establishes Sheila as an incredibly troubled individual which I think is widely accepted but gives evidence from people who didn't necessarily know her very well.
-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jackie, the ban mechanism has not been functioning for a while. It is now working again. If you continue to goad others, including me, I shall use it.
-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| understand you have concerns about that issue. We're better off keeping it off the forum though.
-
I don't want to be impertinent but could we please try and stick to the topic on this one. This thread has had some really good discussion on it until now. I understand that some people have reservations and suspicions of others and that is natural but can it take place somewhere else?
-
Ignore it Mat, she wants you to react.
You're right, I will.
-
In the hope of getting an answer i'll repeat my question as it may have got lost in the posts. Can anybody give me their assessment of the original defence team? From what I have just read they seemed very capable.
-
In the hope of getting an answer i'll repeat my question as it may have got lost in the posts. Can anybody give me their assessment of the original defence team? From what I have just read they seemed very capable.
What have you just read AJ?
-
In the hope of getting an answer i'll repeat my question as it may have got lost in the posts. Can anybody give me their assessment of the original defence team? From what I have just read they seemed very capable.
It's a hard one. They lost the case so they didn't do perfectly. Is that because they didn't attack the correct aspects of the case or because they had so much information withheld from them that they had their hands tied behind their back? Could be a bit of both.
Maybe the Jury didn't like the look of Bamber - and trusted Julie more.
I don't think the original defence team ever did enough to prove innocence.
-
April,
Mat has an agenda just like Bridget they are both members of the Lamberton forum where they put all sorts of propaganda over the internet
Jackie, hi and thankyou for the advice.
Do you work in this field then?
Hello, ajross. I am conversant with client confidentiality.
Thanks April.
To reply to more than one post, once you've finished typing one reply and before clicking 'post', scroll down and look for the next one you want to address (they appear below the reply box) and click the 'insert quote' button in the top right hand corner. Then you get this:
Ignore it Mat, she wants you to react.
Hi, Bridget and thankyou for the useful. Hope I've got it right.
-
It's a hard one. They lost the case so they didn't do perfectly. Is that because they didn't attack the correct aspects of the case or because they had so much information withheld from them that they had their hands tied behind their back? Could be a bit of both.
Maybe the Jury didn't like the look of Bamber - and trusted Julie more.
I don't think the original defence team ever did enough to prove innocence.
That's a fair post.
-
Hello, ajross. I am conversant with client confidentiality.
I see.
-
Patti, hi and your words are really kind, thank you. I watched the video. Had I not known in advance what It was about, I would have said he was a reasonable young man!!!! That's chilling in itself. I read some of Hare's papers at college, he was probably one of those who convinced me that psychopathy is a mixture of socialization and genetics, actually he could have been speaking of my mother, who was truly incapable of considering anybody elses feelings in any way, other than how they impacted on her. I'm certain she was on the psychopathic spectrum.
I was told something today which I found, at best thought provoking, at worst, chilling. I hope you don't mind if I run it by you. I was paid a visit by the person who manages the complex where I live. Still in my jarmies and on line, I explained what it was that was holding my interest-and discovered just how small the world is. She had previously worked for a mental health trust whose senior psychiatrists were required to assess prisoners deemed to have committed serious crimes. Two of their number visited Jeremy and both assessed him as a psychopath. I pointed out that he had been tested on 27(?) different occasions and the results for psychopathy were negative. She said that none of those tests were random and had all been done at Jeremy's request and he knew when they were going to happen which would have enabled him to have control of how he
presented himself. She did however, agree that there is room for doubt, she was fully aware of the cock up made by EP, and she agreed that being a psychopath doesn't necessarily make him a killer........
......Which is the one thing I would take the video to task over. I know it was sensationalism to hold the viewers attention, but I think she rather overstressed the potential danger of psychopaths, when we know the vast majority are out there, living their lives, albeit with a different mindset, like the rest of us.
At the moment, I probably put microchips in the same catagory as chemical castration, genetic engineering and embryonic research.
Hi april, we have to be very careful I suppose in our diagnosis of saying someone is a psychopath, for the definitions covers a multitude of personalities and behaviour pattens. We also have to remain bias. In the case of JB I am not 100% sure, if I can be honest it has crossed my mind, but I am not an expert, so I can't say categorically that he is or anyone that I know is.....
In the case of the two psychiatrists that you mention who made an assessment on Jeremy, I can only say that she had doubt and where there is doubt, there might not be conviction enough to diagnose that he is a psychopath, the diagnosis fails at the first hurdle, because she cannot commit herself to say she is 100% sure....Can you see where I am coming from? :) :) :)
-
It's a hard one. They lost the case so they didn't do perfectly. Is that because they didn't attack the correct aspects of the case or because they had so much information withheld from them that they had their hands tied behind their back? Could be a bit of both.
Maybe the Jury didn't like the look of Bamber - and trusted Julie more.
I don't think the original defence team ever did enough to prove innocence.
Have you read Wilkes' book Mat? I just wondered, nothing more. It is interesting how he talks about the acceptance of the case and their way of handling it. They seemed to have their hands tied due to the phone call issue but Wilkes writes that the problem was that JB mentioned Sheila by name. It may be that Wilkes just got this wrong. However, he also says that they didn't want to directly question the police investigation as that had first found JB innocent. What I find more questinable is that "it was a matter of pride to Geoffrey Rivlin that he had never turned down a brief to defend a man accused of murder" and that he "refused to believe it was unwinnable" not he believed that JB was undoubtedly innocent.
-
Have you read Wilkes' book Mat? I just wondered, nothing more. It is interesting how he talks about the acceptance of the case and their way of handling it. They seemed to have their hands tied due to the phone call issue but Wilkes writes that the problem was that JB mentioned Sheila by name. It may be that Wilkes just got this wrong. However, he also says that they didn't want to directly question the police investigation as that had first found JB innocent. What I find more questinable is that "it was a matter of pride to Geoffrey Rivlin that he had never turned down a brief to defend a man accused of murder" and that he "refused to believe it was unwinnable" not he believed that JB was undoubtedly innocent.
I haven't read the book. Do you think it would change my opinion of the defence team or just give me a better insight into them?
-
Hi april, we have to be very careful I suppose in our diagnosis of saying someone is a psychopath, for the definitions covers a multitude of personalities and behaviour pattens. We also have to remain bias. In the case of JB I am not 100% sure, if I can be honest it has crossed my mind, but I am not an expert, so I can't say categorically that he is or anyone that I know is.....
In the case of the two psychiatrists that you mention who made an assessment on Jeremy, I can only say that she had doubt and where there is doubt, there might not be conviction enough to diagnose that he is a psychopath, the diagnosis fails at the first hurdle, because she cannot commit herself to say she is 100% sure....Can you see where I am coming from? :) :) :)
Patti, all official reports of Jeremy Bamber carried out when in prison have concluded that Jeremy shows no sign of psychopathy or any other psychiatric or psychological disorder. Again and again, people who insist Jeremy to be guilty play the psychopath card even though this has been found to be unfounded over and over again. No one has a clue whether this woman knew first hand what she was talking about or whether it was repeated information. It is hearsay and therefore has to be dismissed as meaningless. imho
-
Hi april, we have to be very careful I suppose in our diagnosis of saying someone is a psychopath, for the definitions covers a multitude of personalities and behaviour pattens. We also have to remain bias. In the case of JB I am not 100% sure, if I can be honest it has crossed my mind, but I am not an expert, so I can't say categorically that he is or anyone that I know is.....
In the case of the two psychiatrists that you mention who made an assessment on Jeremy, I can only say that she had doubt and where there is doubt, there might not be conviction enough to diagnose that he is a psychopath, the diagnosis fails at the first hurdle, because she cannot commit herself to say she is 100% sure....Can you see where I am coming from? :) :) :)
Yes, Patti, very perceptive and entirely correct.......and Yes, despite the need to change my glasses I can see clearly where you're coming from.
-
Patti, all official reports of Jeremy Bamber carried out when in prison have concluded that Jeremy shows no sign of psychopathy or any other psychiatric or psychological disorder. Again and again, people who insist Jeremy to be guilty play the psychopath card even though this has been found to be unfounded over and over again. No one has a clue whether this woman knew first hand what she was talking about or whether it was repeated information. It is hearsay and therefore has to be dismissed as meaningless. imho
Hi maggie :) I know he has been tested and not been diagnosed as having psychopathy. I was just being honest in the fact it had crossed my mind at one point, what I should have said was, it was before I knew that he had been tested. I am off to bed maggie....there is not enough hours in a day...speak tomorrow...X
-
I haven't read the book. Do you think it would change my opinion of the defence team or just give me a better insight into them?
So far I don't think that you need to read the book, I don't think it will tell you anything you don't already know, there are some sort of witness statements assessing Sheila which may or may not have been looked at in great detail but overall it all seems to be on here. What is more is that it would only cement your current opinion and you seem confident enough in your views and explanations to not need that.
-
So far I don't think that you need to read the book, I don't think it will tell you anything you don't already know, there are some sort of witness statements assessing Sheila which may or may not have been looked at in great detail but overall it all seems to be on here. What is more is that it would only cement your current opinion and you seem confident enough in your views and explanations to not need that.
Ah, thanks. It might be a good point of reference though.
-
So far I don't think that you need to read the book, I don't think it will tell you anything you don't already know, there are some sort of witness statements assessing Sheila which may or may not have been looked at in great detail but overall it all seems to be on here. What is more is that it would only cement your current opinion and you seem confident enough in your views and explanations to not need that.
I must get that book..... :) :) :)
-
So far I don't think that you need to read the book, I don't think it will tell you anything you don't already know, there are some sort of witness statements assessing Sheila which may or may not have been looked at in great detail but overall it all seems to be on here. What is more is that it would only cement your current opinion and you seem confident enough in your views and explanations to not need that.
No doubt you also know a great deal about the original defence team as well. Another worrying comment from Wilkes was that one of the people approached knew that it would be a landmark case in the career of a lawyer. I have to say that Stan Jones is the only person coming off in a positive light at the moment
-
Do you think books are a good guide to the truth, when there is documented evidence available to the public? :) :) :)
-
Do we know who was responsible for Sheila's pregnancy/ies which led to the miscarriage/s?
-
Do you think books are a good guide to the truth, when there is documented evidence available to the public? :) :) :)
Books can be good to help clarify the evidence. IMO. you can learn why someone said what in a statement and exactly what they meant by it.
-
Do we know who was responsible for Sheila's pregnancy/ies which led to the miscarriage/s?
Hi AJ
I have read Colin's book and according to him, he was the father of the said two abortions and one miscarriage.
One abortion when she 17yrs unmarried. One miscarriage a couple of months after they got married and the second abortion was during their marriage, due to an infection...then she had the twins. :) :)
-
Books can be good to help clarify the evidence. IMO. you can learn why someone said what in a statement and exactly what they meant by it.
They can give alternative arguments mat...I agree. But could a writer be biased enough to distort the truth and lead the reader into believing fact is merely a myth? :) :) :) :)
-
They can give alternative arguments mat...I agree. But could a writer be biased enough to distort the truth and lead the reader into believing fact is merely a myth? :) :) :) :)
Oh, God yes! Of course.
I'd like to read books by people involved with the case- anyone else has jsut their own outside opinion.
-
Do you think books are a good guide to the truth, when there is documented evidence available to the public? :) :) :)
The book is supposed to be fact, it is not a fictional account of the events and it is based on witness statements, the documents (of the time) that you mention and as close to first hand account as possible. There will always be an authors spin on it but that is what I am trying to dissect.
-
Hi maggie :) I know he has been tested and not been diagnosed as having psychopathy. I was just being honest in the fact it had crossed my mind at one point, what I should have said was, it was before I knew that he had been tested. I am off to bed maggie....there is not enough hours in a day...speak tomorrow...X
Night Pattixx
-
Hi AJ
I have read Colin's book and according to him, he was the father of the said two abortions and one miscarriage.
One abortion when she 17yrs unmarried. One miscarriage a couple of months after they got married and the second abortion was during their marriage, due to an infection...then she had the twins. :) :)
Do we know why she had the first abortion? I'm just thinking about the episodes described by Freddie Emami (think I spelt that right) andher mental state, the descriptions he makes are rather disturbing
-
Hi AJ
I have read Colin's book and according to him, he was the father of the said two abortions and one miscarriage.
One abortion when she 17yrs unmarried. One miscarriage a couple of months after they got married and the second abortion was during their marriage, due to an infection...then she had the twins. :) :)
Patti, going by the timelines you give, theirs was along term relationship. Despite its' volatility, something kept them together. It may not have been easy for him to notice her deteriorating mental health until it became obvious, by which time he may have felt obligated to stay with her. Not really good grounds for a stable relationship, but I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time and I suppose most of us do what ever it takes at some time in our lives.
-
Do we know why she had the first abortion? I'm just thinking about the episodes described by Freddie Emami (think I spelt that right) andher mental state, the descriptions he makes are rather disturbing
I was just curious about the possibility of any sort of trauma she experienced (that I personally am not aware of)
-
Patti, all official reports of Jeremy Bamber carried out when in prison have concluded that Jeremy shows no sign of psychopathy or any other psychiatric or psychological disorder. Again and again, people who insist Jeremy to be guilty play the psychopath card even though this has been found to be unfounded over and over again. No one has a clue whether this woman knew first hand what she was talking about or whether it was repeated information. It is hearsay and therefore has to be dismissed as meaningless. imho
All reports or just the ones he talks about? If he's passed 27, how many has he failed?
-
All reports or just the ones he talks about? If he's passed 27, how many has he failed?
I don't suppose we know which tests they were?
-
A book is a guide not the truth, nor do i believe a court is always the truth, a book is 1 persons thoughts is it yours ?
-
A book is a guide not the truth, nor do i believe a court is always the truth, a book is 1 persons thoughts is it yours ?
Yes, but you just changed your avatar to an Italian flag!!! ;)
-
Yes, but you just changed your avatar to an Italian flag!!! ;)
I need to go back to Alassio , ive not been since 1978, i hear its changed very little,ive also heard the hotel we were in is still there a stone throw from the train station !
-
I need to go back to Alassio , ive not been since 1978, i hear its changed very little,ive also heard the hotel we were in is still there a stone throw from the train station !
I am trying to remember where in Italy Alassio is. Got it, it's the Italian Riveria and it was the place to go in the early 60's. My friend's father was a consultant and they always went to Alassio for their summer hols. It all sounded very exotic to the rest of us.
-
I am trying to remember where in Italy Alassio is. Got it, it's the Italian Riveria and it was the place to go in the early 60's for the richer classes. My friend's father was a consultant and they always went to Alassio for their summer hols. It all sounded very exotic to the rest of us.
im tempted to post a picture of me back then on pattis friday night anything goes on friday night.
-
im tempted to post a picture of me back then on pattis friday night anything goes on friday night.
I think you should follow your gut feeling mertol and go for it. I'm sure she'll appreciate.xx
-
Should deffo post a picture, Mertol. Interested in who am posting with.
-
im tempted to post a picture of me back then on pattis friday night anything goes on friday night.
Good morning Mertol,,,Patti will be delighted by that. I was on the phone to her a couple of weeks ago. We've known each other for about 4 years,,,she's a good soul.
-
On page 178 of Blood Relations Wilkes explains that SC was referred for a breast augmentation and had the operation in 1981 to help her get more modelling work, I find this very odd, I believe that now unless there are clear medical grounds you have to have psychological evaluations.
-
On page 178 of Blood Relations Wilkes explains that SC was referred for a breast augmentation and had the operation in 1981 to help her get more modelling work, I find this very odd, I believe that now unless there are clear medical grounds you have to have psychological evaluations.
A boob job. Think Sam Fox?
-
A boob job. Think Sam Fox?
Why??? I'm not sure though it was the most advisable thing for a young woman with mental health problems although presumably at the time it was seen as a solution to her low self esteem and insecurities although the book does state i twas to get more work.
-
Interestingly though, Sam Fox was obviously famous for just the sort of photos that The Sun would have wanted!
-
Back to the book - the trial has started and the tactics of both the prosecution and defence have been called into question really, while the family have been described in a relatively bad light. JB is made out to be arrogant but also a bit of a prankster, I wonder if his posturing was a prank that backfired. On a technical note, the chronicling of the trial so far has had snippets of testimony but it is difficult to know where they came from and whether or not they are correct
-
I think my continual analysis of the book has bored/scared everybody away from this thread!!!
-
I think my continual analysis of the book has bored/scared everybody away from this thread!!!
I'm reading the posts, AJ. But just have nothing to add. Don't stop!
-
I think my continual analysis of the book has bored/scared everybody away from this thread!!!
i have bought the claire powell paperback off ebay this week, i should recieve very soon, i bought the book for only 2 reasons , one i dont have it and 2nd claire powell believed jeremy to be guilty and explains why he is well i want to know that , the book i hear leaves a door open at the end.
-
I think my continual analysis of the book has bored/scared everybody away from this thread!!!
No it hasn't, but I haven't read it yet so it's hard to converse about it.
-
i have bought the claire powell paperback off ebay this week, i should recieve very soon, i bought the book for only 2 reasons , one i dont have it and 2nd claire powell believed jeremy to be guilty and explains why he is well i want to know that , the book i hear leaves a door open at the end.
So have I... I have a lot of reading to do!
-
i have bought the claire powell paperback off ebay this week, i should recieve very soon, i bought the book for only 2 reasons , one i dont have it and 2nd claire powell believed jeremy to be guilty and explains why he is well i want to know that , the book i hear leaves a door open at the end.
You will enjoy reading this book, Mertol, as it gives a lot of background information that other books miss.
-
Keira Colin s book i feel was not written in one go, there does seem to be intervals in its structure, so yes i will await these alternative versions.
-
Keira Colin s book i feel was not written in one go, there does seem to be intervals in its structure, so yes i will await these alternative versions.
Mertol - are alternative versions of Colin's book being released? Sorry don't know if that is what you mean or not.
-
Mertol - are alternative versions of Colin's book being released? Sorry don't know if that is what you mean or not.
sorry i was referring to claire powells book im expecting this week,reading will begin as soon as i have it.
-
sorry i was referring to claire powells book im expecting this week,reading will begin as soon as i have it.
Ah, I thought so but I just wanted to duble check.
-
i have bought the claire powell paperback off ebay this week, i should recieve very soon, i bought the book for only 2 reasons , one i dont have it and 2nd claire powell believed jeremy to be guilty and explains why he is well i want to know that , the book i hear leaves a door open at the end.
hmm, i shall have to buy that too
-
So have I... I have a lot of reading to do!
lol, and a lot of it will say the same thing! :)
-
Well all we need now is great snowfall so we cant get out , give us time to complete all this book reading.
-
Well all we need now is great snowfall so we cant get out , give us time to complete all this book reading.
We shold've just arranged a book swap club, would've save us all the money. :D
-
We shold've just arranged a book swap club, would've save us all the money. :D
ajross yes it could have been done the known books on the case could have been available, saw colins book for £105 last week and one for £40 both gone, after ive read claire powells book i will return to this thread to let you know my views,not so many murder casebooks no 7 on ebay ive noticed nowadays.
-
Mertol just lightening my mood from negative vibes watching the only way is Essex in Marbella
-
Mertol just lightening my mood from negative vibes watching the only way is Essex in Marbella
The girls have put Essex well and truly on the map jackie i think Lauren Goodger is ok she has guts also .
-
We shold've just arranged a book swap club, would've save us all the money. :D
Hello ajross, the Claire Powell book arrived today so i will make a start on Sunday might take me a week or so, it will be interesting if this book also describes the hunched figure walking away that night.
-
We shold've just arranged a book swap club, would've save us all the money. :D
Some of my friends are rubbish accountants. But they are very good book keepers.
-
After a brief sojourn in Devon I am back to bore people with my tedious analysis of the book! It could just be the tone of the book but so far Rivlin's cross-examination of JM seems to let her 'get away' with a lot in terms of not pressing her for details and seeming to go a bit soft on her. Again, there are quotes here and these are supposed to be from the actual trial but this isn't well explained. There is one very bizarre quote from JM about her consciousness and subconsciousness which seems to show her to be very confused and rambling, her excuse for going to identify the bodies was interesting too.
-
After a brief sojourn in Devon I am back to bore people with my tedious analysis of the book! It could just be the tone of the book but so far Rivlin's cross-examination of JM seems to let her 'get away' with a lot in terms of not pressing her for details and seeming to go a bit soft on her. Again, there are quotes here and these are supposed to be from the actual trial but this isn't well explained. There is one very bizarre quote from JM about her consciousness and subconsciousness which seems to show her to be very confused and rambling, her excuse for going to identify the bodies was interesting too.
What was her excuse AJ? :) :)
-
What was her excuse AJ? :) :)
It's claimed in the book that she said in court that the reason she went was because she knew that JB had killed the family and she wanted to go and see June and Sheila and get their guidance. She claimed to be spiritual and religious and wanted them to tell her what to do and to confirm what had happened.
-
It's claimed in the book that she said in court that the reason she went was because she knew that JB had killed the family and she wanted to go and see June and Sheila and get their guidance. She claimed to be spiritual and religious and wanted them to tell her what to do and to confirm what had happened.
Really. I am in disbelief here...Here we have a woman, who shared a bed with someone, who she believed to have killed his family, yet said nothing for a whole month, until he dumped her. Also, she claims to have known it was going to happen, and still did nothing. She saw two little boys dead and still said nothing....She herself went out for meals and went abroad and she still never said anything....then she claimed in the NOTW that he never did admit it too me.....Did she guess, or did she want him locked up for something he did not do, because she did not want anyone else to have him....She never cried coming out of that mortuary, nor did you see her cry at the funerals....until she went on centre stage at court and she did nothing but cry.....who is the actor here? Me thinks she was and still is.....I feel she dare not come forward and say she lied, because she has not only prospered, she would fear the hate towards her if she did.....Just sayin.....and morning by the way. :) :) :)
-
How dare that woman,,,JM have been given immunity from her crimes in exchange to implicate Jeremy in the murders. Police favours have been going on for years. Talk about bribery and corruption,,,it's been more than evident in this particular case.
Who was the greedy scheming one? Certainly not Jeremy,,that's for sure.
Take the Susan May case back in 1993,,,where Mr Justice Hutchinson stated,in his summing up,,quote " It could be said of almost any of us that we have interests in this or that relative dying if we are a beneficiary under the will,,,,but it does not support a case of murder against us,does it----------at any rate not with any conviction."unquote.
Susan was accused of murdering her rich aunt. The outcome of which we know. Another MOJ.!
BTW,Patti,,I don't know anyone who'd have shown such willingness to visit a mortuary where two little children lay. That is one cold,hard person who could volunteer something like that without emotion.Who's the psychopath here.? Whereas,Jeremy threw-up with shock at what he was told about inside WHF. That is an immediate reflex action with anyone faced with such news. In other words,a show of emotion. He was given valium as a calminative to quell his feelings of nausea.
Another poor soul stagnating in prison for something he clearly did not commit. It's beyond cruelty.
-
How dare that woman,,,JM have been given immunity from her crimes in exchange to implicate Jeremy in the murders. Police favours have been going on for years. Talk about bribery and corruption,,,it's been more than evident in this particular case.
Who was the greedy scheming one? Certainly not Jeremy,,that's for sure.
Take the Susan May case back in 1993,,,where Mr Justice Hutchinson stated,in his summing up,,quote " It could be said of almost any of us that we have interests in this or that relative dying if we are a beneficiary under the will,,,,but it does not support a case of murder against us,does it----------at any rate not with any conviction."unquote.
Susan was accused of murdering her rich aunt. The outcome of which we know. Another MOJ.!
BTW,Patti,,I don't know anyone who'd have shown such willingness to visit a mortuary where two little children lay. That is one cold,hard person who could volunteer something like that without emotion.Who's the psychopath here.? Whereas,Jeremy threw-up with shock at what he was told about inside WHF. That is an immediate reflex action with anyone faced with such news. In other words,a show of emotion. He was given valium as a calminative to quell his feelings of nausea.
Another poor soul stagnating in prison for something he clearly did not commit. It's beyond cruelty.
I agree lookout and have personally, questioned the possibility of JM being very low on the emoting graph. Mind you she was well able to cry for herself at the trial. What was upsetting her in the witness box, was it the fact that she had lost Jeremy? It was a bit late for tears for anyone else by then,
-
Hi Maggie,,, In my estimation and observations,,,Jeremy was far too good for that woman. I just think that,,at the time Jeremy was looking for a " dominant " figure in a woman. He'd led a pretty sheltered sort of a life and so wasn't too familiar with the " outside world " until he met JM.. He more than likely found it exciting to know someone who knew a bit more about life than he did,,,so went along with it.
I bet she bossed him around and was used to getting her own way with him,,taking advantage of him at every possible chance. She was a very bad influence,,and the difference in breeding and upbringing was there to see.
-
Hi Maggie,,, In my estimation and observations,,,Jeremy was far too good for that woman. I just think that,,at the time Jeremy was looking for a " dominant " figure in a woman. He'd led a pretty sheltered sort of a life and so wasn't too familiar with the " outside world " until he met JM.. He more than likely found it exciting to know someone who knew a bit more about life than he did,,,so went along with it.
I bet she bossed him around and was used to getting her own way with him,,taking advantage of him at every possible chance. She was a very bad influence,,and the difference in breeding and upbringing was there to see.
The fact is lookout, that JM and her flat mate were responsible for the cheque fraud and as far as we know Jeremy had nothing to do with that. I have heard it argued that she did it to impress Jeremy but I can't see any basis for that argument. So, who's idea was the robbery at the caravan park? Who was the follower? Noone knows if they were both as bad as each other, or one was led by the other but one things for sure. JM was no innocent.
-
How dare that woman,,,JM have been given immunity from her crimes in exchange to implicate Jeremy in the murders. Police favours have been going on for years. Talk about bribery and corruption,,,it's been more than evident in this particular case.
Who was the greedy scheming one? Certainly not Jeremy,,that's for sure.
Take the Susan May case back in 1993,,,where Mr Justice Hutchinson stated,in his summing up,,quote " It could be said of almost any of us that we have interests in this or that relative dying if we are a beneficiary under the will,,,,but it does not support a case of murder against us,does it----------at any rate not with any conviction."unquote.
Susan was accused of murdering her rich aunt. The outcome of which we know. Another MOJ.!
BTW,Patti,,I don't know anyone who'd have shown such willingness to visit a mortuary where two little children lay. That is one cold,hard person who could volunteer something like that without emotion.Who's the psychopath here.? Whereas,Jeremy threw-up with shock at what he was told about inside WHF. That is an immediate reflex action with anyone faced with such news. In other words,a show of emotion. He was given valium as a calminative to quell his feelings of nausea.
Another poor soul stagnating in prison for something he clearly did not commit. It's beyond cruelty.
Brilliant post Lookout. If we can see all of this, then why can't anyone else? It bothers me that because the lad was found guilty, that he is indeed guilty and end of...But, there is a wider picture here and that is one of false imprisonment and a bit of corruption on the way, not to mention the framing and devious ways and means of inciting someone who had just lost his family in an horrific way....Also, the past 27 years of constant battling to get some attention to seek justice...pft!
Oh and those windows.......lol :) :) :) :) :)
-
I agree lookout and have personally, questioned the possibility of JM being very low on the emoting graph. Mind you she was well able to cry for herself at the trial. What was upsetting her in the witness box, was it the fact that she had lost Jeremy? It was a bit late for tears for anyone else by then,
Hi Maggie...I feel she had gone way to far and she could not be seen lying, so she followed through with it....She had not one jot of feeling until the trial a year later..I agree with you....I have moved my duster in such a blinking fashion, I nearly wore the thing out...hahahah :) :) :) :)
-
Brilliant post Lookout. If we can see all of this, then why can't anyone else? It bothers me that because the lad was found guilty, that he is indeed guilty and end of...But, there is a wider picture here and that is one of false imprisonment and a bit of corruption on the way, not to mention the framing and devious ways and means of inciting someone who had just lost his family in an horrific way....Also, the past 27 years of constant battling to get some attention to seek justice...pft!
Oh and those windows.......lol :) :) :) :) :)
Patti,,,I'll have to deliver you a thick ear about those pesky windows,,hahahaha.
Yes,,a big song and dance from AE about blood that she'd found on a window-sill ( always finding something,that lot,,but unfounded ) then she promptly wipes it.??? Oh,,I don't think so.
Some rotten so-and-so was busy " planting " various articles about the place,,,but unfortunately such articles as the silencer,,the hacksaw,,,blood on the sill,were all " found " well after the event.
I know police are stupid,but not blind when it comes to visual evidence that could nail someone that nobody particularly liked.! The relatives made sure of that.
I've known some cops to avoid getting involved in a crime which takes them past their 6am shift.( off duty )
A true story from years ago was an example; An officer known by the family was on duty near the Manchester Ship Canal,spotted a body coming " downstream ". Because it was nearing the end of his shift,,and to avoid paperwork,etc etc,,,he found a good length of wood and started to push the body back as much as he could,,as it was nearing 6am,,so leaving it to his next colleague. I know for sure,that this was never reported by the said officer.
-
Patti,,,I'll have to deliver you a thick ear about those pesky windows,,hahahaha.
Yes,,a big song and dance from AE about blood that she'd found on a window-sill ( always finding something,that lot,,but unfounded ) then she promptly wipes it.??? Oh,,I don't think so.
Some rotten so-and-so was busy " planting " various articles about the place,,,but unfortunately such articles as the silencer,,the hacksaw,,,blood on the sill,were all " found " well after the event.
I know police are stupid,but not blind when it comes to visual evidence that could nail someone that nobody particularly liked.! The relatives made sure of that.
I've known some cops to avoid getting involved in a crime which takes them past their 6am shift.( off duty )
A true story from years ago was an example; An officer known by the family was on duty near the Manchester Ship Canal,spotted a body coming " downstream ". Because it was nearing the end of his shift,,and to avoid paperwork,etc etc,,,he found a good length of wood and started to push the body back as much as he could,,as it was nearing 6am,,so leaving it to his next colleague. I know for sure,that this was never reported by the said officer.
Lookout windows are very important....you should now me by now, hahahahahah
I think the police were asleep most of the time and did nothing but fail to find any evidence at all. There were clearly never trained to be coppers.....But, the extended family were fully trained, because what the police missed, they found....says it all really.
I can believe that story Lookout.
When we look back though, policing wasn't the same as it is today, it was far better....lol :) :) :)
-
Lookout windows are very important....you should now me by now, hahahahahah
I think the police were asleep most of the time and did nothing but fail to find any evidence at all. There were clearly never trained to be coppers.....But, the extended family were fully trained, because what the police missed, they found....says it all really.
I can believe that story Lookout.
When we look back though, policing wasn't the same as it is today, it was far better....lol :) :) :)
Hi Patti
Back in 1985, policing was still reasonably simple. Before the age of computers everything was much more colloquial. I should imagine that particular branch of Essex Police had a reasonably quiet time, dealing with burgularies and such like most of the time. They would be in no way be experienced enough to initially deal with a crime of such proportions on the night in question. They may very well have been playing catch up for a while after and covering their tracks for mistakes made. They were human and as such may not to have been too sure of the correct procedures if suddenly catapulted into such a situation.
-
Hi Patti
Back in 1985, policing was still reasonably simple. Before the age of computers everything was much more colloquial. I should imagine that particular branch of Essex Police had a reasonably quiet time, dealing with burgularies and such like most of the time. They would be in no way be experienced enough to initially deal with a crime of such proportions on the night in question. They may very well have been playing catch up for a while after and covering their tracks for mistakes made. They were human and as such may not to have been too sure of the correct procedures if suddenly catapulted into such a situation.
Good post maggie and one that I agree with....Where is Mertol? I will email him... :) :) :)
-
I have said on numerous occasions that I don't necessarily think that JB is innocent or guilty. I am still undecided, however, once again, I find Wilkes' book making me err more towards the guilty arguement. JM seems to have been a relatively reliable and stoic witness, from what the book says she stuck to her guns even though she was struggling emotionally. And JB argued that witnesses who had quoted him as wanting to do away with his parents had been influenced by the media. The most telling thing has been mentioned on the forum before I believe. I have said that certain of his actions (when being quizzed by Stan Jones) were in some ways admirable. However, to respond to the question but you are lying aren't you? with well that's what you have to find out is not only foolhardy and reckless but also very suspicious. Surely he was briefed about his comportment and the influence it could have!
-
The question put to jeremy about lying was way way out of line thats for a court to decide .
-
Hi Patti
Back in 1985, policing was still reasonably simple. Before the age of computers everything was much more colloquial. I should imagine that particular branch of Essex Police had a reasonably quiet time, dealing with burgularies and such like most of the time. They would be in no way be experienced enough to initially deal with a crime of such proportions on the night in question. They may very well have been playing catch up for a while after and covering their tracks for mistakes made. They were human and as such may not to have been too sure of the correct procedures if suddenly catapulted into such a situation.
Good points, Mags. Though I the EP investigation even deviated from standard police procedures on evidence gathering which every police officer, from village bobby to the highest ranking officer in the Met should know and be capable of following blindfold and to the letter.
-
I've been told that the summing up of the judge was onesided in favour of the prosecution, you could argue from reading this book that in fact it was a little onesided and wasn't either very impartial or independent, there are some phrases in there which seem to lead the jury a little and suggest guilt. But what is important is that it is suggested that the jury could dismiss one element of evidence and still find JB guilty on the rest. I think the judge worded this poorly but the idea was correct. But I can only go on what Wilkes has written and again, I find it infuriating that there are note footnotes or endnotes and no explanation or evidence of where these quotes come from, the words could have been manipulated by Wilkes to construct his book.
-
Hi Tyler
I appreciate you're busy but still interested in your views on the books as you seem to be about the only person to have read all four books.
I will get there eventually, I would imagine I will have Wilkes down and lomax ready to go tomorrow, I down the Caffell book but still need to buy the fourth :)
-
For all of my criticism the wilkes book is very easy to read and if I did have a young son and a house I'm continually being told to decorate I could have read it a lot quicker
-
A silly question, is it allowed for a judge to take sides when summing up?
-
A silly question, is it allowed for a judge to take sides when summing up?
I think the summing up is supposed to reflect the relative strengths in each sides case.
-
A silly question, is it allowed for a judge to take sides when summing up?
.......so maybe a silly answer. Would it not difficult to keep bias out of his voice, and would the jury not be able to hear the meaning behind what he says? Whether or not they choose to go down the road to which he's pointing them is up to them.
-
.......so maybe a silly answer. Would it not difficult to keep bias out of his voice, and would the jury not be able to hear the meaning behind what he says? Whether or not they choose to go down the road to which he's pointing them is up to them.
I don't think that's a silly answer at all, it's very valid. There's more about this subject here:
http://nicmadge.co.uk/index.php?pr=summing_up_article_2
-
Bridget, thanks for that link, it was fascinating. Just goes to show that however hard we may try, nothing, when it involves human judgement, is ever 100% fail safe.
-
Bridget, thanks for that link, it was fascinating. Just goes to show that however hard we may try, nothing, when it involves human judgement, is ever 100% fail safe.
Did you read part 1 as well? I only linked to the second part because that was more relevent to the point you were making but when you read the whole thing it's quite an eyeopener to the potential failings. Part 1 is here if you didn't see it:
http://nicmadge.co.uk/index.php?pr=summing_up_article
-
Did you read part 1 as well? I only linked to the second part because that was more relevent to the point you were making but when you read the whole thing it's quite an eyeopener to the potential failings. Part 1 is here if you didn't see it:
http://nicmadge.co.uk/index.php?pr=summing_up_article
OMG, when you look at all the variables, it really seems like it's the luck of the draw, doesn't it? Even so, whilst not being perfect, it may be better than the best of the rest, all the same, I think I'll try to stay out of courts.
-
Well, if Wilkes has quoted him correctly there are a few sentences with just the simple omission of one word he could have been impartial while still passing on a summary of the evidence. He really seems to have led the jury and passed over his own judgements, he also contradicts himself which can't be good
-
Well, if Wilkes has quoted him correctly there are a few sentences with just the simple omission of one word he could have been impartial while still passing on a summary of the evidence. He really seems to have led the jury and passed over his own judgements, he also contradicts himself which can't be good
Is there a complete transcript of the JSU in Wilkes book? It's over 100 pages long and unless you read the whole thing it's impossible to comment effectively.
-
Is there a complete transcript of the JSU in Wilkes book? It's over 100 pages long and unless you read the whole thing it's impossible to comment effectively.
No, which makes me question if Wilkes chose certain statements as it supports his arguement and the drama of his book but the book alone would give you a very unbalanced view of things and you could easily 'blame' the judge,
-
No, which makes me question if Wilkes chose certain statements as it supports his arguement and the drama of his book but the book alone would give you a very unbalanced view of things and you could easily 'blame' the judge,
I do blame the judge he should have been replaced a poor judge .
-
No, which makes me question if Wilkes chose certain statements as it supports his arguement and the drama of his book but the book alone would give you a very unbalanced view of things and you could easily 'blame' the judge,
The jury in Jeremy's case,were " persuaded " by the judge who instructed them that the silencer " on its own " could lead them to believe that JB was guilty.
It's up to a jury ( such as it is ) to study a case,any case,before reaching their own conclusions instead of being swayed by the words of a judge and the manner in which he says them.It depends how gullible the jury is to take a judges word as final,,instead of having worked out a case for themselves.
Judges aren't always right in their summing up.
In this case,,,yes,,,,I would blame the judge.
-
The jury in Jeremy's case,were " persuaded " by the judge who instructed them that the silencer " on its own " could lead them to believe that JB was guilty.
It's up to a jury ( such as it is ) to study a case,any case,before reaching their own conclusions instead of being swayed by the words of a judge and the manner in which he says them.It depends how gullible the jury is to take a judges word as final,,instead of having worked out a case for themselves.
Judges aren't always right in their summing up.
In this case,,,yes,,,,I would blame the judge.
Note to those on the L forum. who are interested in blacking people's names by revealing skeletons in their past should do their research on Ducky Drake. I will say no more, only "good night ducky". ;)
-
Note to those on the L forum. who are interested in blacking people's names by revealing skeletons in their past should do their research on Ducky Drake. I will say no more, only "good night ducky". ;)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bridgewater-three-to-go-free-1279695.html
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bridgewater-three-to-go-free-1279695.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/9/newsid_2516000/2516015.stm
Look at what he said at the trial !!
-
Unfortunately this appears to be what it degrades to, nothing more than people seeking to discredit each other.
In reality it's all quite irrelevant, other than to those wishing to score meaningless points in a meaningless exchange.
Tit for tat and repeat.
-
Unfortunately this appears to be what it degrades to, nothing more than people seeking to discredit each other.
In reality it's all quite irrelevant, other than to those wishing to score meaningless points in a meaningless exchange.
Tit for tat and repeat.
What do you mean Hartley?
-
What do you mean Hartley?
What do you think the motivation is for attempting to discover the identities of members of this forum?
-
Hi ComeOnEngland what is the motivation for discovering the identities of the forum members I am sure my identity would be of no interest to anyone ;)
-
What do you think the motivation is for attempting to discover the identities of members of this forum?
It seems to me that an equally valid question would be what is the motivation for divulging the identities of other forum members?
-
Hi Bridget What would the motivation be for divulging members identity does it matter who we are as long as we are all respectful to each other and civil :)
-
What do you think the motivation is for attempting to discover the identities of members of this forum?
Do you mean on the part of the other forum or on the part of this forum?
-
It seems to me that an equally valid question would be what is the motivation for divulging the identities of other forum members?
Yes, that was going to be my next response.
Hence my earlier tit for tat description.
(Although I also meant people on this forum trying to find out the identities of other people on this forum).
EDIT: I misunderstood your post. :-[ Yes that is also a very valid question.
-
Hi Bridget What would the motivation be for divulging members identity does it matter who we are as long as we are all respectful to each other and civil :)
Couldn't agree more Susan.
-
Couldn't agree more Susan.
Me too, but I'd suggest the chances of that happening unanimously across the board to be remote.
Hence my other, points scoring comment.
-
Do you mean on the part of the other forum or on the part of this forum?
Both, but I'm only really interested in this one.
-
Hi Roch what I find amazing is that some people on the forum are quite paranoid about who is who and as I said to Bridget who cares who is who. The forum is not connected to the Secret Service and we have not be sworn into the Official Secrets Act it is just to openly debate and it is quite obvious to me quite a lot of members live in close proximity so do know each other. Hope not too many caps for you Bridget ;) ;) ;)
-
What do you think the motivation is for attempting to discover the identities of members of this forum?
It seems to me that an equally valid question would be what is the motivation for divulging the identities of other forum members?
Well nobody seems to be willing to take a crack at answering the question(s), but I think deep down we all know the answer don't we?
-
ComeOnEngland no I don,t know the answers but I am sure you will point me in the right direction when I reply to your posts I feel I may have walked into a trap :) :) :)
-
Both, but I'm only really interested in this one.
Yes... but I meant... do you mean blue on blue or red on blue. They're both this forum, if that makes sense.
-
Yes... but I meant... do you mean blue on blue or red on blue. They're both this forum, if that makes sense.
No not really. I'm not distinguishing between forums.
The motivation is the same in my view, and it has nothing to do with wanting to trade Christmas cards.
-
Hi egap1 I have just given up on COE and Roch as they are talking in code between themselves I suspect. Like you I think debating on the forum can be fun as long as you don,t allow it to become too serious. I always think an individuals nature shows in the way they post and some of whom I would hate to meet at a give way sign or roundabout. The thing is enjoy the forum which you do and I may add in a very nice ladylike manner. The forum can be a very unhealthy place to be and when I feel that I am out of here. ;) ;) ;)
-
No not really. I'm not distinguishing between forums.
The motivation is the same in my view, and it has nothing to do with wanting to trade Christmas cards.
Well blue on blue will likely be an attempt to identify a prominent member of the guilty camp, especially one that either feeds pro camp paranoia (i.e. 'MI5' / relative / EP) or is simply an unpleasent individual... or even a interesting one. Red on Blue is designed to expose and possibly degrade a prominent member (mostly but not solely) of the innocent camp.
That's a guess. I could be wrong.
-
Hi CoE
Well surely the reasons are infinite and will vary from person to person. I don't really understand what you're driving at?
As you know communicating online was new to me prior to joining this forum and whilst I think it's sort of good fun/healthy in one way in another I think it's rather bizarre/unhealthy!
I simply don't understand how so much animosity can develop between the reds and blues, trolls (new to me until recent weeks) and the various forum members. However, to some degree I have been guilty of minor spats (!?) with Maggie.
Hardly a spat egap, I have never born you any ill will. I'm not really a spatty person. :o :o
-
Hi Roch I think the whole scenario sounds rather childish and I cannot see how it is going to help Jeremy Bamber obtain his freedom it is just childish games and I cannot see how anybody is going to benefit from it.
-
Hi egap1 I can guarantee that Mags does not spat and does not have a spat in her body :) ;) Maybe you had a slight disagreement with her :)
-
Well blue on blue will likely be an attempt to identify a prominent member of the guilty camp, especially one that either feeds pro camp paranoia (i.e. 'MI5' / relative / EP) or is simply an unpleasent individual... or even a interesting one. Red on Blue is designed to expose and possibly degrade a prominent member (mostly but not solely) of the innocent camp.
That's a guess. I could be wrong.
I don't see a distinction.
I would guess that your latter suggestion is more accurate, however it's not by any means exclusive and equally applies to the blue attempting to discover another blue, a red, a green or an orange.
Or perhaps trying to find out if there actually is anything which could be used to degrade or discredit would be more accurate in most cases.
-
Hi Maggie
That may be true but perhaps I am ie a spatty person.
I've resisted doing these silly faces but I guess I'll have to join in! Problem is my eq is so low I can't work out which faces are appropriate so I'll probably upset everyone and end up Billy No Mates :'(
Hi egap, you will find the faces become quite addictive and I find them hard to resist these days, am not convinced theyr'e at all cool tho'. 8) ;D
-
Hi egap1 my sentiments exactly we are out of the frame just now with those two ;) if it is any consolation I think you are very interesting :)
-
Hi egap1 my sentiments exactly we are out of the frame just now with those two ;) if it is any consolation I think you are very interesting :)
As do I and I'm going to put my hands up and admit to not having a clue about what is meant by mixing colours together. Red and blue create purple in varying shades according to the balance of the mix. So what?
Like egap 1, I'm totally new to this method of communication, and devoid of duplicity because I'm not clever enough to be otherwise, but it seems that there maybe some for whom the only unifying factor is an interest in Jeremy. I fail to see why it's seen as necessary, by some, to know about the private people who are behind their public personas. When I first joined. I had already moved from a position of "he's guilty" to having an open mind. Now, because of evidence presented here about the serious LACK of evidence combined with what appears to be very shady behaviour on the part of the wider family, possibly in collaberation, with others, I'm inclined to believe "he's innocent"
-
Hi Rochford
Do you think we could be interesting?
;) Now there's a thought. Hope the couch is holding up.
-
I don't see a distinction.
I would guess that your latter suggestion is more accurate, however it's not by any means exclusive and equally applies to the blue attempting to discover another blue, a red, a green or an orange.
Or perhaps trying to find out if there actually is anything which could be used to degrade or discredit would be more accurate in most cases.
Would you say that your personal ID has been exposed on this forum and info dredged up about you that has been used to degrade you in some way? Photos of your house or person etc? If not, then I don't think it's the same. However I have no wish to minimise your grievance in any way.
-
I don't see a distinction.
I would guess that your latter suggestion is more accurate, however it's not by any means exclusive and equally applies to the blue attempting to discover another blue, a red, a green or an orange.
Or perhaps trying to find out if there actually is anything which could be used to degrade or discredit would be more accurate in most cases.
You have been very well protected here Hartley and that will continue. I hope/believe that you realise that. It has taken some effort I can assure you. People are naturally curious and there is nothing inherantly wrong in that. It is the use which is made of information which is important in my view. We do our best to ensure that proper standards are maintained here.
-
Hi egap1 my sentiments exactly we are out of the frame just now with those two ;) if it is any consolation I think you are very interesting :)
Sorry for the confusion, it's the colours of the two forums.
-
Hi Roch thanks for clearing that up I was beginning to think it was two football clubs in the European Cup ;)
-
Would you say that your personal ID has been exposed on this forum and info dredged up about you that has been used to degrade you in some way? Photos of your house or person etc? If not, then I don't think it's the same. However I have no wish to minimise your grievance in any way.
I'm not talking about me Roch, I think you may have the wrong end of the stick, so to speak, there is no grievance to minimise. Unless you know something I don't? ???
However, I do see the motivation as being the same, regardless as to whether anything is discovered and shared or not.
My original comment:
Unfortunately this appears to be what it degrades to, nothing more than people seeking to discredit each other.
In reality it's all quite irrelevant, other than to those wishing to score meaningless points in a meaningless exchange.
Tit for tat and repeat.
..... is referring to the level of animosity displayed and the points scoring which has pretty much enveloped and taken over every aspect of this forum and is intrinsically linked to bad relations formed with 'The Other' forum and its members.
The research into members identities is simply a part of that.
Posts such as:
Note to those on the L forum. who are interested in blacking people's names by revealing skeletons in their past should do their research on Ducky Drake. I will say no more, only "good night ducky". ;)
Leads me to think that people enjoy the conflict.
-
You have been very well protected here Hartley and that will continue. I hope/believe that you realise that. It has taken some effort I can assure you. People are naturally curious and there is nothing inherantly wrong in that. It is the use which is made of information which is important in my view. We do our best to ensure that proper standards are maintained here.
I am fully aware of that NGB.
-
Did you read the Drake links? I thought it was interesting. Those men protested their innocence for 19 years. If while they were still in prison, I had said that to the red forum or several posters on here, I would have received a reply to the effect "Well what else have they got to do?" And if I'd suggested that they were fitted up by the police, I would have received the reply "I'm not generally in to conspiracy theories".
I know this isn't relevant to your point...
-
Did you read the Drake links? I thought it was interesting. Those men protested their innocence for 19 years. If while they were still in prison, I had said that to the red forum or several posters on here, I would have received a reply to the effect "Well what else have they got to do?" And if I'd suggested that they were fitted up by the police, I would have received the reply "I'm not generally in to conspiracy theories".
I know this isn't relevant to your point...
I don't see the relevance. ;D
Yes interesting I suppose, particularly in the sense it is more about proving an unfair trial than proving innocence. Although I don't think that guessing what peoples reactions to another case would be, to be particularly helpful, if anything it assists in highlighting the divide, just in a more civil manner.
For all of it's interest, the actual reason the link was posted, is really quite boring.
-
I don't see the relevance. ;D
Yes interesting I suppose, particularly in the sense it is more about proving an unfair trial than proving innocence. Although I don't think that guessing what peopled reactions to another case would be, to be particularly helpful, if anything it assists in highlighting the divide, just in a more civil manner.
For all of it's interest, the actual reason the link was posted, is really quite boring.
It shows Drake and the system of justice to be completely fallible to police corruption, with a nice 19 year gap in between him / the jury being conned and exposure. In the intervening 19 years, nobody managed to prove this to be the case. Presumably all the prosecution statements in the intervening years must have all present and correct?
-
It shows Drake and the system of justice to be completely fallible to police corruption, with a nice 19 year gap in between him / the jury being conned and exposure. In the intervening 19 years, nobody managed to prove this to be the case. Presumably all the prosecution statements in the intervening years must have all present and correct?
Sure, but nobody is suggesting otherwise, just because something happened somewhere else, it doesn't mean it happened here.
Likewise, if I give you a link to a case which shows the opposite, it doesn't reinforce my view.
-
Sure, but nobody is suggesting otherwise, just because something happened somewhere else, it doesn't mean it happened here.
Likewise, if I give you a link to a case which shows the opposite, it doesn't reinforce my view.
I understand the point you're making but it's more convenient for your side to take that line and it's more convenient for my side to take the opposite line. Drake was conned by police corruption - the system was conned by police corruption (i.e. both in the Bridgewater case). The prosecution witness statements in the Bamber case are corrupt in my opinion, as is the silencer exhibit. In my opinion, Drake and the jury were conned. If the prosecution witnesses ever have the conviction or courage to take polygraphs, then depending on the results, I might take your line.
-
Roch, Quotes from Cynthia Payne are interesting/boring?
Vicars mp's and lawyers were among those who considered me to be the best Hostess in London.
One barrister used to come when his court was closed at 4o/c. He'd rush upstairs with his suitcase, and come downstairs as Mau d.
-
Roch, Quotes from Cynthia Payne are interesting/boring?
Vicars mp's and lawyers were among those who considered me to be the best Hostess in London.
One barrister used to come when his court was closed at 4o/c. He'd rush upstairs with his suitcase, and come downstairs as Mau d.
Didn't it become a bit of a cliche in 80's / 90's that one or two High Court judges would be dressed as babies for this kind of thing? A mixture of corrective punishment and nurturing to ensue from Cynthia & co?
-
Roch, And then Madam Cyn would say :-
'Come into the Garden M... , AND LET ME TAKE DOWN YOUR PARTICULARS !!!
-
Roch, And then Madam Cyn would say :-
'Come into the Garden M... , AND LET ME TAKE DOWN YOUR PARTICULARS !!!
I suppose Judges are only human. We shouldn't begrudge them their kicks.
-
The jury in Jeremy's case,were " persuaded " by the judge who instructed them that the silencer " on its own " could lead them to believe that JB was guilty.
It's up to a jury ( such as it is ) to study a case,any case,before reaching their own conclusions instead of being swayed by the words of a judge and the manner in which he says them.It depends how gullible the jury is to take a judges word as final,,instead of having worked out a case for themselves.
Judges aren't always right in their summing up.
In this case,,,yes,,,,I would blame the judge.
In Wilkes' book the judge suggests the he shouldn't be convicted on the silencer evidence alone. I think the problem with what he said is more that he lets personal opinion to creep in.
-
If anybody is interested I have just bought a VHS on amazon called Great Crimes and Trials - imperfect timings Robert Witney Duddy/Jeremy Bamber. Mine cost me 10p plus 2.80 postage, it is from a new seller so may never turn up but there is another copy for £14.99
-
Sounds like a steal like the Signed Scott Lomax patti scooped on Amazon.
-
It has been said several times that people believe Wilkes concludes that a decision was too close to call. I have to disagree, the final few chapters weigh heavily against Bamber, I'd like jb's opinion
-
It has been said several times that people believe Wilkes concludes that a decision was too close to call. I have to disagree, the final few chapters weigh heavily against Bamber, I'd like jb's opinion
Is there a book on the murders does not go against him ?
-
It's interesting that Colin Caffell says that on his first date with Sheila she recounted a story of bunking out of boarding school, hitching hiking back late at night and having to 'persuade' the driver not to assault her but also that shortly after the relationship began she had to have an abortion.
-
It's interesting that Colin Caffell says that on his first date with Sheila she recounted a story of bunking out of boarding school, hitching hiking back late at night and having to 'persuade' the driver not to assault her but also that shortly after the relationship began she had to have an abortion.
The poor girl had a lot of trauma in her short life, didn't she?
-
It seems that she went into Norwich and then went back to the school alone and she 'bunked' frequentl. To save her bus fare she decided to hitch, the man that picked her up warned her about the dangers of hitchhiking alone late at night and then tried to attack her in his car in a side road. Colin doesn't go into too much detail but states that she argued and he drove the rest of the way back. It is very vague but I deduce from that he took her back to the school. The anecdote itself is odd and I wonder if she told him the full story!
-
Hi ajross
Thank you for your feedback much appreciated.
I prefer not to think about what might have happened in the scenario you describe.
Have any of the books you've read touched on June's mental illness in 1959 caused by adopting Sheila (confirmed in Dr Ferguson's wit stats) adoption pscychology, attachment disorders or adoption reunions ie Sheila's reunion with her birth mother?
So far I have only read the Wilkes book which made scant reference to June's condition, if I remember correctly it was alluded to in one of the first few chapters. I suspect though from what I have read of Colin's book that he may well go into more detail. from the prologue (which is as far as I have got, sorry, it's a slow process reading in my household! Ernest, my son, takes up most of my time) he seems to be writing in order to defend Sheila and set straight a lot of what was written about her and there have already been several disparaging comments. I will continue to read a little more each day and let you know if this is the case.
-
So far I have only read the Wilkes book which made scant reference to June's condition, if I remember correctly it was alluded to in one of the first few chapters. I suspect though from what I have read of Colin's book that he may well go into more detail. from the prologue (which is as far as I have got, sorry, it's a slow process reading in my household! Ernest, my son, takes up most of my time) he seems to be writing in order to defend Sheila and set straight a lot of what was written about her and there have already been several disparaging comments. I will continue to read a little more each day and let you know if this is the case.
I have enjoyed reading your comments also AJ....I'm looking forward to reading what you say about Colin's book....Which is for sale again on Amazon, this is the hardback one. In search of rainbows end...I really enjoyed his book, it not onlu made me cry, it give me a good insight on Sheila's mind and his own..... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti, ive read halfway to chapter 7 of claire powells book ,Murder at Whitehouse Farm,i did note on page 12 of chapter 1 , Julie appeared suspicious and hard edged, still rough but will post later on in week.
-
Hi Patti, ive read halfway to chapter 7 of claire powells book ,Murder at Whitehouse Farm,i did note on page 12 of chapter 1 , Julie appeared suspicious and hard edged, still rough but will post later on in week.
Mertol :) Looking forward to the reviews. I did a review of Scott's book today. I rushed it and did not say anything about what I agreed with or disagreed with....never mind eh? I suppose you a putting a Dallas in....How many more years of viewing is there left? lol :) :) :) :)
I have recently read Jeremy Bamber by Scott Lomax. The book is based on actual events which took place in a civil parish in a rural part of Essex on the 7th August 1985. Five members of the Bamber family were all shot dead at their farm house. At first the police suspected it was the daughter Sheila Caffell who had murdered four members of her family, then committed suicide. However, weeks later, Shelia's brother Jeremy was arrested for the crime and was found guilty of murder in 1986.
Jeremy Bamber has always protested his innocence and, had two court of appeals and is now awaiting a judicial review at the high court. Scott Lomax has researched the Bamber case well and gives the reader a fascinating insight to all the evidence that originally convicted Bamber. The evidence is delivered in each chapter and Scott cleverly, masters his own court room drama, by informing the reader of all aspects of the case. Although, the author leaves you the reader to decide and, ponder over the evidence presented; one can't help but feel a grave miscarriage of justice as been done in the Bamber case. Jeremy Bamber
-
Hi Patti, I feel as if im on fire so im hitting the sack i hope you dont have it, the books on the murders i feel look upon as a insight as none of them reveal what we want to know, any new book published would have to offer fresh views assuming the author can get past the relatives for publication,if only a retired police officer would come forward now that would change things somewhat.
-
Hi Patti, I feel as if im on fire so im hitting the sack i hope you dont have it, the books on the murders i feel look upon as a insight as none of them reveal what we want to know, any new book published would have to offer fresh views assuming the author can get past the relatives for publication,if only a retired police officer would come forward now that would change things somewhat.
Hope you are OK Mertol. Do you have to have their permission to write a book? I suppose you could by pass that if need be...Take care :) :) :)
-
Hope you are OK Mertol. Do you have to have their permission to write a book? I suppose you could by pass that if need be...Take care :) :) :)
Stealing your caption patti, ill be back, most likely later in week , a mention of their names may require a nod, ex police officers retired should not be a issue, JM might be the only block.
-
Hmm, blimey! Where to begin...firstly this is narratively and tecnically a very easy book to read if not particulalry well written. Somebody with the time on their hands could easily read this in a couple of hours although I accept that some people would struggle with the actual content but it is a compelling read for those with an interest in the case. This is not least because the evidence is presented by somebody with a first hand experience of the events (obviously excluding the murders) and an insight unavailable from the Wilkes book.
I have only read the first 30 pages but several points have arisen and I could easily have been annotating. Unfortunately I haven't been so I will try and remember what I wanted to raise.
First, Colin writes that Sheila was terrified of her grandmother which I find interersting as there were lots of bizarre matriarchal figures/relationships/dynamics that could have influenced the mental state of both Sheila and Jeremy. What is also interesting about this point however is the profundity of knowledge that Caffell displays. I have been married for nearly five years, I have known my wife for 18 and I could't possibly give a detailed family history akin to this! And yet, (EGAP1) he comepletely avoided the early pschological problems June suffered and only mentioned the latter ones in conjunction with Sheila and hers.
Second, he creates an incredibly specualtive and negative image of JB, stating that when he arived for a party (the night before the murders I believe) he had dyed his hair and eyebrows black and looked frightening and menacing. As well as this he goes some way to suggest that Sheila was intimidated by and terrified of JB to the point that she would not talk to him and that Colin had had his reservations even though they had once had a strong relationship.
Third, he also states that Jeremy (at the party) demonstrated his total ignorance of Sheila's illness and yet, only a couple of days later he seems to be an authority on Sheila's past and behaviour. There really are some intriguing and compelling dialogues in the first couple of chapters.
(Before I go any further I should say that I understand my language may seem inappopriate when discussing a man who lost his ex-wife and two sons but all I am offering is an analysis of the book. Neither am I passing judgement on guilt or innocence, my personal jury is still out on that one.)
Fourth, the fact that Julie offered to identitfy the bodies is given some credence here by Colin as in one very short snippet he highligts that Julie and the twins had a very close connection, but that then decries the fact that she waited so long to expose JB if he did do it and she knew, surely she could not have held it inside for that long.
Fifth, The creation of discrepancies is evident here as Colin attributes three different quotes to JB when ringing the police. Whatever he actually said to the police, there are several different versions here and he uses 'sister' 'sheila' 'crazy' etc when quoting the telephone message to police
Sixth, the arguement with June and Nevill is given a different dimension here by Colin. He very much builds up a terse and broken relationship between the two adopted children ( explained in some detail by the refusal to give Sheila a church wedding, a white dress, a limosine and to almost try and appropriate their soon to be born child) and their parents. He then goes in to some detail about the arguement that night (albeit from JBs words) and he states that they "were going to make arrangements to take custody of the children from her and place them with a young Christian family as foster-parents, in a nearby village. By doing that it would also enable them to see more of the boys themelves." I believe this arguement happened...because they were resentful of Colin from the beginning as he was poor and not good enough, he restricted the visits due to June's religious rhetoric, Daniel had become a vegetarian and the day of the killings Colin had confronted June and Nevill about both of these things. The two boys are depicted here as being physically and emotionally afraid to stay at the farm without their father the day of the murders.
Ultimately the worst thing for him and to read is the enormous power of hindsight, he paints a picture of images, messages and signals which he failed to heed and led to him losing his sons. Sheila was effectively lost as demonstrated by his response when the police told him, but his children it seems could have been saved if he only followed his instincts.
-
Sorry, just realised how long that post was, whoops!
-
Sorry, just realised how long that post was, whoops!
Brilliant post ajross. Never mind the length, it was lovely to read and was well written. Writing skills are my down fall. :(
It is strange how different people interpretate things differently. You talk about the party night at Colin's where he suggested that Sheila was intimidated and terrified of Jeremy. Yet he also states that Sheila had nothing to do with anyone that night, she sat and said nothing apart from her asking to go home....It was Jeremy that took her home with Julie...then they returned to the party....I thought there was a bit of contradiction there from Colin. BTW, hope you got your shelves up OK... :) :) :)
-
Sorry, just realised how long that post was, whoops!
Hello, aj. Your brilliant synopsis has just reminded me of how many times I brushed away tears when I read it circa 1990.
I had forgotten how frightened was Sheila of Granny Speakman. It was some years later that her name came up in conversation. It seemed that grownups, too, found her intimidating. I was left with the distinct impression of an autocrat who treated everybody not of her class as subservient, who lived in a cold, forbidding house, heavy with Christian symbolism, who meted out condemnation, rather than praise.
-
Hi april1 Yes I really enjoyed the post from ajross it is strange I have read many times that Jeremy was very protective of Sheila and really took care of her yet Colin is saying the opposite. I know the type Grannie Speakman would be something like children should be seen and not heard. My own Grannie was on that style and I never felt a warmth from her at all but I think they were brought up not to show emotion either that or she did not like me ;)
-
Hi april1 Yes I really enjoyed the post from ajross it is strange I have read many times that Jeremy was very protective of Sheila and really took care of her yet Colin is saying the opposite. I know the type Grannie Speakman would be something like children should be seen and not heard. My own Grannie was on that style and I never felt a warmth from her at all but I think they were brought up not to show emotion either that or she did not like me ;)
Morning, Susan. You know, I think this is very much a class thing. The "grand" side of my mother's family, although more attentive to me because I was the only girl in the family, in general, were restrained when it came to speaking with, or showing affection to children. They were deeply entrenched in the middle class Victorian era. I can still hear one Great Aunt saying "Sit up straight, darling!" and gazing in amazement at a large diamond adorning the finger of another Great Aunt, because nobody was speaking to me. They also cut hovis loaves so thinly that had it not been for the meagre amount of butter coating the slices and sticking them together, the wind would have blown them away when we had tea in the garden!!!
The "lower orders" within the family had nothing to be restrained about!!! and visiting them was much more fun and if the bestowing of food equates with the bestowing of love, it was there in abundance.
-
Hi april1 I know exactly what you mean my Grannie was quite intimidating at times and I use to sit in one position and dare not move. It is funny I always remember as a young child asking her in all innocence if I could have her jewels when she died this could be why she did not like me :) ;) ;)
-
Hi april1 I know exactly what you mean my Grannie was quite intimidating at times and I use to sit in one position and dare not move. It is funny I always remember as a young child asking her in all innocence if I could have her jewels when she died this could be why she did not like me :) ;) ;)
Susan, I'm brushing away tears again!!!!! but this time I'm laughing. If it's any comfort to you, I didn't get the diamond!!!!! and remember what you were told, "Those who ask, don't get!" The problem being, if we don't ask, how will they know we want it? Sorry, I forgot, it wasn't about what we might want, it was what they felt inclined to allow us........or not!!!!!
-
Hi april1 as a child I wanted the jewels so I thought I better ask for them. I cannot remember ever getting a biscuilt or sweetie from my Grannie so as you will have guessedf I did not get the jewels well not the ones I wanted :)
-
Hi april1 I know exactly what you mean my Grannie was quite intimidating at times and I use to sit in one position and dare not move. It is funny I always remember as a young child asking her in all innocence if I could have her jewels when she died this could be why she did not like me :) ;) ;)
Gosh,,,I remember being petrified of my great aunts many years ago. One of them had piercing eyes like Ethel Barrymore,,,and all 3 used to dress in long black frocks,,white aprons and mop caps. It was indeed a frightening experience for a child and I remember not being keen on visiting them.Besides the place being dark with heavy curtains and nets on the windows,,,there was an enormous grandfather clock in the hall which when it started to strike,,,frightened me to death.
These were very stern ladies from what I can remember and the reason I'm writing about them is that it was at about 1947/8 which proves that this sort of a household can and does have a lasting effect,,,,except that I look upon this experience as history on how some of us used to live,and which I find interesting.
To a person who has a tendency to be " over-sensitive ",meetings/visits to characters of this kind,can have an everlasting effect which remains as a negative feeling instead of it being turned around as a matter of interest.
I have a photograph of these relatives of mine,which was taken in 1908,,when my father was 8,,along with his brothers and sister and parents ( who I never knew ) and the 3 great aunts,,,but my perspective of them is far different now than it was back on the impressive mind of a 7 year old child.
Young children can be fearful of old people.I never liked them as a child,,but can't explain why,,only that perhaps I was surrounded by them,I don't know. I think I saw them all as being like my great aunts,,,,frightening.
I can understand Sheila being afraid of her grannie. They could be very strait-laced and intimidating.
The trouble with Sheila was that things weren't much different on the home-front with a controlling mother who still preferred to live within a puritanical era.
-
Morning lookout I never liked my Grannie much as a young child got on better as I got older but her house is not a place I wanted to be. Her sister had a shop and I just loved being in the shop with her so not all older relatives were intimidating (perhaps I was hoping she would leave me the shop :)) I think my Grannie and Grandad just lived for each other they were joined at the hip so to speak so all the affection was between themselves and had none left to share. Maybe Sheila did not feel any warmth from any female members of the family I think she was at ease with Ralph.
-
Morning lookout I never liked my Grannie much as a young child got on better as I got older but her house is not a place I wanted to be. Her sister had a shop and I just loved being in the shop with her so not all older relatives were intimidating (perhaps I was hoping she would leave me the shop :)) I think my Grannie and Grandad just lived for each other they were joined at the hip so to speak so all the affection was between themselves and had none left to share. Maybe Sheila did not feel any warmth from any female members of the family I think she was at ease with Ralph.
Hi Susan,,,there was never any " warmth " in the female relatives at all in my day.They seemed very set in their ways from their forbears. There was perhaps only one aunt who appeared to be " human " because she wore face-powder,,,but it was her husband who used to scare the living daylights out of me with his thick-lensed glasses and his penchant for myriads of books,,,writing in braille,and playing the violin in the Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. I think it was the violin that " haunted " me,,,but again,,it's only when you become older that you begin to appreciate that his violin playing was superb.
Needless to say,,neither my brother nor myself were ever affected by these stifling occasions that we experienced,,,where perhaps others may,and would well have been affected. It all makes for a less boring and tedious life.
-
Hi lookout yes I know where you are coming from perhaps I was an avaricious child and saw the potential in jewels and shops :) :) :)
-
Hi lookout yes I know where you are coming from perhaps I was an avaricious child and saw the potential in jewels and shops :) :) :)
I was a child who was seen and not heard,,,Susan,so had no conception of what anybody possessed materially really,,,only that the old aunts were bedecked in rows of heavy-looking beads,,,hence their bent stances. These did turn out to be Jets and Ambers,as I learned later. Jewellery was found at a later date. Even now,,I have stuff that " came out of the Ark ". Ah,,,the days of antimacassars and aspidistras.
-
Hi lookout I think maybe I was a child who was not heard but did see all :) Off for my daily walk ;)
-
I was a child who was seen and not heard,,,Susan,so had no conception of what anybody possessed materially really,,,only that the old aunts were bedecked in rows of heavy-looking beads,,,hence their bent stances. These did turn out to be Jets and Ambers,as I learned later. Jewellery was found at a later date. Even now,,I have stuff that " came out of the Ark ". Ah,,,the days of antimacassars and aspidistras.
That reminds me of my great grandmother, she also had a glass case in the corner with stuffed birds in it... ick.
-
That reminds me of my great grandmother, she also had a glass case in the corner with stuffed birds in it... ick.
Hi Bridget,,,yes,we musn't forget the stuffed birds,,,along with the lingering smell of mothballs ( hardly surprising with heavy velvet curtains ) and the tin of " petticoat tails " biscuits,,,which I wouldn't partake.
-
Hi Bridget Hope you are well. My Grannie had a fox fur slung around her neck. Always a cage on a stand with a budgie in it. When I was a child I was always at the church jumble sales and at the end they use to give me everything that was not sold always went home wearing a fox fur and carrying a bird cage my poor Mother ran out of storage space :) :) :)
-
Hi ajross
Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed review. I really enjoyed reading it and noted with interest your comment re what would appear to be Colin's lack of awareness re June's mental illness in 1959.
I wld imagine very few people knew about this incl Sheila, Jeremy and the extended family. I noted in Pamela Boutflour's wit stat she refers to June as adopting two babes but she makes no ref of June's mental illness and admission to hospital around that time. Also Robert Boutflour's wit stat disputes JB's version of a childhood bang to the head which happened around 1963. And yet it's all documented in Dr Ferguson's wit stat where he states in 1981 June discussed with him a bang to Jeremy's head! Either the relatives were genuinely unaware or they chose to cover up :-\
I hope you'll be able to update further as and when.
I'll no doubt add more later but will try and keep it brief. It's interesting that Colin displays a really in depth knowledge of the extended family but doesn't know this about June, with the picture he paints of her relationship with Sheila I would have expected Sheila to have shared this with him, but then Colin makes it very clear that there was no love lost between him and June. It could of course be that all of the family background came from research he did after the murders to help him deal with them. He states that this is a more refined version of the book than the first he started writing. The first draft would surely make an intriguing read. I suspect there would be more raw, uninhibited, unrefined feeling in that draft.
-
.........I wld imagine very few people knew about this incl Sheila, Jeremy and the extended family. I noted in Pamela Boutflour's wit stat she refers to June as adopting two babes but she makes no ref of June's mental illness and admission to hospital around that time. Also Robert Boutflour's wit stat disputes JB's version of a childhood bang to the head which happened around 1963. And yet it's all documented in Dr Ferguson's wit stat where he states in 1981 June discussed with him a bang to Jeremy's head! Either the relatives were genuinely unaware or they chose to cover up :-\..............
Hi egap. Not an unusual path for rellies to take and falls under one of three headings- selective memory, denial and/or shame......or any permutation of those three.
-
Well they managed to keep Sheilas' illness under wraps,,,so everything else prior to that would have been their norm. A lot of things weren't spoken about in some households. Nothing wrong in keeping your privacy just that,,,but when something as tragic as what did happen,,,there remains a lot of unanswered questions because nobody knew what went on in that household.
Everything becomes hearsay and/or guesswork,and as for convicting someone on the strength of hearsay and circumstance, is totally wrong.
-
Hi ajross/April1/Lookout
I agree with your comments re selective memory/denial/shame/keeping things under wraps but we're talking about one of the greatest criminal trials in recent times and Rivlin et al imo shld have been like rats up drainpipes with this stuff and digging like little Terriers never letting go. JB was let down big style. The info was there for the taking in wit stats and wld have shown the realtives as not being as informed as they liked to think they were.
My concern is that Dr F was in some way conflicted by treating both June and Sheila 1959 - 1985 and being paid privately by the Bambers/adoptive parents. I don't see how he could have worked with Sheila ie psychotherapy without discussing June's mental in 1959 and the reasons for it. It appears he didn't do so. Why?
I would doubt that a Doctor could talk about another patient's treatment, even though they were related....
-
Hi ajross/April1/Lookout
I agree with your comments re selective memory/denial/shame/keeping things under wraps but we're talking about one of the greatest criminal trials in recent times and Rivlin et al imo shld have been like rats up drainpipes with this stuff and digging like little Terriers never letting go. JB was let down big style. The info was there for the taking in wit stats and wld have shown the realtives as not being as informed as they liked to think they were.
My concern is that Dr F was in some way conflicted by treating both June and Sheila 1959 - 1985 and being paid privately by the Bambers/adoptive parents. I don't see how he could have worked with Sheila ie psychotherapy without discussing June's mental in 1959 and the reasons for it. It appears he didn't do so. Why?
Hi egap,,,it would appear to me that those people such as the relatives,,,solicitor and doctor all had vested interests in that estate of the Bambers,( all scratching each others backs,so to speak ) and to lay the blame purely on Jeremy answered all their prayers.
It was by no means any " motive of Jeremys' ",,,he wouldn't have stood much of a chance under normal circumstances,let alone with what had happened.
As I'd said,,egap,,people rarely spoke about certain things years ago,let alone anyone with " mental " problems,,,and if it was,it was mimed as if on the " Les Dawson " show. Even now there's still a stigma attached to mental illness. It's not spoken about like a bout of flu is.
June was more unwell than it's been stated and would have been a good candidate for treatment of a psychotic drug,,,as some of her thoughts and actions weren't normal. If she didn't have an understanding of herself then there was little chance of her explaining her own feelings to Sheila,,,,but there was definitely something amiss.
I often wonder if June had a medical problem for her reason to adopt,,as there are all sorts of reasons not to conceive naturally. Or if the problem was psychosomatic,,,,which would account for her outburst to Sheila,when Sheila found herself pregnant at the age of 17,,, and June forced her to have an abortion.
I bet Sheila didn't receive any counselling.! That would have left a deep-seated resentment between June and Sheila, that we know of,,,as from then,,poor Sheila became " a child of the devil ".
-
Hi ajross/April1/Lookout
I agree with your comments re selective memory/denial/shame/keeping things under wraps but we're talking about one of the greatest criminal trials in recent times and Rivlin et al imo shld have been like rats up drainpipes with this stuff and digging like little Terriers never letting go. JB was let down big style. The info was there for the taking in wit stats and wld have shown the realtives as not being as informed as they liked to think they were.
My concern is that Dr F was in some way conflicted by treating both June and Sheila 1959 - 1985 and being paid privately by the Bambers/adoptive parents. I don't see how he could have worked with Sheila ie psychotherapy without discussing June's mental in 1959 and the reasons for it. It appears he didn't do so. Why?
Egap, regarding your first paragraph, the first thought that sprang to mind was that any question asked were put in such a way that it enabled the rellies ot omit anything which could be useful to defense. The next possibility is that defense was so intimidated by what prosecution told them they had on Jeremy, pre trial, that all they did was the absolute minimum. So okay, I do lateral thinking, but you said yourself, "the info was there for the taking."
Regarding your concerns re Dr F. I think he was in an invidious position and very close to the edge of what may be considered ethical. I think there may have been a time when he was treating both June and Sheila concurrently, ( I'm not 100% certain of that) but the rules on the treatment of related people may be different in private therapy. However, one rule, I'm certain, remains inviolable for both NHS and private therapy. It is that protecting patient confidentiality. The only time that rule can be relaxed is if a child is believed to be in danger. Otherwise it is sacrosanct.
-
Hi egap,,,it would appear to me that those people such as the relatives,,,solicitor and doctor all had vested interests in that estate of the Bambers,( all scratching each others backs,so to speak ) and to lay the blame purely on Jeremy answered all their prayers.
It was by no means any " motive of Jeremys' ",,,he wouldn't have stood much of a chance under normal circumstances,let alone with what had happened.
As I'd said,,egap,,people rarely spoke about certain things years ago,let alone anyone with " mental " problems,,,and if it was,it was mimed as if on the " Les Dawson " show. Even now there's still a stigma attached to mental illness. It's not spoken about like a bout of flu is.
June was more unwell than it's been stated and would have been a good candidate for treatment of a psychotic drug,,,as some of her thoughts and actions weren't normal. If she didn't have an understanding of herself then there was little chance of her explaining her own feelings to Sheila,,,,but there was definitely something amiss.
I often wonder if June had a medical problem for her reason to adopt,,as there are all sorts of reasons not to conceive naturally. Or if the problem was psychosomatic,,,,which would account for her outburst to Sheila,when Sheila found herself pregnant at the age of 17,,, and June forced her to have an abortion.
I bet Sheila didn't receive any counselling.! That would have left a deep-seated resentment between June and Sheila, that we know of,,,as from then,,poor Sheila became " a child of the devil ".
Lookout, I believe the reason for June's in ability to conceive was due to uterine cysts, but whilst I can't be certain of the exact nature of the problem, I know I read it somewhere on the forum. It's possible that the first breakdown resulted from internalized anger because she couldn't have her own child and had failed to bond with her adopted child. It would fit with the unrelistic expectations some women place on adopted children. It really is a very small step from that point to her outburst at Sheila's unplanned pregnancy. Because she couldn't conceive, she'd adopted a child with whom she couldn't bond, that child rubs her face in it by getting pregnant! No way was Sheila going to be allowed to keep her pregnancy. As for getting her some councelling, I rather think it was another of those denial things. I think June would have been too angry and ashamed to tell anybody and I imagine she would have threatened Sheila within an inch of her life if she talked about it with anyone.
-
Lookout, I believe the reason for June's in ability to conceive was due to uterine cysts, but whilst I can't be certain of the exact nature of the problem, I know I read it somewhere on the forum. It's possible that the first breakdown resulted from internalized anger because she couldn't have her own child and had failed to bond with her adopted child. It would fit with the unrelistic expectations some women place on adopted children. It really is a very small step from that point to her outburst at Sheila's unplanned pregnancy. Because she couldn't conceive, she'd adopted a child with whom she couldn't bond, that child rubs her face in it by getting pregnant! No way was Sheila going to be allowed to keep her pregnancy. As for getting her some councelling, I rather think it was another of those denial things. I think June would have been too angry and ashamed to tell anybody and I imagine she would have threatened Sheila within an inch of her life if she talked about it with anyone.
See Dr Hugh Fergusons 18/09/1985 witness statement (page 3): http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
Extract below:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=6197;image)
-
See Dr Hugh Fergusons 18/09/1985 witness statement (page 3): http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1201.0.html
Extract below:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=6197;image)
Hello, Hartly, I don't think we've spoken before. Good to meet you and thankyou for the link which I found really interesting because I feel very sure that I read a WS from a locum in which she stated that she had halved Sheila's meds and had notified her regular GP of it. Dr F states that although Sheila had requested that her meds be reduced, because of her death, nothing was done about it. Either I have it entirely wrong, which wouldn't be the first time OR it's yet another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
-
Hello, Hartly, I don't think we've spoken before. Good to meet you and thankyou for the link which I found really interesting because I feel very sure that I read a WS from a locum in which she stated that she had halved Sheila's meds and had notified her regular GP of it. Dr F states that although Sheila had requested that her meds be reduced, because of her death, nothing was done about it. Either I have it entirely wrong, which wouldn't be the first time OR it's yet another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Hi April,
It might be a statement from Dr Myrto Angeloglou that you are referring to?
Dated 20/09/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1203.0.html
-
Many thanks for that information. It's what I'd suspected,,,an ECT,,oh dear,,,usually used as a last resort when medication fails to give a desired result. I doubt this therapy is used as much nowadays as it used to be years ago because of the advancement in drugs to treat mental illnesses.
I used to think that ECT was a cruel treatment as it gave the patient involuntary " seizures " which wasn't pleasant to see. It was used for serious underlying psychotic problems as a " quick-fix " to numb the memory,but was never an overnight success as it created other problems in its wake.
This GP was getting paid for his incompetence.
-
Many thanks for that information. It's what I'd suspected,,,an ECT,,oh dear,,,usually used as a last resort when medication fails to give a desired result. I doubt this therapy is used as much nowadays as it used to be years ago because of the advancement in drugs to treat mental illnesses.
I used to think that ECT was a cruel treatment as it gave the patient involuntary " seizures " which wasn't pleasant to see. It was used for serious underlying psychotic problems as a " quick-fix " to numb the memory,but was never an overnight success as it created other problems in its wake.
This GP was getting paid for his incompetence.
It sure as hell fried parts of the brain, but not always the intended parts alone!!!
-
Hi April,
It might be a statement from Dr Myrto Angeloglou that you are referring to?
Dated 20/09/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1203.0.html
Or perhaps Dr Wilkinsons statement dated 9/10/1985?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1206.0.html
-
Or perhaps Dr Wilkinsons statement dated 9/10/1985?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1206.0.html
Yes Hartly!!! You're a step ahead of me. I just looked. It was the first and only time Dr W had seen Sheila and she takes it on her own shoulders to HALVE her meds THEN informs Dr Angelolou afterwards all of which seems not to have made its' way to Dr F.
-
Yes Hartly!!! You're a step ahead of me. I just looked. It was the first and only time Dr W had seen Sheila and she takes it on her own shoulders to HALVE her meds THEN informs Dr Angelolou afterwards all of which seems not to have made its' way to Dr F.
I noticed that as well,tut tut.
-
Yes Hartly!!! You're a step ahead of me. I just looked. It was the first and only time Dr W had seen Sheila and she takes it on her own shoulders to HALVE her meds THEN informs Dr Angelolou afterwards all of which seems not to have made its' way to Dr F.
To be honest, I'm not sure that the communication between GP's and specialist consultants has moved on much further today. Unless that's just my view. :-\
In any event it seems that the dose was going to be halved by the consultant anyway. So surely all it means is that a qualified local GP independently came to the same conclusion as a specialist consultant?
-
To be honest, I'm not sure that the communication between GP's and specialist consultants has moved on much further today. Unless that's just my view. :-\
In any event it seems that the dose was going to be halved by the consultant anyway. So surely all it means is that a qualified local GP independently came to the same conclusion as a specialist consultant?
Hartly, on the whole I would probably have to agree with your assessment on communication between gp and consultant.
With regard to your second paragraph. I see that Dr F. concurs with what Dr W. prescribed on behalf of Dr A. If I may quote a certain Miss Rice Davis "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" What ever he private thoughts about the massive reduction, he was unlikely to have made public. I would be really interested to know what dosage he would have recommended had his advice been sought.
-
Hartly, on the whole I would probably have to agree with your assessment on communication between gp and consultant.
With regard to your second paragraph. I see that Dr F. concurs with what Dr W. prescribed on behalf of Dr A. If I may quote a certain Miss Rice Davis "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" What ever he private thoughts about the massive reduction, he was unlikely to have made public. I would be really interested to know what dosage he would have recommended had his advice been sought.
Well, that's anybodies guess. The other thing to bear in mind is that the reduction was at Sheilas request, the GP concurred that a lower dose was appropriate, this view is shared by another GP and a specialist consultant.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
-
Back in the mid 70s I was prescribed some wonderful pills which were guaranteed to make excess pounds (lbs!) melt away. I believe they were marketed as "Ponderax." They were amphetamines. My doctor explained that under no circumstances was I to stop taking them at once. The daily three were reduced to two for a month, after which the dose was further reduced to one for another month before I could finally stop taking them. If all that care was taken with my meds, surely, as ill as Sheila had been and was capable of being, greater care should have been afforded her.
-
Back in the mid 70s I was prescribed some wonderful pills which were guaranteed to make excess pounds (lbs!) melt away. I believe they were marketed as "Ponderax." They were amphetamines. My doctor explained that under no circumstances was I to stop taking them at once. The daily three were reduced to two for a month, after which the dose was further reduced to one for another month before I could finally stop taking them. If all that care was taken with my meds, surely, as ill as Sheila had been and was capable of being, greater care should have been afforded her.
That's what I'm having difficulty with. What was wrong with her care, nothing as far as I can see. :-\
-
That's what I'm having difficulty with. What was wrong with her care, nothing as far as I can see. :-\
Well, of course, it is only IMO, but given how closely my withdrawal was monitored in 1975, considering her illness, I would have expected at least the same, but hoped for more, for Sheila in 1985...........although I will allow that if she didn't make appointments, failed to keep those she had made, or simply fell through her safety net by moving between London and Essex, monitoring her would have proved difficult. However, whether such monitoring was necessary is something on which, I feel, we will fail to agree.
-
Well, of course, it is only IMO, but given how closely my withdrawal was monitored in 1975, considering her illness, I would have expected at least the same, but hoped for more, for Sheila in 1985...........although I will allow that if she didn't make appointments, failed to keep those she had made, or simply fell through her safety net by moving between London and Essex, monitoring her would have proved difficult. However, whether such monitoring was necessary is something on which, I feel, we will fail to agree.
That's not what I mean. She kept all of her appointments, she wanted to be and she was being treated.
Nothing went wrong and nothing fell through the net.
-
That's not what I mean. She kept all of her appointments, she wanted to be and she was being treated.
Nothing went wrong and nothing fell through the net.
Can you confirm Sheilas treatment at St Andrews Hospital Northampton was a sucess ?
-
That's not what I mean. She kept all of her appointments, she wanted to be and she was being treated.
Nothing went wrong and nothing fell through the net.
Having looked back over Dr As statement, it seems that the dose she recommended was 150mg, a more reasonable first reduction from 200mg. It seems that Dr W took it upon herself to further reduce the dose to 100mg. I might not have questioned this had she been Sheila's regular gp, but she'd never seen her before and how closely she studied her notes can only be guessed at. We clearly have opposing views on what amounts to adequate care.
-
Good Evening -The Jam-
Dr F's wit stat, bottom of last page, states:
"I do not wish to infer that the treatment of Sheila's case has been neglected by any individual or profession. She was always a difficult and erratic patient failing to keep appointments, n/heed advice or take medication"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6193
Thanks for that, egap. I was beginning to think I'd got something very wrong. It had less to to with being right than showing it, IMO, as yet another area of Sheila's life where she was let down.
-
A couple of interesting points from reading further on are that Colin seemed to think that Ralph and June were aware of his (very) occasional pot smoking although of course they were probably not aware of the 'occasional' part and this could have been an influencing factor in the arguement of the night which is often disputed and contested.
Another very interesting point given the information and opinions of people on JM identifying the bodies is that Stan Jones seems to have really pressured Colin to go which he said he couldn't do. His girlfriend, Heather (who sat through the whole thing taking notes and interestingly witnessed part of JBs statement giving) offered to go and indeed wanted to and Jones seems to have been rather adamant in his refusal.
Which brings me to another point, Stan Jones - he is portrayed as an arrogant, forceful, intimidating and callous man. He seems to have been determined to run the show and gave very revealing evidence and facts to try and persuade Colin to go to identfy the bodies. Given that the defence argued that JM made up her testimony and got information from newspapers, it would be intriguing to know where she was during this exchange. The dynamic between Jones and JB is also most bizarre as explained by Colin. What is more, Caffell says he could barely understand a word of what Jones said as he spoke so quickly, if this was true of CC then could it not be true of others? It would be good to know exactly how long Jones spent inside WHF that morning as my impression was that he wasn't there for very long and yet he seemed to know (or think he did) a lot of details, some of which were contradicted by other officers at Goldhanger that morning (such as one of the twins having been shot through the cheek)
And that is it for tonight other than, the portrayal of the media is shocking and practices that are being investigated at the Levenson inquiry are really no better or worse than the overbearing and unethical tactics used then. I am also surprised that Mike thinks that this book is fair on JB but then he looks at it through very different eyes.
-
Good Evening -The Jam-
Dr F's wit stat, bottom of last page, states:
"I do not wish to infer that the treatment of Sheila's case has been neglected by any individual or profession. She was always a difficult and erratic patient failing to keep appointments, n/heed advice or take medication"
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6193
Thanks for that, egap. I was beginning to think I'd got something very wrong. It had less to to with being right than showing it, IMO, as yet another area of Sheila's life where she was let down.
Point taken about missing appointments.
However, it remains the case that she was appropriately treated for her condition, there is nothing which indicates otherwise.
Whether Dr Wilkinson had seen Sheila or not before, is unimportant, the continuity of care is achieved by access to her medical notes, not necessarily by the medical proffessional present at any particular appointment.
-
Claire Powell paints a very different view of JB Ajross, with what ive read so far chapter 7.
-
Point taken about missing appointments.
However, it remains the case that she was appropriately treated for her condition, there is nothing which indicates otherwise.
Whether Dr Wilkinson had seen Sheila or not before, is unimportant, the continuity of care is achieved by access to her medical notes, not necessarily by the medical proffessional present at any particular appointment.
It would be less than accurate to assume that medical note are always accessed, let alone digested, and ensuring that a patient FEELS cared for goes a long way in the healing process. I still feel it unacceptable that a gp who had no knowledge of her patient saw fit to countermand the advice of a gp who did and who subsequently presented it to the patients consultant as a fait accomplis..........and on that note I'll wish you a pleasant evening and say good-night.
-
Many thanks for that information. It's what I'd suspected,,,an ECT,,oh dear,,,usually used as a last resort when medication fails to give a desired result. I doubt this therapy is used as much nowadays as it used to be years ago because of the advancement in drugs to treat mental illnesses.
I used to think that ECT was a cruel treatment as it gave the patient involuntary " seizures " which wasn't pleasant to see. It was used for serious underlying psychotic problems as a " quick-fix " to numb the memory,but was never an overnight success as it created other problems in its wake.
This GP was getting paid for his incompetence.
I may have said this before but in 2006 I was working on a mental health ward and we took one of the patients (for they were in-patients) to St James in Leeds for ECt, 10 sessions, 3 times and in all honesty, it was like a conveyor belt. No sooner had they finished with us than they started on another. The treatment was a very strange thing to see.
-
It would be less than accurate to assume that medical note are always accessed, let alone digested, and ensuring that a patient FEELS cared for goes a long way in the healing process. I still feel it unacceptable that a gp who had no knowledge of her patient saw fit to countermand the advice of a gp who did and who subsequently presented it to the patients consultant as a fait accomplis..........and on that note I'll wish you a pleasant evening and say good-night.
Again, I'm not seeing a problem, either by coincidence or by qualified diagnosis, Dr Wilkinson prescribed exactly the dose that the specialist consultant stated should be given.
The continuity of care was provided by her medical notes and also the fact that Wilkinson reported to Sheilas regular GP, who clearly felt the care given was appropriate.
I know what you are all trying to say, but it doesn't work, it's the old chicken and egg scenario.
You want to say that Sheila had an episode/relapse on the night in question, the reasons for this being that her medication was incorrectly lowered. You're alluding to her episode/relapse as evidence that her medication was inappropropriately reduced.
My problem in the first instance, is that we have no evidence that Sheila had an episode/relapse, only the word of a convicted multiple murderer.
The next problem I have, is that regardless of forum members views, three qualified medical professionals all agreed that the dosage of medication and level of care was appropriate. Their expert opinion cannot simply be dismissed, and so the reduction of medication cannot possibly be blamed for causing something which there is no evidence that it even took place.
-
Even if that was true there remains a issue , why was Sheila more or less silent on the drive up that day ?
-
Good morning -The Jam-
Patient treatment is a two way thing: professional giving and patient taking ie accepting and complying.
Dr F: "She was always a difficult and erratic patient failing to keep appointments, heed advice or take
medication".
-The Jam - "Point taken about missing appointments".
"However it remains the case that she was appropriately treated for her condition, there is
nothing which indicates otherwise".
Sheila received appropriate advice and medication but she failed to keep appointments, heed the advice given and take the medication prescribed. As a result of Sheila's non-compliance her treatment was inappropriate for her needs.
(- = top of members list. Accident of design?)
Morning Egap :)
Is the bit in red your opinion or did one of the doctors say that (I'm getting confused!)? If it's your opinion, in what way do you think her missing some appointments etc affected the appropriateness of her treatment?
-
Morning Bridget nice to see you thought you and Patti had run away :) :) :)
-
I must disagree with you Jam, There is evidence. Sheila was behaving strangely as indicated by Pamela Boutflour's statement that she spoke with Sheila who just answered yes or no and then left without saying goodnight. June then expressed concern over Sheila's health and was trying to persuade her to go for a 'holiday' in a home in Bornemouth.
I have personal experience and know that the use of these drugs is a fine balancing act, changes in levels of medication can trigger psychotic episodes. Doctors are not infallable. Patients need to be monitored closely and frequently have their medication adjusted.
-
Again, I'm not seeing a problem, either by coincidence or by qualified diagnosis, Dr Wilkinson prescribed exactly the dose that the specialist consultant stated should be given.
The continuity of care was provided by her medical notes and also the fact that Wilkinson reported to Sheilas regular GP, who clearly felt the care given was appropriate.
I know what you are all trying to say, but it doesn't work, it's the old chicken and egg scenario.
You want to say that Sheila had an episode/relapse on the night in question, the reasons for this being that her medication was incorrectly lowered. You're alluding to her episode/relapse as evidence that her medication was inappropropriately reduced.
My problem in the first instance, is that we have no evidence that Sheila had an episode/relapse, only the word of a convicted multiple murderer.
The next problem I have, is that regardless of forum members views, three qualified medical professionals all agreed that the dosage of medication and level of care was appropriate. Their expert opinion cannot simply be dismissed, and so the reduction of medication cannot possibly be blamed for causing something which there is no evidence that it even took place.
Good Morning Hartly, I hope you are feeling rested. My own take on what you say is as follows:-
Paragraph 1 & 2
Dr f. didn't advice the 100mg dose. He concurred with aprocedure already set in motion. Dr A. suggested 150mg. He, undoubtedly would have concurred with that, too
Dr W. reported back to Dr A. AFTER she had countermanded her decision.
Paragraph 3
Hartly, it may surprise you to know that when I first noted the adjustment of meds, my immediate thought was "No! Not again." I know somebody with a scizophrenic son. Reduction in his meds has led to him forgetting to take any meds, going missing, attacking his mother. At this point it is NOT just about Sheila. These things happen. My genuine belief is that whatever "episode/relapse" Sheila suffered, it did not start at WHF. It started the moment the decision was hake to halve her meds. From that moment, there was a question mark about her future.
Paragraph 4
You are correct. Like many other factors surrounding this tragedy, there is no proof. I agree that "three qualified medical professionals" agreed the dosage and level of care was appropriate, but it was said AFTER the event.
In a world inhabited by humans, mistakes occur. In a world in habited by medical professionals, mistakes can have disastrous consequences. They can be fatal. I'm not saying that THIS is what occured. I'm saying that this is what MAY have occured, and incidentally, had Sheila been a member of my own family, on discovery of what had been done with her meds, I would have made enough noise to make those concerned sit up and take notice.
-
Morning Bridget nice to see you thought you and Patti had run away :) :) :)
Morning Susan, nice to see you too :)
-
Good morning Bridget
They are indeed my own words :). If a patient fails to keep appointments, heed advice or take prescribed medication, non-compliance will affect the appropriateness of the treatment plan. It will be either less or totally ineffective otherwise why would the medical professional provide the advice and prescribe the medication in the first place? :)
I agree that it may affect the approriateness, but it's not automatic. Sheila was taking the prescribed medication for schizophrenia, it was administered by injection.
I agree with Hartley's chicken and egg analogy, there is no evidence that Sheila had an 'episode' that night at all. It just doesn't work for me to start with the assumption that Sheila must have killed her family, deduce from that that she must have had an epsiode, and then find reasons for why she must have had an episode - that's back to front to me!
-
Good morning -The Jam-
Patient treatment is a two way thing: professional giving and patient taking ie accepting and complying.
Dr F: "She was always a difficult and erratic patient failing to keep appointments, heed advice or take
medication".
-The Jam - "Point taken about missing appointments".
"However it remains the case that she was appropriately treated for her condition, there is
nothing which indicates otherwise".
Sheila received appropriate advice and medication but she failed to keep appointments, heed the advice given and take the medication prescribed. As a result of Sheila's non-compliance her treatment was inappropriate for her needs.
(- = top of members list. Accident of design?)
Morning egap,
I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it that way. It's argumentative at best and pure speculation at worst.
It's also a marked change of view from the original suggestion that Sheilas care was inappropriate due to the lowering of her medication by a qualified medical professional.
I'll go further by saying that you have no idea what, if any, repercussions were caused by missing appointments or not heeding advice. You are certainly unable to arrive at any conclusion from the contents of these witness statements alone.
On the other hand, Sheila was assessed by a GP who administered her medication and sent her on her way. I would suggest that it would be fair to conclude that this GP had no concerns over the appropriateness of Sheilas care, nor have either her regular GP or specialist consultant expressed any concerns. In fact the complete opposite could be concluded (i.e. the care given was entirely appropriate and even successful) from the unanimous decision to reduce her medication.
-
I agree that it may affect the approriateness, but it's not automatic. Sheila was taking the prescribed medication for schizophrenia, it was administered by injection.
I agree with Hartley's chicken and egg analogy, there is no evidence that Sheila had an 'episode' that night at all. It just doesn't work for me to start with the assumption that Sheila must have killed her family, deduce from that that she must have had an epsiode, and then find reasons for why she must have had an episode - that's back to front to me!
Because there is no evidence of Sheila having suffered an episode that night, it seems to me as if complacency has set in. Because the doctors say her meds and care were adequate, ergo, they were. Had these been ANY other circumstances, I think people would have been shouting about it from the rooftops, and if Jeremy hadn't been part of the equation, I suspect an attempt would have been made by someone, maybe Colin, to exonerate Sheila's responsibility in it.
-
Because there is no evidence of Sheila having suffered an episode that night, it seems to me as if complacency has set in. Because the doctors say her meds and care were adequate, ergo, they were. Had these been ANY other circumstances, I think people would have been shouting about it from the rooftops, and if Jeremy hadn't been part of the equation, I suspect an attempt would have been made by someone, maybe Colin, to exonerate Sheila's responsibility in it.
Although quite clearly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that her medication and care were inadequate. Nothing at all.
I don't see Sheilas apparent lethargy and quietness as evidence that she was 'acting strange', I think it's a fair conclusion that it was due to the side effects of the higher dose of Haloperidol, the very same reason that Sheila requested that her medication be lowered.
-
Her dose had been lowered because she didn't like feeling lethargic. In my experience becoming withdrawn is a classic phase of a psychotic episode. Jam, have you ever witnesses a psychotic episode?
-
Her dose had been lowered because she didn't like feeling lethargic. In my experience becoming withdrawn is a classic phase of a psychotic episode. Jam, have you ever witnesses a psychotic episode?
In three qualified medical professionals expert opinion, it was due to the dosage of Haldol being too high.
I'm not sure that their expert opinion can be dismissed on a whim.
-
Her dose had been lowered because she didn't like feeling lethargic. In my experience becoming withdrawn is a classic phase of a psychotic episode. Jam, have you ever witnesses a psychotic episode?
Withdrawal isnt always a classic symptom of psychosis.
-
I agree that it may affect the approriateness, but it's not automatic. Sheila was taking the prescribed medication for schizophrenia, it was administered by injection.
I agree with Hartley's chicken and egg analogy, there is no evidence that Sheila had an 'episode' that night at all. It just doesn't work for me to start with the assumption that Sheila must have killed her family, deduce from that that she must have had an epsiode, and then find reasons for why she must have had an episode - that's back to front to me!
That is pretty much the point that I was trying to make.
-
Although quite clearly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that her medication and care were inadequate. Nothing at all.
I don't see Sheilas apparent lethargy and quietness as evidence that she was 'acting strange', I think it's a fair conclusion that it was due to the side effects of the higher dose of Haloperidol, the very same reason that Sheila requested that her medication be lowered.
I feel sure we will agree that medical errors occur, and when they do it often results in tragedy for somebody. I have a strong sense here of a belief system being clung onto at all costs because admitting that it MAY be flawed raises many "what ifs" and "supposings." I think it could be quite scary.
Lelebab, egap and I have all given instances of what CAN happen in the crucial adjustment period in the alteration of meds. No doubt, the experts involved in those cases believed they had made the right decisions, it was only when things went wrong that it was possible they hadn't. Medication, of itself, may be an exact science. The body's reaction to it isn't.
My focus hasn't been entirely on what happened at WHF, but wider and with the families of other scizophrenics on whom tragedy has fallen because of medication. I've never stated that THIS happened because....... I've said it was POSSIBLE that this happened because.......Whilst I'm convinced that you're unlikely to move from your own stance of it COULDN,T have happened, I believe that had a jury been offered this information, they may have thought otherwise.
-
Withdrawal isnt always a classic symptom of psychosis.
Not that it really matters, but Haloperidol isn't usually used to treat social withdrawal, which is not by itself a psychotic symptom.
-
Thats true, Harts.
According to witness statements, Sheila was seen skipping along happily with her children that day.
-
We only have Bambers word that a discussion took place regarding the twins being adopted.
If Sheila had done the deed, through fear of being seperated from her twins, she would have done it in her own house, she would have killed ONLY herself and her twins, she would have laid next to them then killed herself.
There wouldnt have been the carnage that happened at WHf, june and neville would still be here.
-
I feel sure we will agree that medical errors occur, and when they do it often results in tragedy for somebody. I have a strong sense here of a belief system being clung onto at all costs because admitting that it MAY be flawed raises many "what ifs" and "supposings." I think it could be quite scary.
Lelebab, egap and I have all given instances of what CAN happen in the crucial adjustment period in the alteration of meds. No doubt, the experts involved in those cases believed they had made the right decisions, it was only when things went wrong that it was possible they hadn't. Medication, of itself, may be an exact science. The body's reaction to it isn't.
My focus hasn't been entirely on what happened at WHF, but wider and with the families of other scizophrenics on whom tragedy has fallen because of medication. I've never stated that THIS happened because....... I've said it was POSSIBLE that this happened because.......Whilst I'm convinced that you're unlikely to move from your own stance of it COULDN,T have happened, I believe that had a jury been offered this information, they may have thought otherwise.
I absolutely agree that medical negligence occurs and continues to do so. In fact I have recent personal experience of just that, with an extremely tragic outcome. So please believe me when I say I agree with you on that.
However, that does not relate to the situation with Sheila. There is nothing to suggest that anything went wrong, either through the medical care administered to Sheila or by her own actions or inactions.
You can't just say that medical negligence occurs elsewhere, therefore it did here.
Refer to previous chicken and egg analogy.
-
We only have Bambers word that a discussion took place regarding the twins being adopted.
If Sheila had done the deed, through fear of being seperated from her twins, she would have done it in her own house, she would have killed ONLY herself and her twins, she would have laid next to them then killed herself.
There wouldnt have been the carnage that happened at WHf, june and neville would still be here.
Hello, Andrea. This view would seem to say that Sheila made a conscious, thought out decision to kill her children and then herself. What I am offering as a possibility, is that she did NOT. That what she may have done was out of her hands. Given that fear is a major componant of scizophrenia combined with a possibility of "the voices", perhaps telling her she was under attack or.........I don't want to imagine because I feel that it's too horrendous a place to be.
You're correct in saying that we only have Jeremy's word for what happened at supper that evening, nonetheless, it IS a possible scenario. There is NO proof that Jeremy returned to the farm later that night, but THAT scenario was accepted.
-
Withdrawal isnt always a classic symptom of psychosis.
Sorry to be pedantic but something is either classic or it isn't. It can't sometimes be classic. In the episodes I have witnessed a catatonic state occurs before or after periods of more violent behavior. Not a symptom of general Psychosis but of an episode of more extreem behavior.
-
Hello, Andrea. This view would seem to say that Sheila made a conscious, thought out decision to kill her children and then herself. What I am offering as a possibility, is that she did NOT. That what she may have done was out of her hands. Given that fear is a major componant of scizophrenia combined with a possibility of "the voices", perhaps telling her she was under attack or.........I don't want to imagine because I feel that it's too horrendous a place to be.
You're correct in saying that we only have Jeremy's word for what happened at supper that evening, nonetheless, it IS a possible scenario. There is NO proof that Jeremy returned to the farm later that night, but THAT scenario was accepted.
Nevertheless, it is all speculation, in fact it's speculation about speculation.
If you are going to entertain that as a possible scenario, then you surely must have to equally entertain the scenario that Sheila didn't have an 'episode' at all.
Without going over it all in this thread, there is overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was responsible, as cited by the various trial and appeal judgements.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Sheila had an 'episode' on the night in question, nothing at all. I'm really not sure how else I can convey that. :-\
You may disagree with the evidence against Jeremy, but that's just tough, it doesn't then give the defence licence to convert their own speculation into anything tangible without any other justification for doing so.
It would be like the argument that 93% of murders are carried out by males, if the culprit here was either Jeremy or Sheila, then there is 93% chance that it was Jeremy right? No of course not, for exactly the same reasons given above, it doesn't work like that.
Anyway, it seems I'm banging my head against a brick wall and I'm not actually asking you to agree with my views at all, you certainly don't have to do that. :P
-
Anyway, it seems I'm banging my head against a brick wall and I'm not actually asking you to agree with my views at all, you certainly don't have to do that. :P
It seems we are both doing the same thing for different reasons!!!!!
-
It seems we are both doing the same thing for different reasons!!!!!
Perhaps so. :-\
-
If anyone was covered in blood that night,,,including their feet,it was June.
-
Hi lookout what you said about June being covered in blood is food for thought :(
-
Hi lookout what you said about June being covered in blood is food for thought :(
Hi Susan,,,I've had her " in the picture " for some time now,,,and the fact that it was posted yesterday about her having had ECT clinched it for me.
Without sounding,and appearing flippant,,,it was like a " free for all " on the night of the murders. Like they all killed each other. Apart from those little ones of course.
Whichever way you look at it,,,there was some " domestic " going on that night,,with the most tragic of circumstances,,,and the two women were of the same psychotic patterning,,,obsessed with religion.
I haven't read about any medication that June was taking,,yet she must have been using something as it was only 2 years prior to the murders that she,herself was hospitalized.
-
It wouldn't have been beyond the bounds of impossibility for June to have had a relapse given the strain she was under and the uncertainty of Sheilas' and the twins futures.
I wonder why Nevill was " snappy " that night as well.
-
According to Pamela Boutflour Sheila was not behaving normally that evening. Jeremy says Sheila just sat at the table without comment while June was talking about the possibility the twins might end up being fostered [as she had mentioned to Mrs Brencher]. June states she was concerned about Sheila's health and also said Sheila was taking no interest in the boys or doing housework... catatonic?
-
This doesn't answer the question posed on another thread but it gives Colin's view and some extra information:
'Let me show you,' he said, leading the way to their room. It was spotlessly clean; even the drawers had been hoovered out. I felt heartbroken and violated. It had been so important for me that I do it myself. He then led us to the other hall curpboard and said, pointing to the bottom shelf, 'This is where Sheila's photographs are.'
I began to feel that everything I was being shown had been carefully set up and orchestrated in order to gain an effect. In the cupboard there was a small pile of Bambs's modelling shots, a box of contact sheets and five photograph albums of the kids. There was also a box of slides and some other very personal items. I asked Jeremy about her actual portfolio but he told me that he had that at his house in Goldhanger; and besides, he wished to keep all the 'famous photographs' for himself. (I didn't know there were any famous ones.) The albums contained all of her photographs of the twins through the years, carefully labelled with names, dates and ages. The modelling shots were all her rejects from the portfolio. I opened the container of slides, thinking they might be old ones of my own, and was surprised to find it full of Bambs in the nude; the sort of pictures one might find in a glossy men's magazine. I couldn't believe it, Bambs had always been very adamant about not doing any glamour work - she must have been really desperate for work. I later discovered that these were just test shots, taken by a friend, and were never published - or ever likely to be. I then realised Jeremy was gloating over my shoulder; eager to tell me there were a few more similar boxes but even more revealing'
'You see everything right down to the last detail in the others.' He laughed.
I was finding his behaviour extremely distastefl and more like that of an immature schoolboy ogling at his first girly magazine. Not a twenty five year old man looking at photographs of his dead sister.
'There's also another box of nude shots that you took in the fields at Whitehouse; I found them in Mum's bureau.
I have only added this as here has been dispute on here as to whether or not there were any photos, Colin clearly states that there were. JB was selling everything, he had these in his possession and I would be surprised to find that, reading on, Colin does not say that he expected JB to try and sell them.
-
Hi lookout thanks for the post re. June I get more confused daily about the murders at the farm the only thing I feel certain about is Jeremy did not committ them and I am comfortable with that. Not sure really what did happen it would appear Ralph was very snappy on the phone I have read so many different reports on Sheila,s mood that evening. Just read the post put up by ajross and if what Colin said is true Jeremy was a very immature boy carrying on like he did over the pics.but that does not make him a mass murderer. I was just reading a thread that egap1 sent me earlier and I did not know until now that Douglas Hurd was very critical of the police investigation.
-
This doesn't answer the question posed on another thread but it gives Colin's view and some extra information:
'Let me show you,' he said, leading the way to their room. It was spotlessly clean; even the drawers had been hoovered out. I felt heartbroken and violated. It had been so important for me that I do it myself. He then led us to the other hall curpboard and said, pointing to the bottom shelf, 'This is where Sheila's photographs are.'
I began to feel that everything I was being shown had been carefully set up and orchestrated in order to gain an effect. In the cupboard there was a small pile of Bambs's modelling shots, a box of contact sheets and five photograph albums of the kids. There was also a box of slides and some other very personal items. I asked Jeremy about her actual portfolio but he told me that he had that at his house in Goldhanger; and besides, he wished to keep all the 'famous photographs' for himself. (I didn't know there were any famous ones.) The albums contained all of her photographs of the twins through the years, carefully labelled with names, dates and ages. The modelling shots were all her rejects from the portfolio. I opened the container of slides, thinking they might be old ones of my own, and was surprised to find it full of Bambs in the nude; the sort of pictures one might find in a glossy men's magazine. I couldn't believe it, Bambs had always been very adamant about not doing any glamour work - she must have been really desperate for work. I later discovered that these were just test shots, taken by a friend, and were never published - or ever likely to be. I then realised Jeremy was gloating over my shoulder; eager to tell me there were a few more similar boxes but even more revealing'
'You see everything right down to the last detail in the others.' He laughed.
I was finding his behaviour extremely distastefl and more like that of an immature schoolboy ogling at his first girly magazine. Not a twenty five year old man looking at photographs of his dead sister.
'There's also another box of nude shots that you took in the fields at Whitehouse; I found them in Mum's bureau.
I have only added this as here has been dispute on here as to whether or not there were any photos, Colin clearly states that there were. JB was selling everything, he had these in his possession and I would be surprised to find that, reading on, Colin does not say that he expected JB to try and sell them.
Hi AJ
I can't understand why Colin would think he was entitled to go through Sheila's things and have them. He was divorced from her. It was up to JB, what he did with her things at the time. I must admit JB was an arrogant sod there is no doubt about that in my eyes, but this does not make him a killer. Poor Colin was going through a horrible time in his life, one has to respect that.... I don't make up any excuses for JB'S behaviour, for I detach myself form him, like I do Colin and, tend to look at the facts and the evidence that is provided.
There was talk in the press about the fact that JB had tried to sell some nude photo's of Sheila. The fact is no photo's were ever bought or published, which tells another story. Where those photo's are and, what happened to them, one can only guess, that the family had them in the end, unless JB let someone else keep them for him.
I find that Colin is not too sure about JB being the killer. His first instinct was that Sheila had finally done what she claimed to have wanted to do....but Colin, says there is no way she would have killed her children....but, on saying that why did she not protect them that night? Why did she not hold them or her mother and father....why did she not fight the appellant? Why was she in her parents room? Was she the first to be shot? If so why didn't her parents stop the killer from shooting her twice...the pathologist said the shoots were likely to have been made close together...surely NB would have jumped on JB or June would have.....it's all odd, something is not right.... :) :) :) :)
-
According to Pamela Boutflour Sheila was not behaving normally that evening. Jeremy says Sheila just sat at the table without comment while June was talking about the possibility the twins might end up being fostered [as she had mentioned to Mrs Brencher]. June states she was concerned about Sheila's health and also said Sheila was taking no interest in the boys or doing housework... catatonic?
Hi Lebaleb. In my opinion, this is another weakness for the CPS because...why would JB say his sister just sat there, then a few hours later try an pin the murders on her? If he was going to make her look like a killer he would have said something completely different...like she was going crazy with my mum and dad...but he said the opposite.... :) :) :)
-
I must disagree with you Jam, There is evidence. Sheila was behaving strangely as indicated by Pamela Boutflour's statement that she spoke with Sheila who just answered yes or no and then left without saying goodnight. June then expressed concern over Sheila's health and was trying to persuade her to go for a 'holiday' in a home in Bornemouth.
I have personal experience and know that the use of these drugs is a fine balancing act, changes in levels of medication can trigger psychotic episodes. Doctors are not infallable. Patients need to be monitored closely and frequently have their medication adjusted.
Well said Lebaleb. The evidence is clear, that Sheila was not her usual self that night. You are right to quote what PB had said in her statement....
Jean B the housekeeper also confirms that there was talk about fostering the children on a daily basis so Sheila could work....So this was not made up at all, it was fact. :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti I find it very difficult to get my head round these murders I am convinced Jeremy was not responsible like you said he was an arrogant young silly fool in my opinion who did himself no favours and was is own worst enemy. lookout brought a point out early that June had alot of blood on herself and on her feet and one does start to wonder. But you would expect Sheila to protect her boys with her life unless she was killed first but somehow don,t think that happened. Heard on the news today a Mother of two small children has just been convicted of their murders in Spain and jailed for 30 years Mothers do kill their children but must be very disturbed to do such a thing and sometimes they think they are doing the right thing depending what is going on in their head. I would think the police have a much clearer idea what happened but they wont disclose that.
-
Hi AJ
I can't understand why Colin would think he was entitled to go through Sheila's things and have them. He was divorced from her. It was up to JB, what he did with her things at the time. I must admit JB was an arrogant sod there is no doubt about that in my eyes, but this does not make him a killer. Poor Colin was going through a horrible time in his life, one has to respect that.... I don't make up any excuses for JB'S behaviour, for I detach myself form him, like I do Colin and, tend to look at the facts and the evidence that is provided.
There was talk in the press about the fact that JB had tried to sell some nude photo's of Sheila. The fact is no photo's were ever bought or published, which tells another story. Where those photo's are and, what happened to them, one can only guess, that the family had them in the end, unless JB let someone else keep them for him.
I find that Colin is not too sure about JB being the killer. His first instinct was that Sheila had finally done what she claimed to have wanted to do....but Colin, says there is no way she would have killed her children....but, on saying that why did she not protect them that night? Why did she not hold them or her mother and father....why did she not fight the appellant? Why was she in her parents room? Was she the first to be shot? If so why didn't her parents stop the killer from shooting her twice...the pathologist said the shoots were likely to have been made close together...surely NB would have jumped on JB or June would have.....it's all odd, something is not right.... :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti, i take and share your point about these pictures/slides exactly who owned them now ? who guides both of them through this storm in their lives, in claire powells book sheila begged a friend to allow her to use her back garden to allow photos to be taken are these the ones in question ? looking at jeremy now who may well die behind bars all this seems unimportant, but not at the time.
-
Hi Patti I find it very difficult to get my head round these murders I am convinced Jeremy was not responsible like you said he was an arrogant young silly fool in my opinion who did himself no favours and was is own worst enemy. lookout brought a point out early that June had alot of blood on herself and on her feet and one does start to wonder. But you would expect Sheila to protect her boys with her life unless she was killed first but somehow don,t think that happened. Heard on the news today a Mother of two small children has just been convicted of their murders in Spain and jailed for 30 years Mothers do kill their children but must be very disturbed to do such a thing and sometimes they think they are doing the right thing depending what is going on in their head. I would think the police have a much clearer idea what happened but they wont disclose that.
Hi Susan, I don't think JB murdered anyone. It must be so frustrating, not knowing what happened that night, even for him 27 years on....He is still trying to gain insight and find out what happened and fight the police in releasing the documents and video's. Why wont they release them? Are they frightened that there might be something there that might exonerate him? You are right Susan they wont discuss it...why? :) :) :) :)
Hello by the way.... ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti, i take and share your point about these pictures/slides exactly who owned them now ? who guides both of them through this storm in their lives, in claire powells book sheila begged a friend to allow her to use her back garden to allow photos to be taken are these the ones in question ? looking at jeremy now who may well die behind bars all this seems unimportant, but not at the time.
Hi Mertol, are you any better? I think people misunderstand all the time, we are human after all...It's in our nature to assume or speculate possibilities. The fact that there was photo's and someone said JB had tried to sell them, put him in bad taste....But, no photo's were sold, not ever been released....So to me it is hearsay.... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Mertol, are you any better? I think people misunderstand all the time, we are human after all...It's in our nature to assume or speculate possibilities. The fact that there was photo's and someone said JB had tried to sell them, put him in bad taste....But, no photo's were sold, not ever been released....So to me it is hearsay.... :) :) :) :)
Patti,,the whole case was built on hearsay and assumptions,,and I think it's a disgrace.
Anyone with half a brain can work out that Jeremy didn't commit those murders.
-
Patti,,the whole case was built on hearsay and assumptions,,and I think it's a disgrace.
Anyone with half a brain can work out that Jeremy didn't commit those murders.
Some of us with a whole one believe that he did. Others with whole ones believe that he didn't. Those with weak ones blame their failure to persuade others of their point of view on those others lack of mental capacity.
-
Hi Bridget
I agree to some degree ;). My recent posts on this thread have been about Sheila missing appointments, not heeding medical advice and not taking her prescribed medication. These facts cannot be disputed unless of course Dr F was economical with the truth in his wit stat. These facts do not mean that she must have had an episode on the night of the murders and therefore must have carried out the murders. I certainly have never stated this. Sheila's mental illness was not a constant feature of her mental state. She could have carried out the murders during a period she was free of her illness. There are of course all sort of possibilities eg her illness was misdiagnosed, she had an unidentified parallel illness, she suffered some temporary mental state whilst free from her diagnosed illness eg rage.
Another possibility is that Sheila was a victim and JB the perpetrator but I simply cannot buy into this.
That's probably as close to agreement as we're going to get! :)
-
Some of us with a whole one believe that he did. Others with whole ones believe that he didn't. Those with weak ones blame their failure to persuade others of their point of view on those others lack of mental capacity.
Bridget,,,there's no evidence whatsoever to say that he did. Where is it.? Where is the concrete evidence that sealed his fate.? I'm failing to point a finger at him at all.
-
Bridget,,,there's no evidence whatsoever to say that he did. Where is it.? Where is the concrete evidence that sealed his fate.? I'm failing to point a finger at him at all.
Of course there's evidence, you just don't accept it. That is of course your choice.
-
Some of us with a whole one believe that he did. Others with whole ones believe that he didn't. Those with weak ones blame their failure to persuade others of their point of view on those others lack of mental capacity.
Hi Bridget, even a whole one, can't give concrete evidence that JB was inside that house shooting his relatives....Give me some examples of evidence.
I can give you plenty of evidence, with my 1/3 of a brain....Hic! lol
Windows
Silencer
being two of them......Oh and lets not forget the scratch makes under the mantle....who put them there?
:) :) :)
-
Hi Bridget, even a whole one, can't give concrete evidence that JB was inside that house shooting his relatives....Give me some examples of evidence.
I can give you plenty of evidence, with my 1/3 of a brain....Hic! lol
Windows
Silencer
being two of them......Oh and lets not forget the scratch makes under the mantle....who put them there?
:) :) :)
With respect Ms P, neither of those things are evidence of anyone else having done it either. Both of them are evidence of Jeremy having done it, you just think it's weak or non existant evidence. I disagree :P
-
With respect Ms P, neither of those things are evidence of anyone else having done it either. Both of them are evidence of Jeremy having done it, you just think it's weak or non existant evidence. I disagree :P
My friend they might not be evidence, but you have to prove otherwise.
The windows for example is one for the defence....1-0
The silencer and its contents have weakened 2-0
Disagree all you want too, you wont win....hahahahahah
-
My friend they might not be evidence, but you have to prove otherwise.
The windows for example is one for the defence....1-0
The silencer and its contents have weakened 2-0
Disagree all you want too, you wont win....hahahahahah
I really don't see how the windows are any sort of victory - the defence have already tried and failed on that score twice, so I reckon that's 2-0 to me.
I don't like the silencer evidence either, as you know - but at the moment it stands, so that's another goal my favour.
Sorry matey, you have a very steep hill to climb before you celebrate!
-
I really don't see how the windows are any sort of victory - the defence have already tried and failed on that score twice, so I reckon that's 2-0 to me.
I don't like the silencer evidence either, as you know - but at the moment it stands, so that's another goal my favour.
Sorry matey, you have a very steep hill to climb before you celebrate!
Whist you are making your way back up that hill Bridget, the case will have been won....
Of course the windows are important, it is important to let a jury know there was no forensic evidence to support the theory that anyone gained entry or made an exit from any of those windows. That is a fact....and sorry, but you would lose that argument, for it is well documented not only by forensics, but by raid team officers and PC's at the time....along with Ainsley and Jones....What you need to do is ask yourself how you are going to prove that this is not essential to a jury...for it is and you will clearly lose this battle....like you would lose the battle over the silencer....which leaves you hitch hiking for a lift. 2-0 to me..... ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
-
Why should the evidence be believed just because a court found so, anyone can make a mistake.
-
Hi Mertol, are you any better? I think people misunderstand all the time, we are human after all...It's in our nature to assume or speculate possibilities. The fact that there was photo's and someone said JB had tried to sell them, put him in bad taste....But, no photo's were sold, not ever been released....So to me it is hearsay.... :) :) :) :)
On the mend patti tank you by the weekend i should be on a can or 2 of calsberg but not at present,i take it members are aware jeremy entered the house the following monday after the murders .
-
Whist you are making your way back up that hill Bridget, the case will have been won....
Of course the windows are important, it is important to let a jury know there was no forensic evidence to support the theory that anyone gained entry or made an exit from any of those windows. That is a fact....and sorry, but you would lose that argument, for it is well documented not only by forensics, but by raid team officers and PC's at the time....along with Ainsley and Jones....What you need to do is ask yourself how you are going to prove that this is not essential to a jury...for it is and you will clearly lose this battle....like you would lose the battle over the silencer....which leaves you hitch hiking for a lift. 2-0 to me..... ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
I can only suggest you read Ground 3 of the appeal, it starts at paragraph 261.
-
I can only suggest you read Ground 3 of the appeal, it starts at paragraph 261.
My dear B....You can't keep using the appeal document that is 10 years old. Time has moved on since then...New evidence and new experts have been set in place...It is just a matter of time...Are we having a wager? Tell, you what I will buy you lunch if you lose. I can't be no fairer than that.... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi mertol 22 glad you are on the mend. What was the actual day the murders took place?
-
On the mend patti tank you by the weekend i should be on a can or 2 of calsberg but not at present,i take it members are aware jeremy entered the house the following monday after the murders .
Glad you are on the mend Mertol...I felt a bit off sorts last night, but read a fascinating story about the the kidnapping of baby Charles Lindberg. I was amazed at the forensics done on the ladder....Sad about the baby though... :) :) :)
-
On the mend patti tank you by the weekend i should be on a can or 2 of calsberg but not at present,i take it members are aware jeremy entered the house the following monday after the murders .
Hi Mertol,,,yes,it was known he entered the house,but he himself wasn't aware that he was being watched.Why would he be.? Because he knew he hadn't done anything.
Was this the time when he was looking for papers before he travelled to France.? He also left a note for the housekeeper before he left the house,explaining that he'd been there and what for.
Not exactly the ideal cat burglar,leaving notes behind him.
-
My dear B....You can't keep using the appeal document that is 10 years old. Time has moved on since then...New evidence and new experts have been set in place...It is just a matter of time...Are we having a wager? Tell, you what I will buy you lunch if you lose. I can't be no fairer than that.... :) :) :) :)
A big Mac medium meal with a choice of desert , that would be a very faithfull offer to me.
-
Hi mertol 22 glad you are on the mend. What was the actual day the murders took place?
Hello Susan, Tue if im correct.
-
A big Mac medium meal with a choice of desert , that would be a very faithfull offer to me.
Hahahaha Do they do real chicken there? lol :) :) :) :)
-
sorry it may have been Thursday, i went back on a mobile phone/
-
Hahahaha Do they do real chicken there? lol :) :) :) :)
mc bites balls of chicken gal.
-
sorry it may have been Thursday, i went back on a mobile phone/
The 7th was on a Wednesday Mertol....Roch has posted a calender in the archives. :) :) :)
-
mc bites balls of chicken gal.
I'm on a strict diet Mertol, I want to loose my chubby cheeks....lol :) :) :)
-
The 7th was on a Wednesday Mertol....Roch has posted a calender in the archives. :) :) :)
Thanks Patti so would have been Tue 6th Colin Sheila and the boys arriving to WHF,
-
I'm on a strict diet Mertol, I want to loose my chubby cheeks....lol :) :) :)
Fruit, cycling
-
Thanks Patti so would have been Tue 6th Colin Sheila and the boys arriving to WHF,
No Mertol, Sheila and the children had been taken down by Colin at the weekend, not 100% sure if it was on the Saturday, could have been Sunday...so they had been there a couple of days prior to the murders....I think, someone might confirm this. :) :) :) :)
-
No Mertol, Sheila and the children had been taken down by Colin at the weekend, not 100% sure if it was on the Saturday, could have been Sunday...so they had been there a couple of days prior to the murders....I think, someone might confirm this. :) :) :) :)
Colins book will contain the answer patti
-
I'm on a strict diet Mertol, I want to loose my chubby cheeks....lol :) :) :)
Facial,or bottom,Patti.? ;D ( cheeks )
-
Fruit, cycling
I am loving fruit Mertol, not so sure about cycling. The last time I went was at Sherwood Pines and I hadn't rode a bike for years...and did not know how to turn corners so, I kept getting off the dammed thing and pushing it round, to the displeasure of my son....I couldn't laughing at the time, but he was a snotty kid then....lol :) :) :)
-
Colins book will contain the answer patti
I will have a quick look for you... :D :D :D
-
I am loving fruit Mertol, not so sure about cycling. The last time I went was at Sherwood Pines and I hadn't rode a bike for years...and did not know how to turn corners so, I kept getting off the dammed thing and pushing it round, to the displeasure of my son....I couldn't laughing at the time, but he was a snotty kid then....lol :) :) :)
im into blueberries, clementines,kiwi and when available mangostien
-
Colins book will contain the answer patti
It was the following afternoon of the party. Colin had asked Sheila to come and asked her to invite Jeremy and Julie, which she did. Jeremy took her home that night, for she got tired. So it must have been the Sunday... :) :) :)
-
Facial,or bottom,Patti.? ;D ( cheeks )
All Mertol, it al wobbles lololol :) :) :)
-
there is no evidence that Sheila had an 'episode' that night at all.
What evidence should there be, i.e. what evidence would you expect to see?
-
All Mertol, it al wobbles lololol :) :) :)
well its time to unwobble gal
-
It was the following afternoon of the party. Colin had asked Sheila to come and asked her to invite Jeremy and Julie, which she did. Jeremy took her home that night, for she got tired. So it must have been the Sunday... :) :) :)
So there is a missing time lapse which has never been explained
-
So there is a missing time lapse which has never been explained
I don't know what you mean mertol....Just had a dance with the hoover lolol :) :) :)
-
I don't know what you mean mertol....Just had a dance with the hoover lolol :) :) :)
Did ya now, well what i mean is if its true and on the drive up from London sheila was mainly quiet looking out the window,and here is columbo moment coming you think better looking at something , looking ahead is boring, so im prepared to offer nothing lasting was happening at this point.
-
Hi Lebaleb. In my opinion, this is another weakness for the CPS because...why would JB say his sister just sat there, then a few hours later try an pin the murders on her? If he was going to make her look like a killer he would have said something completely different...like she was going crazy with my mum and dad...but he said the opposite.... :) :) :)
Great point. ::)
And for the 2756th time... WHY does he blame the raid team?
-
Because they botched the operation they decided to wait it out , the priority surely must have been everyone inside including sheila, and even more so the twins .
-
Because they botched the operation they decided to wait it out , the priority surely must have been everyone inside including sheila, and even more so the twins .
I've got a different slant on it.
-
My dear B....You can't keep using the appeal document that is 10 years old. Time has moved on since then...New evidence and new experts have been set in place...It is just a matter of time...Are we having a wager? Tell, you what I will buy you lunch if you lose. I can't be no fairer than that.... :) :) :) :)
We were talking about windows, there is no new evidence concerning the windows. Win or lose I'll take you up on that lunch!
-
What evidence should there be, i.e. what evidence would you expect to see?
I'm not saying there should be any, simply that there isn't.
-
Colins book will contain the answer patti
Colin implied that there was a party the night before the murders that Sheila went to, he then drove them to WHF the next day and didn't want to leave them there, that night they were murdered. At least that was what I understood and I only read it a few days ago,I did question this to myself when i read it however as one of the problems with the book is that the chronology of events isn't very clear. Please correct me or I can look again in a day or two. No updates from me today, I read a little in the Drs surgery this morning but have been suffering a bit from the whiplash caused by the idiot driving into the side of my car yesterday! Patti - this has put the shelves on hold but thanks for asking. :)
-
I'm not saying there should be any, simply that there isn't.
You've completely ducked the question :-\ What evidence would you expect to see, if she had experienced a severe psychotic episode?
There was enough evidence for a review by a senior detective reporting to the top bloke in EP as late as 6th Sept. Please don't tell me that the reviewing officer did so because Bamber said his sister had gone mad with a gun.
-
You've completely ducked the question :-\ What evidence would you expect to see, if she had experienced a severe psychotic episode?
There was enough evidence for a review by a senior detective reporting to the top bloke in EP as late as 6th Sept. Please don't tell me that the reviewing officer did so because Bamber said his sister had gone mad with a gun.
I really don't know what you want me to say, I wouldn't necessarily expect to see any evidence at all of an episode, unless someone still alive witnessed it. No one did.
I'm not sure what the review has to do with it either - it was a review of the case in general, not of whether or not Sheila had an episode.
-
A hyperthetical thought has just struck me and because I don't know where to post it, I guess here is as good a place as any.
Pre 1960something there was a death sentence, which undoubtedly Jeremy would have received. This would not have stopped people fighting to clear his name, as some of us now are. This being accomplished, I imagine it would give Jeremy a choice about reclaiming his lost assets, which, if he is said to be innocent, must be seen as being having been illegally gained.
Upon the granting of a Queen's Pardon, what would happen to those assets? Surely a QP wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on if there were those still allowed to profit from the proceeds gained from the imprisonment and execution, possibly with their help, of an innocent man?
-
Hi Caroline welcome to a wonderful forum.
-
A hyperthetical thought has just struck me and because I don't know where to post it, I guess here is as good a place as any.
Pre 1960something there was a death sentence, which undoubtedly Jeremy would have received. This would not have stopped people fighting to clear his name, as some of us now are. This being accomplished, I imagine it would give Jeremy a choice about reclaiming his lost assets, which, if he is said to be innocent, must be seen as being having been illegally gained.
Upon the granting of a Queen's Pardon, what would happen to those assets? Surely a QP wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on if there were those still allowed to profit from the proceeds gained from the imprisonment and execution, possibly with their help, of an innocent man?
Do you mean what would happen to the assets if Jeremy were found to be innocent after having been hanged? I imagine nothing unless those in possession of them were found to have commited some crime in relation to obtaining them.
-
Do you mean what would happen to the assets if Jeremy were found to be innocent after having been hanged? I imagine nothing unless those in possession of them were found to have commited some crime in relation to obtaining them.
Thank-you, Bridget.
-
A hyperthetical thought has just struck me and because I don't know where to post it, I guess here is as good a place as any.
Pre 1960something there was a death sentence, which undoubtedly Jeremy would have received. This would not have stopped people fighting to clear his name, as some of us now are. This being accomplished, I imagine it would give Jeremy a choice about reclaiming his lost assets, which, if he is said to be innocent, must be seen as being having been illegally gained.
Upon the granting of a Queen's Pardon, what would happen to those assets? Surely a QP wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on if there were those still allowed to profit from the proceeds gained from the imprisonment and execution, possibly with their help, of an innocent man?
That's not likely for a number of reasons.
You have used the wrong terminology, only a guilty person could receive a 'Pardon', if evidence showed him to be innocent then his conviction could be quashed and he could apply for compensation from the state, a successful application would depend on a number of factors.
If his conviction was quashed, it would not indicate that assets were illegally denied to him. In law, the assets were never his to start with. Also the relatives didn't inherit from the estate directly, so unless they were found to be directly responsible for giving false evidence, then I'm not quite sure that they would have anything to answer for.
Other assets, such as the caravan shares, which used to pay legal fees following a civil hearing against the relatives where the relatives were awarded costs, would not be affected by his conviction being quashed.
To be honest I'm entirely convinced he could take any action at all.
-
That's not likely for a number of reasons.
You have used the wrong terminology, only a guilty person could receive a 'Pardon', if evidence showed him to be innocent then his conviction could be quashed and he could apply for compensation from the state, a successful application would depend on a number of factors.
If his conviction was quashed, it would not indicate that assets were illegally denied to him. In law, the assets were never his to start with. Also the relatives didn't inherit from the estate directly, so unless they were found to be directly responsible for giving false evidence, then I'm not quite sure that they would have anything to answer for.
Other assets, such as the caravan shares, which used to pay legal fees following a civil hearing against the relatives where the relatives were awarded costs, would not be affected by his conviction being quashed.
To be honest I'm entirely convinced he could take any action at all.
Thank-you, Hartly. I'm still recovering from the sore throat I suffered after our long "conversation" the other day!!!
-
All that I've got to say at this juncture is that it's little wonder that those concerned ( altered statements,etc ) are not looking forward to the day of Jeremys' release,,,complete with both Pardon and quashed conviction.
Good job he's not the retaliatory type.
-
Thank-you, Hartly. I'm still recovering from the sore throat I suffered after our long "conversation" the other day!!!
Sorry about that. :-[
-
Hi Jam I think Jeremy would just like to be vindicated of the horrendous crime he was found guilty of and be a free man don,t think he would be looking for anything other than that. I think after serving 27 years in prison material things and money become secondary.
-
Hi Jam I think Jeremy would just like to be vindicated of the horrendous crime he was found guilty of and be a free man don,t think he would be looking for anything other than that. I think after serving 27 years in prison material things and money become secondary.
I don't believe it matters what he wants. :-\ But I obviously believe him to be guilty of those horrendous crimes.
My prediction is that in a few weeks time, leave to apply for a Judicial Review will be refused, then it will all go quiet for a while, until a new application to the CCRC for leave to appeal is made and then we'll all start back at the beginning, no doubt with the same outcome as that which has gone before.
Time will tell I guess.
-
Hi Jam you probably know more about the Jeremy Bamber case than me thus thinking so differently about the crime I only first heard of Jeremy Bamber after the programme on the TV this year and that is when I joined the forum in April any information I have gleaned is from the forum.
Nothing in life is certain other than taxes and death so as you said time will tell. ;)
-
Hi Jam you probably know more about the Jeremy Bamber case than me thus thinking so differently about the crime I only first heard of Jeremy Bamber after the programme on the TV this year and that is when I joined the forum in April any information I have gleaned is from the forum.
Nothing in life is certain other than taxes and death so as you said time will tell. ;)
So true.
Another prediction I have, whilst I'm in the mood, is that following a refusal of leave to apply for a Judicial Review, Jeremy's current legal team will no longer be representing him.
-
So true.
Another prediction I have, whilst I'm in the mood, is that following a refusal of leave to apply for a Judicial Review, Jeremy's current legal team will no longer be representing him.
Do you want a bet on that Hartley?
-
Hi The Jam do you read tea leaves as well as make predictions :) ;) ;)
-
Hi The Jam do you read tea leaves as well as make predictions :) ;) ;)
Strictly stick to coffee beans I'm afraid. ;)
-
Do you want a bet on that Hartley?
It's a prediction NGB.
-
Never say never.
As I and many others have said before,,,that had he decided to plead guilty,then he'd have been released.
Now the part in all this is that Jeremy would have,,,and will know of this procedure,,so why has he forfeited his freedom by not saying one word?. Because he's standing by his own principles for the reason that he's not guilty.
He could have been released a few years ago.
What would everyone else consider under the circumstances.? Lies or Justice.? ( though I'm beginning to think that the two go hand in hand )
I imagine that the powers that be have been waiting for a guilty plea from Jeremy to justify their own shortcomings in all of this,,,but it hasn't come forthwith.
-
Hi Jam you probably know more about the Jeremy Bamber case than me thus thinking so differently about the crime I only first heard of Jeremy Bamber after the programme on the TV this year and that is when I joined the forum in April any information I have gleaned is from the forum.
Nothing in life is certain other than taxes and death so as you said time will tell. ;)
Hi Susan,,,I remember the case vividly,,and also remember the bewildered look on Jeremy when he was arrested. That's when I said to myself that he didn't do it. He'd been made a scapegoat.
-
As I and many others have said before,,,that had he decided to plead guilty,then he'd have been released.
Yourself and many others may well have said that, but it doesn't mean it is true.
In fact it's a complete fantasy, as defined by the definition of a 'Whole Life Tariff'.
-
Yourself and many others may well have said that, but it doesn't mean it is true.
In fact it's a complete fantasy, as defined by the definition of a 'Whole Life Tariff'.
Nonsense,JR,,it was all too easy to pin the blame on the last surviving member of that family,,,and they got it wrong,,,all in the name of getting and securing a conviction in the most unfair trial in history.
-
The police aren't always right you know. Or are you one of those people who put their full trust in them.?
-
Nonsense,JR,,it was all too easy to pin the blame on the last surviving member of that family,,,and they got it wrong,,,all in the name of getting and securing a conviction in the most unfair trial in history.
I was referring to your suggestion that if he pleaded guilty then he would have been released by now.
I am categorically stating that "NO, HE WOULD NOT BE".
-
I was referring to your suggestion that if he pleaded guilty then he would have been released by now.
I am categorically stating that "NO, HE WOULD NOT BE".
Yes, so he has nothing to lose by continuing to protest his innocence, unlike prisoners on ordinary tariffs.
-
I was referring to your suggestion that if he pleaded guilty then he would have been released by now.
I am categorically stating that "NO, HE WOULD NOT BE".
Oh,,,I think the police etc would have been delighted to have heard a " guilty " plea,,,and yes,my thoughts are that he would have then been released.
-
Oh,,,I think the police etc would have been delighted to have heard a " guilty " plea,,,and yes,my thoughts are that he would have then been released.
I'm sure that they would have been pleased, but it's not possible that he would have been released if he pleaded guilty. It's just not, sorry. It doesn't matter anyway, because he didn't.
In actual fact, if he was three years younger when he committed the crime, or at least under the age of 21, then a whole life tariff couldn't have been placed on him and he would thus be eligible for parole, whether he would have been released on life licence by now, or not, is anybodies guess, but also irrelevant anyway, due to his actual age.
-
As an example,,Eddie Gilfoyle,who I knew in a professional capacity,,was released in 2010,but was given a gagging order. Police knew that the man was innocent after serving 18 years,,,because they'd been " sitting on " vital evidence for 16 of those years. The gagging order was eventually lifted,,but to this day,Eddie is still fighting for a pardon. Why.? It's coming up to 2 years,,the man was wholly innocent.
Is this done to save face in the force knowing that mistakes were clearly made,,,and nobody will step down and offer the poor man an apology.?
This,,to my mind,is what's happening to Jeremy. Nobody is ever going to admit blame,,,and a few officers in his case will be getting on in years,,so WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO LOSE.?
-
It's a prediction NGB.
I am confident that you are wrong about this. Simon McKay remains committed to the case and he will not drop it, even if the JR application fails.
-
As an example,,Eddie Gilfoyle,who I knew in a professional capacity,,was released in 2010,but was given a gagging order. Police knew that the man was innocent after serving 18 years,,,because they'd been " sitting on " vital evidence for 16 of those years. The gagging order was eventually lifted,,but to this day,Eddie is still fighting for a pardon. Why.? It's coming up to 2 years,,the man was wholly innocent.
Is this done to save face in the force knowing that mistakes were clearly made,,,and nobody will step down and offer the poor man an apology.?
This,,to my mind,is what's happening to Jeremy. Nobody is ever going to admit blame,,,and a few officers in his case will be getting on in years,,so WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO LOSE.?
It's a different case and not comparable, but he wasn't found to be innocent, he was released on a technicality.
Which is also the reason that he didn't receive compensation, although I understand the law has been revised since then.
Perhaps by somehow being able to prove that he is innocent, would allow him to seek compensation, I do not know.
-
I am confident that you are wrong about this. Simon McKay remains committed to the case and he will not drop it, even if the JR application fails.
Well we'll no doubt look back on this in a few weeks time and see which prediction turns out to be correct.
-
It's a different case and not comparable, but he wasn't found to be innocent, he was released on a technicality.
Which is also the reason that he didn't receive compensation, although I understand the law has been revised since then.
Perhaps by somehow being able to prove that he is innocent, would allow him to seek compensation, I do not know.
I actually knew that the man was innocent. It happened to have been another one of those botched investigations,,contamination and impaired forensic results.Another case of " too many cooks " where hordes of police are on the scene and true evidence is then gone forever.
Eddie will be compensated eventually,I am confident of that.
I know that you can't compare cases,,although murder was involved with both,,,and where both females had similar " health " problems. Police in both cases seemed to think that they can blame those who know of the psychiatric problems suffered by the deceased,to put them in the frame,instead of going in-depth into the backgrounds of the deceased. Which happened in both cases.
-
I actually knew that the man was innocent. It happened to have been another one of those botched investigations,,contamination and impaired forensic results.Another case of " too many cooks " where hordes of police are on the scene and true evidence is then gone forever.
Eddie will be compensated eventually,I am confident of that.
I know that you can't compare cases,,although murder was involved with both,,,and where both females had similar " health " problems. Police in both cases seemed to think that they can blame those who know of the psychiatric problems suffered by the deceased,to put them in the frame,instead of going in-depth into the backgrounds of the deceased. Which happened in both cases.
I don't know much about Eddies case, only that it in no way assists or prejudice, either the guilty or innocent camps views on Jeremy Bambers case.
-
I really don't know what you want me to say, I wouldn't necessarily expect to see any evidence at all of an episode, unless someone still alive witnessed it. No one did.
I'm not sure what the review has to do with it either - it was a review of the case in general, not of whether or not Sheila had an episode.
You've argued that there was a lack of evidence that Sheila suffered a serious episode, while simultaneously holding the stance that you wouldn't expect to see any evidence of a serious episode even if she'd had suffered one. That's what I was hoping to clarify, so thanks :)
The review of the case would have been inclusive of anything Sheila related, so I'm not buying your other argument as a get out clause. Unless of course you are arguing that he reviewed all case evidence except that which was linked to Sheila?
-
Well we'll no doubt look back on this in a few weeks time and see which prediction turns out to be correct.
We will. You are not accepting a bet?
-
We will. You are not accepting a bet?
It's all a bit 'Public Schoolboyish' isn't it? What would be the purpose? ??? I could understand it if I was calling you out on something, as you would have the incentive of fighting your own corner, but otherwise it just sounds a bit childish. :-\
I'm happy to wait and see.
-
It's all a bit 'Public Schoolboyish' isn't it?
I hope nobody ends up being soundly thrashed, egap style :-[
-
I hope nobody ends up being soundly thrashed, egap style :-[
Me too. :-[
-
Hi lookout Jeremy would get the shock of is life when found guilty. He was so sure he would walk free as in his own mind he knew he was innocent and maybe he should have taken the case a little bit more seriously I bet many times over the past 27 years he has thought that himself. I am trying to figure out why the Police would shoot Sheila as suggested by Mike I am of course not disputing this but I can,t see what the advantage would be at that stage. Do you know lookout.. ???
-
It's all a bit 'Public Schoolboyish' isn't it? What would be the purpose? ??? I could understand it if I was calling you out on something, as you would have the incentive of fighting your own corner, but otherwise it just sounds a bit childish. :-\
I'm happy to wait and see.
Very patronising.
I did not go to public school.
-
Very patronising.
I did not go to public school.
Not half as patronising as your wager goad. ::)
-
You've argued that there was a lack of evidence that Sheila suffered a serious episode, while simultaneously holding the stance that you wouldn't expect to see any evidence of a serious episode even if she'd had suffered one. That's what I was hoping to clarify, so thanks :)
The review of the case would have been inclusive of anything Sheila related, so I'm not buying your other argument as a get out clause. Unless of course you are arguing that he reviewed all case evidence except that which was linked to Sheila?
I don't know how to put it any more clearly, all I have said is that there is no evidence that Sheila suffered a psychotic episode. This was said in response to the numerous posts here which suggest that she did, and that this was what was behind her killing her family. The review didn't find any such evidence either.
-
Not half as patronising as your wager goad. ::)
I will not bother to respond.
-
I will not bother to respond.
I can't be sure, but I think you just did. :-\
Anyway, I've made two predictions, the first being that leave to apply for Judicial Review will be refused, the second being that soon after the refusal, Jeremy will seeking a new legal representative.
The very definition of the word 'prediction', indicates that I am making a guess, a prophesy, nothing more and nothing less.
How that was interpreted as a gambling opportunity I will never know. :-\
-
I can't be sure, but I think you just did. :-\
Anyway, I've made two predictions, the first being that leave to apply for Judicial Review will be refused, the second being that soon after the refusal, Jeremy will seeking a new legal representative.
The very definition of the word 'prediction', indicates that I am making a guess, a prophesy, nothing more and nothing less.
How that was interpreted as a gambling opportunity I will never know. :-\
Most, if not all, gambling opportunities are based on predictions !! ;)
-
Most, if not all, gambling opportunities are based on predictions !! ;)
Touche :-[
-
I don't know how to put it any more clearly, all I have said is that there is no evidence that Sheila suffered a psychotic episode. This was said in response to the numerous posts here which suggest that she did, and that this was what was behind her killing her family. The review didn't find any such evidence either.
Bridget, despite my very lengthy posts about it, I don't believe I ever implied that Sheila DID suffer a psychotic episode. I offered that it was not beyond the realms of possibilty that she did, and by accepting it, the belief that Jeremy was guilty beyond a shadow of doubt may have been changed.
-
Bridget, despite my very lengthy posts about it, I don't believe I ever implied that Sheila DID suffer a psychotic episode. I offered that it was not beyond the realms of possibilty that she did, and by accepting it, the belief that Jeremy was guilty beyond a shadow of doubt may have been changed.
Hi April, yes, you were very careful to state that you weren't saying that that is what happened, others weren't so careful. I apologise if my comment appeared to be aimed at you, that wasn't my intention.
-
Hi -The Jam-
I'm not sure I follow:
"In law the assets were never his to start with".
Sheila and Jeremy were the main beneficiaires of Nevill and June's estate. As Sheila and the twins died Jeremy became the main beneficiary. Jeremy was not convicted until Oct 86 so I assume you mean that probate had not taken its natural course or if it had the estate was being held by the executors whilst Jeremy was on remand awaiting trial? My view is that this is a hugely complex area and if JB's conviction is quashed I doubt if there is a lawyer/barrister in the land that could give a definitive answer as to whether or not JB would be entitled to claim any part of Nevill and June's estate. Back to the courts :-\
Anyone know who the executors were?
Hi Egap,
Basil Cock was the executor. Probate had not been served at the time Jeremy was under suspicion or indeed when he was charged, so the ownership of the assets were never transferred to Jeremy.
-
Hi -The Jam-
Thanks for the info. Was probate granted prior to Jeremy's conviction?
I don't know for sure, but I'd find it highly unlikely.
Edit: Well actually, no, it couldn't possibly have been.
-
I don't know how to put it any more clearly, all I have said is that there is no evidence that Sheila suffered a psychotic episode. This was said in response to the numerous posts here which suggest that she did, and that this was what was behind her killing her family. The review didn't find any such evidence either.
How do you know there was no evidence or the the review found no evidence ??? You are not being very clear at all.
-
How do you know there was no evidence or the the review found no evidence ??? You are not being very clear at all.
It's clear to me. :-\
-
It's clear to me. :-\
Go on...
-
How do you know there was no evidence or the the review found no evidence ??? You are not being very clear at all.
Because none has ever been presented? What evidence do you think there is?
-
Go on...
Well there is no indication one way or the other, is there?
-
Because none has ever been presented? What evidence do you think there is?
Are you referring to physical evidence? i.e. (allegedly genuine) clean hand swabs, lack of blood on nightie etc? If so then I can possibly see where you are coming from. However imo a distinction should be drawn between what evidence existed / was available to police and what evidence was later presented by police / prosecution. The two are not necessarily the same.
-
Are you referring to physical evidence? i.e. (allegedly genuine) clean hand swabs, lack of blood on nightie etc? If so then I can possibly see where you are coming from. However imo a distinction should be drawn between what evidence existed / was available to police and what evidence was later presented by police / prosecution. The two are not necessarily the same.
No, absolutely nothing to do with hand swabs or nighties. Again, there is no evidence that Sheila was suffering a psychotic episode that night - if you know different kindly enlighten me.
-
No, absolutely nothing to do with hand swabs or nighties. Again, there is no evidence that Sheila was suffering a psychotic episode that night - if you know different kindly enlighten me.
You've lost me again. You seem to be saying that there is no evidence of such, therefore it didn't happen... but you also seem to be saying that even if a psychotic episode had taken place, there wouldn't be any evidence of it anyway. By my reckoning, if you take that approach, lack of evidence of a psychotic episode does not equate to one definitely not having taken place. In my opinion it is the likelihood of a psychotic episode that seems to be being implied by the defence. In other words, if you look at everything as whole, a psychotic episode fills in the gap.
Your stance regarding a demand for proof of evidence is being directed wrongly. I was never in control of the evidence of what took place at WHF. The Essex Police were. Now we have seen previously non-disclosed documents which have crosses through them and are annotated "NO". There are crossings out and date changes left right and centre which have come to light. I suggest that if EP were able to deliberately disregard or edit statements, that were contradictory to their aims in prosecuting Bamber, then they don't really get the thumbs up trust-wise on the case they have presented. What else have they left out and what caused the reviewing officer reporting to top brass as late as 6th Sept, to concur in Sheila being culpable? it cant have been nothing or no evidence.
-
You've lost me again. You seem to be saying that there is no evidence of such, therefore it didn't happen... but you also seem to be saying that even if a psychotic episode had taken place, there wouldn't be any evidence of it anyway. By my reckoning, if you take that approach, lack of evidence of a psychotic episode does not equate to one definitely not having taken place. In my opinion it is the likelihood of a psychotic episode that seems to be being implied by the defence. In other words, if you look at everything as whole, a psychotic episode fills in the gap.
Your stance regarding a demand for proof of evidence is being directed wrongly. I was never in control of the evidence of what took place at WHF. The Essex Police were. Now we have seen previously non-disclosed documents which have crosses through them and are annotated "NO". There are crossings out and date changes left right and centre which have come to light. I suggest that if EP were able to deliberately disregard or edit statements, that were contradictory to their aims in prosecuting Bamber, then they don't really get the thumbs up trust-wise on the case they have presented. What else have they left out and what caused the reviewing officer reporting to top brass as late as 6th Sept, to concur in Sheila being culpable? it cant have been nothing or no evidence.
I think I must be speaking a foreign language. I've said that there is no evidence that Sheila had a psychotic episode that night. That is a fact, there isn't, and there cannot be any because everyone who was there that night apart from Jeremy is dead. I have never said that the lack of evidence of an episode means that one didn't occur. If you are trying to say that the fact that 5 people died is evidence that she did suffer one, please refer back to Hartley's chicken and egg analogy.
-
I have never said that the lack of evidence of an episode means that one didn't occur.
That is all I need to clarify. Apologies if I read you wrong on that score.
If you are trying to say that the fact that 5 people died is evidence that she did suffer one, please refer back to Hartley's chicken and egg analogy
I'm not familiar with his analogy but if somebody could provide the gist of what he meant, I'd be interested in trying to understand it.
-
I think I must be speaking a foreign language. I've said that there is no evidence that Sheila had a psychotic episode that night. That is a fact, there isn't, and there cannot be any because everyone who was there that night apart from Jeremy is dead. I have never said that the lack of evidence of an episode means that one didn't occur. If you are trying to say that the fact that 5 people died is evidence that she did suffer one, please refer back to Hartley's chicken and egg analogy.
The telephone logs are evidence of that. Even if the court rejected them and accepted the polluted silencer evidence and the testimony of a proven liar it was still registered as evidence. If JB is found innocent at some time then that evidence will have to be accepted as true because the police themselves wrote it down. In other words, it is still evidence whether you think it untrue or not.
-
The telephone logs are evidence of that. Even if the court rejected them and accepted the polluted silencer evidence and the testimony of a proven liar it was still registered as evidence. If JB is found innocent at some time then that evidence will have to be accepted as true because the police themselves wrote it down. In other words, it is still evidence whether you think it untrue or not.
Great post.
-
That is all I need to clarify. Apologies if I read you wrong on that score.
I'm not familiar with his analogy but if somebody could provide the gist of what he meant, I'd be interested in trying to understand it.
Basically that you are starting from the assumption that Sheila must have killed everyone in order to arrive at the conclusion that she had an episode, which is back to front. I realise that the same could be said for some of the assumptions made by the prosecution about JB.
-
Basically that you are starting from the assumption that Sheila must have killed everyone in order to arrive at the conclusion that she had an episode, which is back to front.
I'm not sure whether back to front is totally avoidable in the world we live in.
-
Basically that you are starting from the assumption that Sheila must have killed everyone in order to arrive at the conclusion that she had an episode, which is back to front. I realise that the same could be said for some of the assumptions made by the prosecution about JB.
Gosh, Bridget, this is beginning to feel like Wimbledon with words. What you are saying is the complete reverse of my thinking. My starting point was the apparent indecision on what constituted an appropriate dose of medication. followed by a time lapse in the consultant receiving the information that she had been given 50mgs less than the originally recommended lower dose.
-
Colin implied that there was a party the night before the murders that Sheila went to, he then drove them to WHF the next day and didn't want to leave them there, that night they were murdered. At least that was what I understood and I only read it a few days ago,I did question this to myself when i read it however as one of the problems with the book is that the chronology of events isn't very clear. Please correct me or I can look again in a day or two. No updates from me today, I read a little in the Drs surgery this morning but have been suffering a bit from the whiplash caused by the idiot driving into the side of my car yesterday! Patti - this has put the shelves on hold but thanks for asking. :)
Hi AJ the party was held on the Saturday, the 3rd of August. Colin took Sheila to WHF on the 4th which was the Sunday. I admit he is not clear on that in his book, but his statement in the archives confirms it...... :) :) :)
-
Basically that you are starting from the assumption that Sheila must have killed everyone in order to arrive at the conclusion that she had an episode, which is back to front. I realise that the same could be said for some of the assumptions made by the prosecution about JB.
I suppose the mirror of this is that people still call JB a psychopath even though there is no evidence to support this? On the contrary there is positive evidence to demonstrate that he is not a psychopath. But there are still those who argue that he is.
-
Gosh, Bridget, this is beginning to feel like Wimbledon with words. What you are saying is the complete reverse of my thinking. My starting point was the apparent indecision on what constituted an appropriate dose of medication. followed by a time lapse in the consultant receiving the information that she had been given 50mgs less than the originally recommended lower dose.
Well then you are not back to front :)
But in all honesty, working in that direction, can you say that the reduction would definately have resulted in an episode, and not only that, but it would have occurred on the night of the 6th/7th of August?
-
Hi AJ the party was held on the Saturday, the 3rd of August. Colin took Sheila to WHF on the 4th which was the Sunday. I admit he is not clear on that in his book, but his statement in the archives confirms it...... :) :) :)
Patti, how horrid for you. Can you leave off the painkillers for your Friday night Chards?
-
Patti, how horrid for you. Can you leave off the painkillers for your Friday night Chards?
I dont know what day of the week patti obtains her chardo, but she is razor sharp soon after april.
-
I dont know what day of the week patti obtains her chardo, but she is razor sharp soon after april.
Might it do the same for us if we join her?
-
a glass of wine stimulates the mind april gives you a edge this ice cold cola is cooling my forehead down you think better, with patti its room temp with me its chilled.
-
Gosh, Bridget, this is beginning to feel like Wimbledon with words. What you are saying is the complete reverse of my thinking. My starting point was the apparent indecision on what constituted an appropriate dose of medication. followed by a time lapse in the consultant receiving the information that she had been given 50mgs less than the originally recommended lower dose.
Well then you are not back to front :)
But in all honesty, working in that direction, can you say that the reduction would definately have resulted in an episode, and not only that, but it would have occurred on the night of the 6th/7th of August?
Morning Bridget. No, I can offer no proof that it would have and no proof that it wouldn't. All either of us could offer is that it MAY have, and I'm inclined to think that had defence offered this information to the jury the outcome MAY have been other than it was.
-
Carving 'I hate this place' into a cupboard door where it would certainly be found by your mother [if she were alive] doesn't sound like an act of an adult in their right mind to me.
-
Carving 'I hate this place' into a cupboard door where it would certainly be found by your mother [if she were alive] doesn't sound like an act of an adult in their right mind to me.
lebaleb,,Sheila wasn't in her right mind at all,,,,in fact after her last stay as an in-patient,it was said that she had deteriorated somewhat,,,and I would have thought that people WERE indeed worried about her health and she would have been teetering on the brink of a disaster,as it was clearly brewing that night of the tragedy.
Just refresh my memory.Did she sign herself out of hospital.? I know that patients can do this,unless they've been sectioned,because places are no longer institutions where they are " locked up."
-
Carving 'I hate this place' into a cupboard door where it would certainly be found by your mother [if she were alive] doesn't sound like an act of an adult in their right mind to me.
When was it carved and by whom?
-
Apart from Sheilas mental health, what else do you think makes her a murderer?
-
When was it carved and by whom?
Morning Bridget,,,it would have been Sheila who'd have carved those words inside the wardrobe. The boys were too young to have thought that out. Neither June or Nevill would have done it,,,as it was their home and had been for a number of years.
I don't think it's been entered anywhere as to when it was done,.,but I'd say it was during that time that Sheila and the boys were last there. As lebaleb has already pointed out,,it was done by someone who wasn't in the right frame of mind.
-
Apart from Sheilas mental health, what else do you think makes her a murderer?
It was Sheilas' health that that was murderous,,,not her as a person. Sheila wasn't in control of her illness and sadly it was her state of mind that took over. She wouldn't have been fully aware of what she did.
-
Morning Bridget,,,it would have been Sheila who'd have carved those words inside the wardrobe. The boys were too young to have thought that out. Neither June or Nevill would have done it,,,as it was their home and had been for a number of years.
I don't think it's been entered anywhere as to when it was done,.,but I'd say it was during that time that Sheila and the boys were last there. As lebaleb has already pointed out,,it was done by someone who wasn't in the right frame of mind.
So really then, it could also have been Jeremy, a year or so prior.
-
Sorry, forgot to say good morning!
-
Good Morning Bridget you are contrary :) ;) ;)
-
Good Morning Bridget you are contrary :) ;) ;)
Morning Susan, yes, it's my way of keeping you amused :)
-
Morning Ladies
Re the "I hate this place" it was as I'm sure you know something raised at 02 CoA. Dr F stated that It wldn't surprise him if Sheila wrote it, or words to that effect, due to her immaturity. The appeal court judges applied little weight and said something along the lines of it wldn't have affected the jury's decision as they were aware of Sheila's mental state :-\.
However, interestingly I'm pretty certain it was Patti who recently stated that Colin confirmed in his book (1990) Sheila was the author. Which kind of begs the question why Jeremy's qc's at CoA '02 were unaware?
It would have appeared to me that nobody was fully aware of the severity of Sheilas' health which it was finally stated,had deteriorated,,but nobody defined deteriorated i.e. what imminent knock-on effect this could have had.
Jeremy,,unfortunately has had some very weak defences who've not really had much to say for themselves. This time,,let's hope that no stone is left unturned.
BTW,,if you want an insight of the case,,read Ron Cooks' version from the 30th of March,on this forum,,headed " Bambergate The Whole Truth and Why Jeremy Bamber Will Not Win.
-
So really then, it could also have been Jeremy, a year or so prior.
I think it could have been anybody but i have literally just read in Colin's book that he thought he possibly saw it the last Christmas he stayed there but he couldn't be sure
-
I think it could have been anybody but i have literally just read in Colin's book that he thought he possibly saw it the last Christmas he stayed there but he couldn't be sure
Whoever wrote it then, it cannot be said to be indicative of their state of mind the following August.
-
The carving I hate this place offers three points of debate, firstly it refers to a location as to a person/s, in what expression are the italics, no further words to explain why, someone in that house is troubled.
-
Morning mertol22 I Hate This Place may not be referring to WHF but to the state of mind the person was in at that time. Meaning I Hate The Place I am at now.
-
It depends on a individual view, a inside door was defaced, property ,property not sheilas,sheila did not own WHF ,
-
Hi mertol22 was in written by somebody just visiting the place or by somebody who did or had lived there perhaps it was there before June and Ralph took over WHF we would need to know how fresh it looked. Which bedroom was it in do you know. ;)
-
Whoever wrote it then, it cannot be said to be indicative of their state of mind the following August.
By the way, there are photos of it on here, Mike posted them a month or so ago when i asked him
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2593.765.html
this is it if you haven't seen it
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2593.765.html
this is it if you haven't seen it
It's a wonder Bamber hasn't been blamed for it... i.e. trying to set his sister up etc.
sorry... couldn't help it.
-
It's a wonder Bamber hasn't been blamed for it... i.e. trying to set his sister up etc.
sorry... couldn't help it.
Well, now you mention it........ It is written in capitals and JB writes in capitals ;)
sorry roch... couldn't help it. :)
-
Well, now you mention it........ It is written in capitals and JB writes in capitals ;)
sorry roch... couldn't help it. :)
This early letter is joined up handwriting. I wonder if the capitals came about, from the need for letters to be more legible?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1125.msg34521.html#msg34521
-
Nice to see you nick ;D
-
Nice to see you nick ;D
Thanks Andrea :-* I wonder if I need to go through the Foyer?
-
Thanks Andrea :-* I wonder if I need to go through the Foyer?
No need Nick, unless of course you want to re-introduce yourself.
-
This early letter is joined up handwriting. I wonder if the capitals came about, from the need for letters to be more legible?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1125.msg34521.html#msg34521
Hi Roch, yes I agree with your JB writing in capitals point.
I think JB writing/engraving on the door in his joined up handwriting would have given the game away! ;)
When, as a youngster, I engraved anything with my penknife it was always in capitals - easier to write that way in wood.
I believe it was accepted at an early appeal that SC probably wrote "I hate this place" though wasn't it?
By the way my spell cheque doesn't seem to be warking - can anyblody pease help?
-
Well, now you mention it........ It is written in capitals and JB writes in capitals ;)
sorry roch... couldn't help it. :)
Jb has only written in capitals since he has been in prison. He always wrote in upper and lower case before that.
-
Hi Roch, yes I agree with your JB writing in capitals point.
I think JB writing/engraving on the door in his joined up handwriting would have given the game away! ;)
When, as a youngster, I engraved anything with my penknife it was always in capitals - easier to write that way in wood.
I believe it was accepted at an early appeal that SC probably wrote "I hate this place" though wasn't it?
By the way my spell cheque doesn't seem to be warking - can anyblody pease help?
Hello Nick. Nice to see you again. Got bored? ;D
-
Well, now you mention it........ It is written in capitals and JB writes in capitals ;)
sorry roch... couldn't help it. :)
I know why jb writes in capitals thats explainable, has anyone tried carving in in lowercase italics , not easy is it, like the hundreds of school desks in the 70s recieving the same treatment it may be nothing more than statement italics , kilroy was ere era by no means any referral to any possible medical condition,carving into wood implies you know what wood is, carving into your forearm tells me you have a problem.
-
I know why jb writes in capitals thats explainable, has anyone tried carving in in lowercase italics , not easy is it, like the hundreds of school desks in the 70s recieving the same treatment it may be nothing more than statement italics , kilroy was ere era by no means any referral to any possible medical condition,carving into wood implies you know what wood is, carving into your forearm tells me you have a problem.
I tattood my arm once using a school pen and school ink.
-
Let me guess , I hate this place ??
-
Let me guess , I hate this place ??
;D ;D ;D I wish I thought of that when I did it.
-
Hello Nick. Nice to see you again. Got bored? ;D
Hi Grahame, Thanks. I hope all is well with your family.
I think it's a form of addiction; however a new job starting next week is going to kerb my forum activity. I might even be forced to post in my own time ::)
Is your spel chack working??
-
Hi Nickos Hello to you. My spell check has not worked since they changed something or other over couple of weeks ago.
-
Hi Nickos Hello to you. My spell check has not worked since they changed something or other over couple of weeks ago.
Hi Susan, thanks for the spell check update. With my typing skills I rely on it quite heavily. I hope Admin can fix it?
-
Hi Susan, thanks for the spell check update. With my typing skills I rely on it quite heavily. I hope Admin can fix it?
Hi Nickos. You might fid a Thesaurus useful.
-
Hi Nickos. You might fid a Thesaurus useful.
Ooooops, should have used it to check "find"!!!!!
-
Hi Grahame, Thanks. I hope all is well with your family.
I think it's a form of addiction; however a new job starting next week is going to kerb my forum activity. I might even be forced to post in my own time ::)
Is your spel chack working??
I think the database badly needs maintenance?
-
out of the 108 topics could 3/4 not go save on re repeating them? just how much space would that free , must be images in there.
-
I think the database badly needs maintenance?
I think you are right. Hunting pics to delete is slow business. Mat mentioned something about purchasing more space?
-
well you could offer temp mod positions to further members only for picture removal some members have more free time than others.
-
well you could offer temp mod positions to further members only for picture removal some members have more free time than others.
Funny you should mention that, I wondered if pages of the forum could be split among regulars, to hunt out non case related pics. The real problem is more likely to be all the case related pics. The crime scene pics of SC must have been uploaded about 200 times alone.
-
Hi Bridget/Roch found it posted by somebody called slaters goodness knows where it came from originally. :)
-
I'm only half wy through Colin's book and this may get mentioned again further on but if he doesn't then he does not say that Sheila wrote 'i hate this place'. What he has said about it up to page 119 is only this:
"All of a sudden, Ann broke into out thoughts and came in. She said they had thought it better to put the room back the way Bambs had had it. Rather than leave it empty, after the twins' beds had been removed, they brought Bambs's old bed back in. 'Have you seen this?' asked Ann, pointing out some words scratched into what looked like new paint on the wardrobe door. 'I HATE THIS PLACE,' it said. I then remembered the police asking me about it, but on seeing those words I felt as if I had seen them before, in the last year or so - probably when I stayed at Christmas, although I couldn't be absolutely sure. I guess Bambs must have written it out of frustration on one of her earlier, more anguished visits. It seemed sad but now quite unimportant."
This could have been written at any time in the history of that wardrobe and by anybody that had been in that room. I don't want to incur the wrath of Patti but Colin says 'I guess' he may come back to this later but if not, this is far from conclusive. Patti, if I'm wrong then I'm happy to be told. :)
-
Hi ajross just reading your post from Colin,s book it implied the wording had been scratched onto what looked like a newly painted wardrobe door. Would this not indicate it had been scratched out quite recently or am I as usual missing something :)
-
I'm only half wy through Colin's book and this may get mentioned again further on but if he doesn't then he does not say that Sheila wrote 'i hate this place'. What he has said about it up to page 119 is only this:
"All of a sudden, Ann broke into out thoughts and came in. She said they had thought it better to put the room back the way Bambs had had it. Rather than leave it empty, after the twins' beds had been removed, they brought Bambs's old bed back in. 'Have you seen this?' asked Ann, pointing out some words scratched into what looked like new paint on the wardrobe door. 'I HATE THIS PLACE,' it said. I then remembered the police asking me about it, but on seeing those words I felt as if I had seen them before, in the last year or so - probably when I stayed at Christmas, although I couldn't be absolutely sure. I guess Bambs must have written it out of frustration on one of her earlier, more anguished visits. It seemed sad but now quite unimportant."
This could have been written at any time in the history of that wardrobe and by anybody that had been in that room. I don't want to incur the wrath of Patti but Colin says 'I guess' he may come back to this later but if not, this is far from conclusive. Patti, if I'm wrong then I'm happy to be told. :)
Hi AJ, he gives the impression that she wrote it, for he sort of remembers it......If he hadn't seen it AJ he would have said he had never seen it....So it does throw doubts. I suppose it is up to the reader on how they interpretate it....I take it that he had seen it before, otherwise he would have said he didn't...
I don't think you are wrong AJ and I don't think I am right....but I think Colin did know he had seen it before...... :-\ :-\ :-\ ;)
-
Hi ajross just reading your post from Colin,s book it implied the wording had been scratched onto what looked like a newly painted wardrobe door. Would this not indicate it had been scratched out quite recently or am I as usual missing something :)
In my own opinion i think it suggests it was painted over in an attempt to get rid of it, if you look at the thread i posted with the actual photo in you'll see what i mean
-
Hi AJ, he gives the impression that she wrote it....could he mean that he was unsure of the time he saw it...meaning Christmas time? :) :) :)
I think he suggests that it was her but she could have written it any time. I know you are convinced of JBs innocence (and i reiterate that i'm only half way through this book) but Colin seems to very much believe JB is guilty, and he's convincing me!!!That said, i am not enjoying the book.
-
Hi ajross I see what you mean does look like somebody tried to cover it up with paint.
-
ajross just wondering why you are not enjoying the book is it too sad. :(
-
I think he suggests that it was her but she could have written it any time. I know you are convinced of JBs innocence (and i reiterate that i'm only half way through this book) but Colin seems to very much believe JB is guilty, and he's convincing me!!!That said, i am not enjoying the book.
AJ. JB was convicted of murder, it would come easy to him to dislike the man....I have great respect for Colin, but I do feel he is on his own journey and mixes reality with some sort of faith...to me the book get weird towards the end....But, I will leave you to finish it off and, draw your own conclusions.
I am not a biased person AJ...I search for the truth of what might have happened that night and, I do think Jeremy Bamber is innocent. :) :) :)
-
Colins book does not seem to have been written in one go , its evident there are long lapses, a sign of thinking time to what to say , a quarter of the book is of no intrest it woffles on a bit , i would not expect colin to view jeremy innocent but he is so prior to the murders part .
-
Colins book does not seem to have been written in one go , its evident there are long lapses, a sign of thinking time to what to say , a quarter of the book is of no intrest it woffles on a bit , i would not expect colin to view jeremy innocent but he is so prior to the murders part .
Mertol :) I think Colin and Jeremy got on like brothers, before all this mess. It's sad in a way. I can understand Colin, but I also understand Jeremy...That man needs to be free, he has served more than his allocated time...it is a grave injustice in its self to keep him locked up....when you see other murderers out in less than 10 years......Jeremy is no threat to society, he hasn't put a foot wrong while being inside...alls he wants is to be heard fairly....
Tis Chardo night mertol....what a lovely grape.. :) :) :) :)
-
Mertol :) I think Colin and Jeremy got on like brothers, before all this mess. It's sad in a way. I can understand Colin, but I also understand Jeremy...That man needs to be free, he has served more than his allocated time...it is a grave injustice in its self to keep him locked up....when you see other murderers out in less than 10 years......Jeremy is no threat to society, he hasn't put a foot wrong while being inside...alls he wants is to be heard fairly....
Tis Chardo night mertol....what a lovely grape.. :) :) :) :)
Chardo it will be beith gal,i started on the 1st season of Monk last night patti, the pilot,Mr Monk and the Candidate, Adrian Monk would crack this case within the hour .
-
ajross just wondering why you are not enjoying the book is it too sad. :(
Haha, no, sadness isn't something that I tend to worry about! The opposite in fact, i'm finding it rather self-indulgent, I can understand a man feeling pain and needing to deal with that but i feel that he is exposing a lot himself as a way of dealing with his grief, he continually talks about his selfish way of dealing with the events and people involved and I'm finding this to be another selfish act, as well as a good character assassination of JB. I think he is well within his rights to hate JB, and i don't blame him in the slightest. But... he has details he could reveal that explain his belief, he just refuses to publish them. He is complaining about sensationalist newspapers while creating a mystery only he can solve.
-
Haha, no, sadness isn't something that I tend to worry about! The opposite in fact, i'm finding it rather self-indulgent, I can understand a man feeling pain and needing to deal with that but i feel that he is exposing a lot himself as a way of dealing with his grief, he continually talks about his selfish way of dealing with the events and people involved and I'm finding this to be another selfish act, as well as a good character assassination of JB. I think he is well within his rights to hate JB, and i don't blame him in the slightest. But... he has details he could reveal that explain his belief, he just refuses to publish them. He is complaining about sensationalist newspapers while creating a mystery only he can solve.
I find some of what you say a little strange because did not colin later forgive jeremy saying he was just as much a victim as those who died.
-
Chardo it will be beith gal,i started on the 1st season of Monk last night patti, the pilot,Mr Monk and the Candidate, Adrian Monk would crack this case within the hour .
Is he alive? :) ;D ;D
I am reading the "Pattern of Murder" by famous criminologist Nigel Morland... :) :) :)
-
I find some of what you say a little strange because did not colin later forgive jeremy saying he was just as much a victim as those who died.
I have yet to finish the book, if you are refering to something that is in it Mertol then that is why I've tried to state that I am only going by as far as I have got. I think I should clarify one thing. The fact they were killed is indeed sad, however, that does not mean that the book will make me sad as I am reading it in a completely detached way.
But to make one other point, after having written the part that I have read, I think that you are kind of saying what I was getting at. Cloin has carried out a very public grieving process which has consequently led to (in part as well as his studies) his recovery. Part of that recovery is to possibly forgive JB but to also see him as a victim (of his parents attitude and the established church) and he has been able to do this thanks (in part) to the destruction of JBs character.
I personally think that Colin comes across as a very shallow womaniser who is a little self-obsessed. The language he uses to describe Sheila's birth mother is somewhat creepy, as well as constantly being surrounded by a collection of ex-girlfriends and lovers doting on him. But if he has a voice people will listen and that is why the book was published in the first place. This will sound incredibly harsh but i think he plays a little on the tragedy and this is exactly what he accuses others of doing.
Does any of that make sense???
-
I have yet to finish the book, if you are refering to something that is in it Mertol then that is why I've tried to state that I am only going by as far as I have got. I think I should clarify one thing. The fact they were killed is indeed sad, however, that does not mean that the book will make me sad as I am reading it in a completely detached way.
But to make one other point, after having written the part that I have read, I think that you are kind of saying what I was getting at. Cloin has carried out a very public grieving process which has consequently led to (in part as well as his studies) his recovery. Part of that recovery is to possibly forgive JB but to also see him as a victim (of his parents attitude and the established church) and he has been able to do this thanks (in part) to the destruction of JBs character.
I personally think that Colin comes across as a very shallow womaniser who is a little self-obsessed. The language he uses to describe Sheila's birth mother is somewhat creepy, as well as constantly being surrounded by a collection of ex-girlfriends and lovers doting on him. But if he has a voice people will listen and that is why the book was published in the first place. This will sound incredibly harsh but i think he plays a little on the tragedy and this is exactly what he accuses others of doing.
Does any of that make sense???
Then both colin and jeremy were both womanisers, i have no problems there i would be more concerned if they were not , my hardback version of colins book published in 1994 some 9 years or so after the murders, so there were 9 years of all of colins thoughts bottled up , it may have been better to have released his book earlier, thats my take.
-
Is he alive? :) ;D ;D
I am reading the "Pattern of Murder" by famous criminologist Nigel Morland... :) :) :)
Tony Shalhoub is alive and well patti, when are you not reading a book ? have you got more books than me ??
-
I imagine Colin was the last person in the world that Neville and June would have wanted Sheila to marry, he wasn't "one of us" and I think initially they would have felt uncomfortable with him, but still, I think they may have breathed a sigh of relief when they married.
-
Then both colin and jeremy were both womanisers, i have no problems there i would be more concerned if they were not , my hardback version of colins book published in 1994 some 9 years or so after the murders, so there were 9 years of all of colins thoughts bottled up , it may have been better to have released his book earlier, thats my take.
I think all those bottled up thoughts were in the first draft he began writing shortly after the murders, this is a more planned, considered and mapped out response so, for example, he could've refrained from calling Sheila's birth mother 'sexy' which I find inappropriate and offensive given the subject matter, he seemed almost to use his references to her as a way of expressing some attraction.
-
I have yet to finish the book, if you are refering to something that is in it Mertol then that is why I've tried to state that I am only going by as far as I have got. I think I should clarify one thing. The fact they were killed is indeed sad, however, that does not mean that the book will make me sad as I am reading it in a completely detached way.
But to make one other point, after having written the part that I have read, I think that you are kind of saying what I was getting at. Cloin has carried out a very public grieving process which has consequently led to (in part as well as his studies) his recovery. Part of that recovery is to possibly forgive JB but to also see him as a victim (of his parents attitude and the established church) and he has been able to do this thanks (in part) to the destruction of JBs character.
I personally think that Colin comes across as a very shallow womaniser who is a little self-obsessed. The language he uses to describe Sheila's birth mother is somewhat creepy, as well as constantly being surrounded by a collection of ex-girlfriends and lovers doting on him. But if he has a voice people will listen and that is why the book was published in the first place. This will sound incredibly harsh but i think he plays a little on the tragedy and this is exactly what he accuses others of doing.
Does any of that make sense???
AJ it makes perfect sense to me.......Another good post... :) :) :)
-
And Mertol, I'm not trying to argue with you, it is purely my opinion and interpretation.
-
Tony Shalhoub is alive and well patti, when are you not reading a book ? have you got more books than me ??
Mertol
My brain has had it!...It wont absorb things anymore. It only has a small Megabyte capacity....What I learn today, has gone tomorrow and, sometimes the hard disc gets wiped out completely and it goes empty for a while...My brain can only focus on one thing at a time, it's needs a good repair, but sadly it new parts are hard to find. It holds a great deal of knowledge about many different things and it surprises me from time to time, but on the whole, is has a short term memory loss. In about 5 years time it will remember things that I have wrote on this forum, but when tomorrow comes, I can't remember what was discussed. There are triggers that might jog my memory, but I have no idea if that memory is correct.......Ha! This is the real me...and, this forum is helping me to repair me parts....lol :) :) :) :)
-
Mertol
My brain has had it!...It wont absorb things anymore. It only has a small Megabyte capacity....What I learn today, has gone tomorrow and, sometimes the hard disc gets wiped out completely and it goes empty for a while...My brain can only focus on one thing at a time, it's needs a good repair, but sadly it new parts are hard to find. It holds a great deal of knowledge about many different things and it surprises me from time to time, but on the whole, is has a short term memory loss. In about 5 years time it will remember things that I have wrote on this forum, but when tomorrow comes, I can't remember what was discussed. There are triggers that might jog my memory, but I have no idea if that memory is correct.......Ha! This is the real me...and, this forum is helping me to repair me parts....lol :) :) :) :)
Sounds like your glass of chardo is getting low
-
And Mertol, I'm not trying to argue with you, it is purely my opinion and interpretation.
its ok , colins book is very touching in places they are the best parts what you want to hear like a finger cut healing, where one day he walking down the hill to the twins grave in the snow to roar with laughter upon looking at a built snowman nearby.
-
I wish I had made a note of where it was but I seem to remember Colin saying June was found on the bed
-
Further evidence that Sheila was in a catatonic state [indicator of a psychotic episode] is in CC's statement. He says that Sheila didn't say a word him or the children on the trip from London to WHF and that she appeared very vacant while they were at the farm. Corroborated by Jeremy saying Sheila 'just sat there'.
-
Further evidence that Sheila was in a catatonic state [indicator of a psychotic episode] is in CC's statement. He says that Sheila didn't say a word him or the children on the trip from London to WHF and that she appeared very vacant while they were at the farm. Corroborated by Jeremy saying Sheila 'just sat there'.
........and didn't PB say that during a phonecall she just answered "Yes" or "No."
-
........and didn't PB say that during a phonecall she just answered "Yes" or "No."
I just read that her last dose of Halperol was on the 11th of July and it was HALF of the regular dose!
-
........and didn't PB say that during a phonecall she just answered "Yes" or "No."
As was pointed out yesterday by another member, Jeremy bamber portrayed his sister as seemingly unattentive, during the dinner conversation that he alleged had took place. So, does Jeremy's portrayal of Sheila match the portrayal of Sheila during the phone call, as alleged by a prosecution witness?
He does not paint Sheila as a 'raving lunatic' on the night of the killings. He paints her as being listless and disinterested. He does not blame Sheila for the killings in the imediate aftermath. He blames the raid team. It was never envisaged by him that she would kill anyone. That realisation came after the event.
-
Further evidence that Sheila was in a catatonic state [indicator of a psychotic episode] is in CC's statement. He says that Sheila didn't say a word him or the children on the trip from London to WHF and that she appeared very vacant while they were at the farm. Corroborated by Jeremy saying Sheila 'just sat there'.
He also says in his book that she was very worried and apprehensive about going there and he had promised to speak to June and Ralph on her behalf which he never did, could she not just have been waiting for him to say something given that she was scared to herself? Could the silence on teh way there not have been theses nerves? Could she also have been a little hungover or tired from the party the night before?
-
I just read that her last dose of Halperol was on the 11th of July and it was HALF of the regular dose!
Lebaleb, I've been screaming about the decision to HALVE her medication since I first read about it. It was taken, NOT by her consultant, NOT by her regular GP, who had advised a reduction from 200mg to 150mg. The decision to FURTHER reduce it to 100mg was taken by a locum who had never previously seen Sheila and therefore knew only of her medical background that which she may have read from her notes. She clearly did NOT know that Sheila had been a difficult patient who failed to keep appointment or she would never have halved an anti psychotic without knowing the patient could be regularly monitored.
It also interests me that having taken the decision to halve the meds, something, incidentally, NOT recommended by the consultant, who recommended 150mg, the locum informed Sheila's regular GP, who THEN informed the consultant. These things don't happen overnight NOW, let alone in 1985, so who knows how long it would have taken for that letter to be received and read by the consultant.
Had I a schizophrenic relative I would not have felt happy with a decision to so dramatic a reduction in medication and would have demanded answers. The tragic irony is that there was nobody left to ask. Or perhaps that should be, nobody who wanted to know what the answer might be because they wanted Jeremy to be guilty.
-
I do have a schitzophrenic relative and I know the balance of his medication is critical to his well being. The Doctor who administered the reduced dose had only been at the surgery two days.
-
Are forum members able to give a marks out of ten for each book they have read on the case?
Also, has anyone had a chance to read through all of this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2441.0.html
If anyone has, could they please provide a review.
-
Are forum members able to give a marks out of ten for each book they have read on the case?
Also, has anyone had a chance to read through all of this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2441.0.html
If anyone has, could they please provide a review.
I will no doubt read it, I'm half way through the CC book and have Lomax to read first though
-
I will no doubt read it, I'm half way through the CC book and have Lomax to read first though
There is something written in Colins Book ajross and the first time i missed it, as i said to patti at the time before she aquired the book i will re read some parts and then i saw something, its down to readers thought i guess,lets see if you can find it.
-
Not sure if this will work but this is not Colin's book, but a murder and social history book, that contains the Bamber case.....It's a fascinating read...even though it is only a snippet view... :) :) :)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gdPddAtm_0YC&pg=PA121&dq=colin+caffell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kGb4T77EEMqu8APH4420Bw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=colin%20caffell&f=false
-
This is another book by Betty Shrine the psychic who helped Colin, these are her words that convinced Colin to except his faith in psyche.... :-\ :-\ :-\
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=df8DFyoWfPkC&pg=PT49&dq=colin+caffell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kGb4T77EEMqu8APH4420Bw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=colin%20caffell&f=false
-
It's in PB's statement that June had been trying to persuade Sheila to take a 'holiday' in a home in Bornemouth. One can imagine what Sheila thought was going on.
-
Hi Rochford
I skimmed the Andrew Hunter book draft when Mike first posted it. I picked up one or two new things but overall it seemed to be some sort of summary of all the stuff we discuss on the forum. However, I'm sure the general public would have found it interesting :). I think Scott's book in hardback was the last to be published in 2008? Was there an earlier paperback version?
Had Andrew have had the book published I think it would have reached a wide audience, ie the ruling elite, in that here was a right wing tory mp highlighting potentially the country's biggest ever moj :o
Nothing in there about my pet areas ie June's mental illness 1959 potentially giving rise to an attachment disorder in Sheila, adoption psychology within adoptive families and Sheila's reunion with her birth mother only weeks before the murders :(. I don't understand why these areas are so neglected when just about everthing and the kitchen sink is chucked at it. The only famous British pscyhologist I can think of is John Bowlby the others are all European or American. Maybe this has some bearing and the fact that Britain pre WHF tragedy was a bit behind the times in terms of pscyhology. Perhaps stems from the Victorian era stiff upper lip. I'm pretty certain that had the tragedy have occurred in the US far more emphasis would have been placed on the pscyhological aspects.
Rochford you're my favourite boy poster :-*. 10/10 for you but don't know about the books.
Hi, Egap. As is to be expected, I concur with all you say, including that part about Roch!!! I seem to recall that Bowlby's attachment theory, which has proved to be a wonderful tool, was first used to encourage working mothers back into the home to enable the men returning from the war to find work. It seems that women were reluctant to relinquish their independence, so coercion was applied via faulty contraception (tiny holes in, I believe, every tenth? sheath) and Bowlby's now famous work.
-
It's in PB's statement that June had been trying to persuade Sheila to take a 'holiday' in a home in Bornemouth. One can imagine what Sheila thought was going on.
I take it we're talking convalescent home, probably funded by the Church, for the mentally fragile, and where better than Eastbourne, Gods own waiting room, with nothing to stimulate the senses. The ideal place for a young, fashionable woman. NOT.
-
Hi Rochford
I skimmed the Andrew Hunter book draft when Mike first posted it. I picked up one or two new things but overall it seemed to be some sort of summary of all the stuff we discuss on the forum. However, I'm sure the general public would have found it interesting :). I think Scott's book in hardback was the last to be published in 2008? Was there an earlier paperback version?
Had Andrew have had the book published I think it would have reached a wide audience, ie the ruling elite, in that here was a right wing tory mp highlighting potentially the country's biggest ever moj :o
Nothing in there about my pet areas ie June's mental illness 1959 potentially giving rise to an attachment disorder in Sheila, adoption psychology within adoptive families and Sheila's reunion with her birth mother only weeks before the murders :(. I don't understand why these areas are so neglected when just about everthing and the kitchen sink is chucked at it. The only famous British pscyhologist I can think of is John Bowlby the others are all European or American. Maybe this has some bearing and the fact that Britain pre WHF tragedy was a bit behind the times in terms of pscyhology. Perhaps stems from the Victorian era stiff upper lip. I'm pretty certain that had the tragedy have occurred in the US far more emphasis would have been placed on the pscyhological aspects.
Rochford you're my favourite boy poster :-*. 10/10 for you but don't know about the books.
I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this accolade ::) but hey, I'm not complainin ;)
As for Hunter... seems to have been pretty much on the right of the party like you say. I have only skimmed through it also but will read it seriously tomorrow when I cover a shift at work. This is the bloke who got up in parliament and gave in my opinion, a cracking speech. It caused a few ripples to say the least. He has clearly been privy to information right at the heart of this case and from external sources not available to others.
-
Hi ajross
Yes the word 'sexy' seems somewhat inappropriate but perhaps he didn't quite know how to view her ie a woman who just sort of appeared in their lives v a sort of mother-in-law. Perhaps physically attractive might have been a better description. Perhaps he was just bowled over by the differences, mentally and physically, between Sheila's birth mother, Christine, and June.
Does it say anything else in the book about the reunion? Were they due to meet again? Any plans for Sheila to meet the rest of the birth family who I believe lived in Canada? Were Nevill and June aware of of the reunion?
It's my view that all of this tipped Sheila over the edge. I think when she visited WHF in Aug this was the first time since meeting her birth mother. I believe Jeremy in his wit stat makes ref to June and Nevill encouraging Sheila to take a hol in Eastbourne. Why Eastbourne? How many single twenty year olds want a hol in Eastbourne? Perhaps Sheila had plans to visit Canada and discussed the whole thing with June and Nevill and the mother of all arguments ensued. Perhaps after meeting Christine and learning about other members of her birth family she cldn't reconcile the person she was with either her birth or adoptive family :(. Perhaps (sorry so many perhaps) she thought that had she not have been adopted she would not have ended up in the mess she was. I would have to agree with her here. There can be no doubt that June was a totally unsuitable adoptive mother and had a detrimental effect on Sheila and all aspects of her life.
You mentioned in another post that Colin was going to confront Nevill and June and I wld be grateful if you let us know what this was about. Thanks.
He met her a couple of times, once after the murders at least while she was getting a connecting flight. The boys also met her and Sheila had a collection of photographs that CC was keen to get when he had the aforementioned 'nude' picture encounter with JB. One of the birth family was at one of the funerals but I can't remember which funeral, it was possibly a birth uncle or brother. If you want more detail let me know and I will scan over it in the next couple of days and find it. Unfortunately i've been sidetracked by a car accident this week so haven't had so much time.
-
She went to school in Eastbourne I believe for a while, so that may be why. He was due to confront her about June forcing the boys to pray I believe and also about something to do with her treatment by them and her treatment for her problems. He has a crisis of conscience at this point in the book as he was telling Sheila not to let people tell her what to do, stand up for herself and take control and states that he was doing just what others were. He never did confront them about these issues and says he failed her that night and that the boys were terrified of being left there.
(Very spooky that, I just opened the book at the exact page, here you go Egap
'While we were waiting for people to arrive Bambs told me that she had spoken to her parents about not being happy with her treatment but their attitude had still been that they knew best and that they had absoute faith in her existing psychiatrist@
He goes on to get very angry about this and says
'You must try and stand up to them, because it's almost as if they have broken your spirit!' I then suggested that I would speak to her father when i next saw him. Hopefully I would get a chance when I dropped her and the boys off at the farm the following day.'
He also says later
'As it was the boys wanted me to come with them to have a word with June about the proselytising and her shouting at them if they didn't eat meat.
Apart from the fact that since they had ben living with me Daniel had decided to become a vegetarian, i'd had serious cause to confront June about her forcing the twins to kneel and say prayers at every opportunity. She didn't taken kindly to my correction' (the mistake is in the book)
'You will remember to havea word with Granny about the prayers and everything, won't you, daddy? shouted Daniel from the back seat of our very noisy Volkswagen Camper.
Yes, of course I will. Now don't you worry about it
Do you promise?
Yes, I promise. And besides, Mummy will be there with you to make sure, once i've said something, won't you Bambs?'
I am now marking the pages that I quote for future reference and by the way Egap1 this may be interesting, his book is actually dedicated to several people, one of whom is Sheila's birth mother!!!
[/quote]
-
She went to school in Eastbourne I believe for a while, so that may be why. He was due to confront her about June forcing the boys to pray I believe and also about something to do with her treatment by them and her treatment for her problems. He has a crisis of conscience at this point in the book as he was telling Sheila not to let people tell her what to do, stand up for herself and take control and states that he was doing just what others were. He never did confront them about these issues and says he failed her that night and that the boys were terrified of being left there.
(Very spooky that, I just opened the book at the exact page, here you go Egap
'While we were waiting for people to arrive Bambs told me that she had spoken to her parents about not being happy with her treatment but their attitude had still been that they knew best and that they had absoute faith in her existing psychiatrist@
He goes on to get very angry about this and says
'You must try and stand up to them, because it's almost as if they have broken your spirit!' I then suggested that I would speak to her father when i next saw him. Hopefully I would get a chance when I dropped her and the boys off at the farm the following day.'
He also says later
'As it was the boys wanted me to come with them to have a word with June about the proselytising and her shouting at them if they didn't eat meat.
Apart from the fact that since they had ben living with me Daniel had decided to become a vegetarian, i'd had serious cause to confront June about her forcing the twins to kneel and say prayers at every opportunity. She didn't taken kindly to my correction' (the mistake is in the book)
'You will remember to havea word with Granny about the prayers and everything, won't you, daddy? shouted Daniel from the back seat of our very noisy Volkswagen Camper.
Yes, of course I will. Now don't you worry about it
Do you promise?
Yes, I promise. And besides, Mummy will be there with you to make sure, once i've said something, won't you Bambs?'
I am now marking the pages that I quote for future reference and by the way Egap1 this may be interesting, his book is actually dedicated to several people, one of whom is Sheila's birth mother!!!
AJ I love your book reviews.....it is a real shame we can't all sit round a table and discuss it all.... :) :) :)
-
Some superb and very informative posts for those who may have either overlooked a couple of issues, or who weren't aware of one or two snippets of information.
-
Some superb and very informative posts for those who may have either overlooked a couple of issues, or who weren't aware of one or two snippets of information.
Hi Lookout, where you been? Not seen you for ages....I suspect you are keeping away from my window comments...lol
What snippets? :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Lookout, where you been? Not seen you for ages....I suspect you are keeping away from my window comments...lol
What snippets? :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti,,,oh I've been here now and again. Busy here with family coming and going. I'm enjoying all the posts and have also been catching up with them,,,yours included. Have a read of the Andrew Hunter " book " ,,that's where the " snippets " are. It's surprising what the man knows,or how he knows. A very clever man too. Hope all is well with you.
-
Hi Patti,,,oh I've been here now and again. Busy here with family coming and going. I'm enjoying all the posts and have also been catching up with them,,,yours included. Have a read of the Andrew Hunter " book " ,,that's where the " snippets " are. It's surprising what the man knows,or how he knows. A very clever man too. Hope all is well with you.
Hi Lookout, will try and read his book tomorrow, I am too done in to read it tonight...I have been on the Madeleine thread....I wont get you started lol But do you remember the South African that said he could find M's body....well, he has hit the news headlines again. He claims to have spent thousands of pounds of his own money searching for her.....I am off now Lookout, got to hit the pillow, been busy more or less all day....Speak soon.... :) :) :) :)
-
He also says in his book that she was very worried and apprehensive about going there and he had promised to speak to June and Ralph on her behalf which he never did, could she not just have been waiting for him to say something given that she was scared to herself? Could the silence on teh way there not have been theses nerves? Could she also have been a little hungover or tired from the party the night before?
I doubt that she was hung over from the party as she left early after not doing anything except sitting and staring out of the window.
-
I doubt that she was hung over from the party as she left early after not doing anything except sitting and staring out of the window.
And thinking out her masterplan,eh,lebaleb.?
-
I doubt that she was hung over from the party as she left early after not doing anything except sitting and staring out of the window.
She had a lift home at about midnight by JB and JM after the boys has gone to bed. Colin had had too much to drink to take her, this was the point she was seemingly very afraid of JB for whatever reason. Colin doesn't really state what she did. I find it difficult to believe that anybody would consider her quiet, withdrawn and pensive state to be a sign of a psychotic episode, I find it much more likely that she was anxious about Colin talking to her parents as she had requested and as,eventually, he failed to do.
-
Further evidence that Sheila was in a catatonic state [indicator of a psychotic episode] is in CC's statement. He says that Sheila didn't say a word him or the children on the trip from London to WHF and that she appeared very vacant while they were at the farm. Corroborated by Jeremy saying Sheila 'just sat there'.
Could this all not be explained by Colin making a promise and her waiting for him to do what he had promised? She was upset with her treatment, the praying, the fear of the boys being taken away, the boys themselves were afraid because of the religious rhetoric and Daniel declaring himself a vegetarian. It is completely speculative to say that she was just worried and anxious, but it is just as speculative to suggest that she was in a 'catatonic' state and at the beginning of a psychotic episode and I am only going by Colin's affirmations in his book
-
Could this all not be explained by Colin making a promise and her waiting for him to do what he had promised? She was upset with her treatment, the praying, the fear of the boys being taken away, the boys themselves were afraid because of the religious rhetoric and Daniel declaring himself a vegetarian. It is completely speculative to say that she was just worried and anxious, but it is just as speculative to suggest that she was in a 'catatonic' state and at the beginning of a psychotic episode and I am only going by Colin's affirmations in his book
I agree that it is speculative to say she was just anxious and worried. I don't believe that would explain her taking no interest in the boys as June mentioned to PB. Or the way she spoke to PB on the phone. If she were waiting for CC to speak to her parents she could have talked to him about it on the way to WHF.
-
She had a lift home at about midnight by JB and JM after the boys has gone to bed. Colin had had too much to drink to take her, this was the point she was seemingly very afraid of JB for whatever reason. Colin doesn't really state what she did. I find it difficult to believe that anybody would consider her quiet, withdrawn and pensive state to be a sign of a psychotic episode, I find it much more likely that she was anxious about Colin talking to her parents as she had requested and as,eventually, he failed to do.
Hi AJ
:) :)
Don't you get the feeling that Sheila was always let down? I also get the feeling that she was so gullible, to the point that she trusted everyone in her path....
-
Hi AJ
:) :)
Don't you get the feeling that Sheila was always let down? I also get the feeling that she was so gullible, to the point that she trusted everyone in her path....
Patti, hi and hope you're feeling better. What you say would certainly follow if she had been bought up the way I believe her to have been.
-
I agree that it is speculative to say she was just anxious and worried. I don't believe that would explain her taking no interest in the boys as June mentioned to PB. Or the way she spoke to PB on the phone. If she were waiting for CC to speak to her parents she could have talked to him about it on the way to WHF.
If she was 'catatonic' surely she wouldn't have spoken at all! And of course you omit to state that the idea it was the beginning of a 'psychotic episode' is speculative.
-
If she was 'catatonic' surely she wouldn't have spoken at all! And of course you omit to state that the idea it was the beginning of a 'psychotic episode' is speculative.
Sorry, I could make so many points here and back them up but I simply can't be bothered. There are some posters who are so blinkered that they cannot see any point other than theirs. All I am doing is reviewing the statements made by Colin in his book as per the thread title. I am not proclaiming any guilt or innocence because at this point I do not care, it is not part of what I am trying to do. At no point in his book to the point I have got to does he describe her as 'catatonic' he says she was 'miles away'. On being asked to stay the night he refused and states
'Bambs, who had said very little since our arrival, looked very disappointed. I had once again chickened out of talking to them on her behalf.'
Again, not very catatonic or psychotic
-
Patti, hi and hope you're feeling better. What you say would certainly follow if she had been bought up the way I believe her to have been.
Hi april :) I am fine thank you and, your good self?
I feel sorry for Sheila in a sense, because I think people took advantage of her good nature. I don't think she had much luck with men either...I think they saw her as some sort of tool to be used, then discarded her when they had finished with her....
From what Colin says in her book, she loved him dearly and he admits he had let her down...but in death , he wanted to make amends with her...if you see what I mean...
Jeremy points this out to Colin in a frustrated letter he wrote to him....He accuses him more or less for her illness and tells him straight, that he knew she would not manage the twins on her own....
Colins book is now available on Amazon.......cheaper than it was priced a few months ago....if you are thinking of buying it.... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi april :) I am fine thank you and, your good self?
I feel sorry for Sheila in a sense, because I think people took advantage of her good nature. I don't think she had much luck with men either...I think they saw her as some sort of tool to be used, then discarded her when they had finished with her....
From what Colin says in her book, she loved him dearly and he admits he had let her down...but in death , he wanted to make amends with her...if you see what I mean...
Jeremy points this out to Colin in a frustrated letter he wrote to him....He accuses him more or less for her illness and tells him straight, that he knew she would not manage the twins on her own....
Colins book is now available on Amazon.......cheaper than it was priced a few months ago....if you are thinking of buying it.... :) :) :) :)
Patti, I'm well, thankyou.
I feel that Sheila's life was how it was because her sense of self worth was almost nonexistent. I feel very strongly that at the bottom of this was her illegitimacy and subsequent adoption, and she became a reflection of what June told her she was, but IMO she was a girl desperately in need of somebody to love her, whilst feeling unworthy of love.
I think it likely that her love for Colin overwhelmed him. In her eyes, she probably thought him the answer to her prayers and lived in constant fear of losing him. I feel she was too needy for most men to cope with long term, probably seeking constant reassurance that they loved her. I believe that in a never ending and often futile search for love, she threw herself at men, and was used because she allowed herself to be used because she felt worthless. I think Colin was just one of many who let her down and it's to his credit that he recognizes it, but I truly believe he was not equipped to deal with it. He was not only father to twin boys, he also had to be "father" to a young woman who, IMO, was never going to be, emotionally, more than a child herself.........and then there was her illness. He may have looked elsewhere because he needed adult female support.
I read his book in the first half of the 1990s. My local library had it in along with all the other books on the local murders.
I have a huge sense of anger and helplessness when I think about Sheila. It's almost as if she was destined to be a victim from the moment of her birth. All I can say is that it isn't fair and then I'm reminded that my beloved late partner would tell me there is no book anywhere that says it is.
-
Hi Lookout
Dr F's wit stat states that Sheila talked about suicide although he didn't regard her as a risk but how reliable was Dr F as a so-called expert witness? He appears to have been little more than a glove puppet for the Bambers - an aid to keep the family dysfunction under wraps rather than confronting uncomfortable truths.
When Colin was initially told about the murder/suicide tragedy he said something along the lines of "So she has finally done it". He was obviously aware that suicide was on Sheila's mind.
Had Sheila been thinking about suicide for some time? She might have considered different methods and thought a gun at WHF was the best option. :(
Interestingly Colin's father even had a similar response to that.
-
Hi ajross
Thanks again for the updates above.
I noted your comments re Daniel being particularly concerned about June's proselytising and Colin saying that he would confront June and that in any event his mummy wld be on hand. However as you probably know on the Monday, day before murders, Sheila was seen running from a nearby monastery and then seen running through a small woodland back towards WHF. On both these occasions she was alone. So where were the twins? Were they left alone with June?
In one of Patti's post she states that when Sheila was in hospital someone, can't recall who perhaps Colin's sister or girlfriend, took the twins to Sheila's flat so that June cld meet with them. This was on the basis that the twins should not be left alone with June as per Colin's instructions.
So given the above who was looking after the twins whilst Sheila visited the monastery which was apparently a round trip of some 8 miles? As she didn't drive did she walk, get a bus, taxi, lift by arrangement or hitch or some other means? If she walked which appears to be the way she returned this would have taken her 2 - 3 hours incl time spent in monastery.
ajross do you think Sheila had the same concerns about leaving the twins with June as Colin did?
Can we actually be certain that Sheila, herself relished visiting her parents. The deeper one looks the more one can see just how much the senior Bambers had control of their childrens' lives, both financially and emotionally. The younger Bambers would seem to have led a lifestyle envied by many, but it seems to me that lifestyle always had strings attached. I have a strong sense of "Remember, everything you have and everything you are is because of what we have done for you."
I can't imagine that Sheila was happy to leave her children with June, watching her own childhood replayed through them, but sadly she seems not to have been in the position to do much about it. Partly, one supposes, because of her illness, and possibly partly because Colin may not have been strong enough emotionally, to cope with her for long periods without a break (I think caring for her might have been like caring for a willful child) It seems to me that wherever her body was, spiritually and emotionally, part of her remained at the farm. Might this have been the place, where despite June's less than loving mother treatment of her, she felt safest? What a curious dichotomy.
As nobody has come forward to say they transported her to the monastery that day, it must be assumed that she walked, whether by design or chance we will never know, but it's reasonable to assume that if it was by design, it was somewhere she wanted to go and there was purpose to her visit. On the other hand, if she had been building up to an episode she may not have been aware of where she was going and may have been in a place where she wasn't a mother.
-
ADVANCE NOTICE
ITV 1 at 10.35 tonight "I took my baby's life" is the story of a mother who killed her baby during a psychotic episode.
-
ADVANCE NOTICE
ITV 1 at 10.35 tonight "I took my baby's life" is the story of a mother who killed her baby during a psychotic episode.
Thankyou for that reminder,April. Good morning btw.
It still won't sink in with a lot of people that these things do happen,,,so perhaps it'll be an insight into the mind/s of patients who suffer mental illness such as this. Mainly women might I add.
It is becoming more and more public knowledge now than it was back in the mid-eighties,,but even so,,doctors,psychologists,physicians,etc didn't seem to have a grasp towards the future with such illnesses,,,which is part and parcel of their careers in researching to look ahead,as it were.
When you think about it,,they didn't know an awful lot about the brain and its different functions,,,by not going deeper into the symptoms,,it became a " one fits all " so far as medication went,,,and as a consequence you'd have one psychotic drug suiting one and not another,,,causing adverse effects and in turn making the patient far worse than they actually were to start with instead of studying each individual.
With paranoid schizophrenics,you never know how their temperament is going to pan out from one day to another,,,and the least thing can bring on a psychotic outburst. As I'd mentioned,,,particularly in women with a hormone imbalance.
Specialists in this field are Endocrinologists who deal with glands which secrete hormones. The thyroid gland is a pointer in the way a patient behaves,,,and is the " seat " for the fight or flight situation which controls the anxiety levels in the body.
Poor Sheila had numerous issues which nobody understood,,,nor by the sound of it,,wanted to either.
She couldn't even understand what was going on inside herself,,,and probably,rightfully,relied upon the GP to help her.
-
Thankyou for that reminder,April. Good morning btw.
It still won't sink in with a lot of people that these things do happen,,,so perhaps it'll be an insight into the mind/s of patients who suffer mental illness such as this. Mainly women might I add.
It is becoming more and more public knowledge now than it was back in the mid-eighties,,but even so,,doctors,psychologists,physicians,etc didn't seem to have a grasp towards the future with such illnesses,,,which is part and parcel of their careers in researching to look ahead,as it were.
When you think about it,,they didn't know an awful lot about the brain and its different functions,,,by not going deeper into the symptoms,,it became a " one fits all " so far as medication went,,,and as a consequence you'd have one psychotic drug suiting one and not another,,,causing adverse effects and in turn making the patient far worse than they actually were to start with instead of studying each individual.
With paranoid schizophrenics,you never know how their temperament is going to pan out from one day to another,,,and the least thing can bring on a psychotic outburst. As I'd mentioned,,,particularly in women with a hormone imbalance.
Specialists in this field are Endocrinologists who deal with glands which secrete hormones. The thyroid gland is a pointer in the way a patient behaves,,,and is the " seat " for the fight or flight situation which controls the anxiety levels in the body.
Poor Sheila had numerous issues which nobody understood,,,nor by the sound of it,,wanted to either.
She couldn't even understand what was going on inside herself,,,and probably,rightfully,relied upon the GP to help her.
Hi, Lookout and good morning to you, too. I guess back then, it was a case of "Dr knows best." Poor love, how could she know that a gp had such little knowledge of emotional and mental problems.
-
Hi Lookout
Dr F's wit stat states that Sheila talked about suicide although he didn't regard her as a risk but how reliable was Dr F as a so-called expert witness? He appears to have been little more than a glove puppet for the Bambers - an aid to keep the family dysfunction under wraps rather than confronting uncomfortable truths.
When Colin was initially told about the murder/suicide tragedy he said something along the lines of "So she has finally done it". He was obviously aware that suicide was on Sheila's mind.
Had Sheila been thinking about suicide for some time? She might have considered different methods and thought a gun at WHF was the best option. :(
Morning egap,,,I'm inclined to think that deep down quite a few people took it that Sheila had carried out the murders,,,but why their thoughts didn't override the others,I don't know. I'm surprised that those who thought it could have been Sheila,,,weren't more forthcoming instead of either following,,or again,,being swayed by the then majority.
Had they known the full family background and its little foibles concerning June and Ralphs' covering up of Sheilas' behaviour at times,,,then there'd have been more of an understanding of the family in general.
Yes,,Sheila would have been plotting,in her own mind,,the suicide that she " craved ",,because she was so very ill. I will not be moved on this,,as years of studying peoples' minds,,brings me to that conclusion.
She'd have been completely oblivious as to what she was doing that night,,,except maybe until she was facing her mother,who probably sparked the whole thing off.
-
Interestingly Colin's father even had a similar response to that.
Good morning ajross,,,it doesn't surprise me that Colins' father also thought along those lines.Those without a vested interest,,who are on the outside,,would also have thought the same if they'd studied the case carefully,,,and of course,,knew that Sheila was sick,but at the same time,capable of carrying out murder,,as well as having some sort of knowledge of the family.
-
Hi, Lookout and good morning to you, too. I guess back then, it was a case of "Dr knows best." Poor love, how could she know that a gp had such little knowledge of emotional and mental problems.
Hi April,,,even today GP's know very little about emotional problems,,,and it takes them all their time to refer them to someone who has at least a modicum of understanding.
To be honest,,,although technology has advanced,,,it seems to have stood in the way of professionals being learned in their field of medicine,etc. Granted there are some clever doctors around,,,but it's the " older " members of the profession who are streets ahead of those who have been trained-up in this modern society.
-
Hi April................ it's the " older " members of the profession who are streets ahead of those who have been trained-up in this modern society.
Lookout, that's a point that previously I hadn't given any thought to, but you're right and I suspect that "older" professionals have had time to develop the Oh, so important gut feeling that can't be found in any text books, whilst "the newbies" with no experience, in general, go only by the book.
-
ADVANCE NOTICE
ITV 1 at 10.35 tonight "I took my baby's life" is the story of a mother who killed her baby during a psychotic episode.
I will find it a struggle to watch that program?
-
I will find it a struggle to watch that program?
Aw,,Grahame,,be brave.If only to understand that this illness has been with us for years,,,without a full understanding of its consequences in some. To prove to others that it does,,and always has existed,,,rather than taking it on a more personal and painful experience.
-
I will find it a struggle to watch that program?
Hi Grahame, yours is an appropriate reaction which I suspect may of us will share with you. I might tape it because it may be easier to watch during the day. Go with what ever coping mechanism works for you.
-
Aw,,Grahame,,be brave.If only to understand that this illness has been with us for years,,,without a full understanding of its consequences in some. To prove to others that it does,,and always has existed,,,rather than taking it on a more personal and painful experience.
I usually find it a problem watching such tragic stories. But are right. This illness does cause people to do some unbelievable things. I rather find it surprising that some of those who don't believe that Sheila could murder her own children when there are so many cases that prove otherwise?
-
I usually find it a problem watching such tragic stories. But are right. This illness does cause people to do some unbelievable things. I rather find it surprising that some of those who don't believe that Sheila could murder her own children when there are so many cases that prove otherwise?
There are also plenty of people with mental illness who manage not to murder their children.
-
There are also plenty of people with mental illness who manage not to murder their children.
Hi Bridget,,,yes,,,but it does depend on the " type " of mental illness,,and how it's contained,medically. If managed from the onset ( which,sadly,Sheilas' wasn't ) then there's every chance of a recovery,,which could take a long time,but providing that there's full cooperation on behalf of the patient,there's no reason not to believe that a normal life can't be achieved.
-
Missed,,halved medication,,,along with other noxious drugs isn't the recipe for any sort of a recovery.
-
Hi ajross
Thanks again for the updates above.
I noted your comments re Daniel being particularly concerned about June's proselytising and Colin saying that he would confront June and that in any event his mummy wld be on hand. However as you probably know on the Monday, day before murders, Sheila was seen running from a nearby monastery and then seen running through a small woodland back towards WHF. On both these occasions she was alone. So where were the twins? Were they left alone with June?
In one of Patti's post she states that when Sheila was in hospital someone, can't recall who perhaps Colin's sister or girlfriend, took the twins to Sheila's flat so that June cld meet with them. This was on the basis that the twins should not be left alone with June as per Colin's instructions.
So given the above who was looking after the twins whilst Sheila visited the monastery which was apparently a round trip of some 8 miles? As she didn't drive did she walk, get a bus, taxi, lift by arrangement or hitch or some other means? If she walked which appears to be the way she returned this would have taken her 2 - 3 hours incl time spent in monastery.
ajross do you think Sheila had the same concerns about leaving the twins with June as Colin did?
Unfortunately I am not in a position to answer that question with anything like fact. I would guess that she did have the same reservations but only because of what I have read. I would argue that the children could have been with Ralph and going on the evidence her and the boys would be happy with that. However, they could have been on the farm, they could have been with the secretary, or housekeeper or also the young girl from the village who babysat for them
-
Patti, I'm well, thankyou.
I feel that Sheila's life was how it was because her sense of self worth was almost nonexistent. I feel very strongly that at the bottom of this was her illegitimacy and subsequent adoption, and she became a reflection of what June told her she was, but IMO she was a girl desperately in need of somebody to love her, whilst feeling unworthy of love.
I think it likely that her love for Colin overwhelmed him. In her eyes, she probably thought him the answer to her prayers and lived in constant fear of losing him. I feel she was too needy for most men to cope with long term, probably seeking constant reassurance that they loved her. I believe that in a never ending and often futile search for love, she threw herself at men, and was used because she allowed herself to be used because she felt worthless. I think Colin was just one of many who let her down and it's to his credit that he recognizes it, but I truly believe he was not equipped to deal with it. He was not only father to twin boys, he also had to be "father" to a young woman who, IMO, was never going to be, emotionally, more than a child herself.........and then there was her illness. He may have looked elsewhere because he needed adult female support.
I read his book in the first half of the 1990s. My local library had it in along with all the other books on the local murders.
I have a huge sense of anger and helplessness when I think about Sheila. It's almost as if she was destined to be a victim from the moment of her birth. All I can say is that it isn't fair and then I'm reminded that my beloved late partner would tell me there is no book anywhere that says it is.
Colin stated that with the first pregnancy he wanted to keep the child so that he would have an eternal connection with Sheila, Sheila however didn't want the child because she was too young. I think Sheila failed to move on, I think ( and it is only an opinion from Colin's own words in the book) that Colin was a womanising, bohemian, hippy type (these are my words) he seems desperate to have been constantly surrounded by his ex's to the detriment of their feelings. I think his behavior towards all the women in his life was shocking, I don't think he was overwhelmed, I think to a certain point he relished the attention and used Jan, Sheila and Heather and I think this is directly linked to a lack of emotion in his own family.
-
Hi AJ
:) :)
Don't you get the feeling that Sheila was always let down? I also get the feeling that she was so gullible, to the point that she trusted everyone in her path....
I feel sorry for Sheila as a victim of social conditioning. I believe she overcompensated in nearly all of her relationships by taking responsibility for the actions of her and others and I believe this was due to a lack of self esteem engendered in her by the negative attitude of June. I unfortunately believe that June was never happy with her and JB not being her 'real' children and I think that she let them know this. As JB observed, why adopt them and then send them away to boarding school as if they didn't want them around. These are only my opinions
-
Colin stated that with the first pregnancy he wanted to keep the child so that he would have an eternal connection with Sheila, Sheila however didn't want the child because she was too young. I think Sheila failed to move on, I think ( and it is only an opinion from Colin's own words in the book) that Colin was a womanising, bohemian, hippy type (these are my words) he seems desperate to have been constantly surrounded by his ex's to the detriment of their feelings. I think his behavior towards all the women in his life was shocking, I don't think he was overwhelmed, I think to a certain point he relished the attention and used Jan, Sheila and Heather and I think this is directly linked to a lack of emotion in his own family.
Aj, hi. Your last sentence is really interesting and makes a lot of sense. Sheila had been bought up experiencing lack of emotional expression. She knew how to cope with it and in a dysfunctional way was comfortable with it. It would be natural for her to be attracted to someone who would deliver in the same way although she probably didn't do it consciously. I'll jump in with both feet here and say that what she fell for was his "free spirit." After the constraints of the farm, June and Neville's control, the strict moral discipline, he must have seemed like a breath of fresh air and the chance to share his lifestyle would have been irresistable.
-
Hi Bridget
Most people with mental illness do not murder their children. However, most people with mental illness were not adopted by a mentally ill adoptive mother.
Nice one, egap. Succinct and to the point.
-
Aj, hi. Your last sentence is really interesting and makes a lot of sense. Sheila had been bought up experiencing lack of emotional expression. She knew how to cope with it and in a dysfunctional way was comfortable with it. It would be natural for her to be attracted to someone who would deliver in the same way although she probably didn't do it consciously. I'll jump in with both feet here and say that what she fell for was his "free spirit." After the constraints of the farm, June and Neville's control, the strict moral discipline, he must have seemed like a breath of fresh air and the chance to share his lifestyle would have been irresistable.
That's a good point, I hadn't really looked at why she loved him but I would agree that it probably was his free spirit, unfortunately i think this was her (relationship) mistake as Colin strikes me as a very egocentric friend and partner, I think I have never met anybody who so readily spends time in the company of their ex-partners and speaks so affectionately towards them it borders on narcissism
-
Hi Bridget
Most people with mental illness do not murder their children. However, most people with mental illness were not adopted by a mentally ill adoptive mother.
But earlier you were saying that the reason she was mentally ill was because she was adopted by a mentally ill adoptive mother... and wasn't her adoptive mother said to be ill because she adopted? By that logic there should be a significant number of adoptees committing infanticide - are there?
-
An interesting point from Colin's book is that he and Sheila discussed her first pregnancy with June and Ralph. She was apprehensive as she thought it might mean she could not have children in the future. It would seem that June took Sheila for the termination after 'persuading' her it was the right thing to do, this was shortly before they were caught naked in the field which in turn was when they took the nude photos that JB supposedly found in June's drawer. According to Colin this, and the subsequent use of the term 'the devil's child' was the point from which she started to decline.
There are also some interesting comments about JB and his time at Gresham and he says that JB claimed to be sexually abused but importantly that he became a bully and used to torment the younger pupils. There is a world of difference between killing two sleeping boys and bullying youngsters at school but it would be very interesting to know more about the extent of this bullying.
-
Hi April1
I posted this before you joined but I feel sure you will enjoy reading it. It's soooo Freudian...
http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/archive/DeutschAM.htm
Egap, Many, MANY thanks for posting that riveting link. I can't believe I've lived this long without such valuable knowledge!!!!! Speaking of the Big Daddy, do you ever get the impression that he either disliked women or was scared of them?
-
Hi Bridget
Sorry I don't follow. I would think it is extremely rare for an adoptive mother to become mentally ill due to her decision to adopt. And ever rarer to be allowed to keep the child and adopt another. It is highly likely that June's mental illness caused Sheila's mental illness by the repeated break in bonds giving rise to an attachment disorder/affectionless pscychopathy in Sheila. Unusual case with an equally unusual outcome.
All the research shows adoptees (adopted at birth) are at higher risk for emotional/psychological problems. Those that are then brought up by a mentally ill adoptive mother are obviously placed at the extreme end of the spectrum.
See first couple of mins in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdlOJ-_mal0
Adoptees who kill:
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/aboutthebook.php
Case last yr of adopted woman who killed son and eventually committed suicide. Ex partner states "She decided to find her real mum in America and that's when she began to flip".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rachel-james-grieving-dad-hits-123282
Beware furry forum friends Egap1 and April1 are coming to get you...especially the anti's :o
Oh no.. and we don't even have a running away smiley!
-
Oh no.. and we don't even have a running away smiley!
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared007.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared007.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
That's the one!
-
I think I have asked on the open forum four times about the pictures drawn by the boys. Every time I have asked I have been ignored. I have now got my answer from Colin's book and it is really rather disturbing. The pictures weren'y by the boys, they were by Daniel, they were produced in sequence and told a story and are reproduced in that order in Colin's book. They were given to Colin's mother to be kept safely and in order but unfortunately Daniel shared the story with Mrs Caffell and she couldn't remember it, the pictures themselves tell a disturbing story.
Another interesting point raised from my reading this evening relates to Sheila's time in Japan and a letter which see sent to Colin which I shall now reproduce for those that don't have/haven't read the book:
I look very tired and they have straightened my hair but todayI am going back to the hairdresser's to have it recurled. Don't get worried when I say this but I really think I should go to a psychiatrist when I get back, so could you please arrange an appointment for me as soon as possible and I will be very grateful. I've never felt so confused and unable to control my brain before and I'd like to get myself sorted out as soon as possible. It's my self-confidence. Some days at jobs I'm happy and self-confident and other days I'm not and you can see the change in people when I'm not. They don't like me on my bad days, it's almost as if I'm schizophrenic or something. (when she got home she qualifeid this by telling me that during her down periods her mood seemed to affect everyone around her- almost to the point where she felt she exuded an 'evil aura' which frightened people away)
I feel so sick of people and stale. It's terrible, I don't know what's happening to me at all. Can't wait to get back and be with you, you're the only person who really cares and understands.
What is important to point out here is that this was shortly after she miscarried and so far into her term that she was forced to give birth to a still born baby which she was convinced she saw moving. The trip to Japan was supposed to be a break but she worked 17 days without a break and they also tried to get her to slep with important clients declares Colin.
This was then followed by another terrible situation where she got pregnant again and lost the baby because of an infection caused by what Colin calls a 'careless internal examination.' She then got preganant again and had the twins and shortly after he left her for Jan. However, he also points out that at least once he struck her which resulted in a black eye. He explains that they would argue, she would break things and he would become angry and violent. He only makes one direct reference to hitting her and in all of it he attributes the blame to himself, he upbringing and his inabaility to control his temper but actually blames it on her and her manipulating ways (my words) he completely detracts from his own apologetic words but surreptitiously reversing it. The more I read this book the more it suggests that JB killed the family but equally, the more I read it the more I think that those involved had already been killed by each other and those around them.
-
I think I have asked on the open forum four times about the pictures drawn by the boys. Every time I have asked I have been ignored. I have now got my answer from Colin's book and it is really rather disturbing. The pictures weren'y by the boys, they were by Daniel, they were produced in sequence and told a story and are reproduced in that order in Colin's book. They were given to Colin's mother to be kept safely and in order but unfortunately Daniel shared the story with Mrs Caffell and she couldn't remember it, the pictures themselves tell a disturbing story.
Another interesting point raised from my reading this evening relates to Sheila's time in Japan and a letter which see sent to Colin which I shall now reproduce for those that don't have/haven't read the book:
I look very tired and they have straightened my hair but todayI am going back to the hairdresser's to have it recurled. Don't get worried when I say this but I really think I should go to a psychiatrist when I get back, so could you please arrange an appointment for me as soon as possible and I will be very grateful. I've never felt so confused and unable to control my brain before and I'd like to get myself sorted out as soon as possible. It's my self-confidence. Some days at jobs I'm happy and self-confident and other days I'm not and you can see the change in people when I'm not. They don't like me on my bad days, it's almost as if I'm schizophrenic or something. (when she got home she qualifeid this by telling me that during her down periods her mood seemed to affect everyone around her- almost to the point where she felt she exuded an 'evil aura' which frightened people away)
I feel so sick of people and stale. It's terrible, I don't know what's happening to me at all. Can't wait to get back and be with you, you're the only person who really cares and understands.
What is important to point out here is that this was shortly after she miscarried and so far into her term that she was forced to give birth to a still born baby which she was convinced she saw moving. The trip to Japan was supposed to be a break but she worked 17 days without a break and they also tried to get her to slep with important clients declares Colin.
This was then followed by another terrible situation where she got pregnant again and lost the baby because of an infection caused by what Colin calls a 'careless internal examination.' She then got preganant again and had the twins and shortly after he left her for Jan. However, he also points out that at least once he struck her which resulted in a black eye. He explains that they would argue, she would break things and he would become angry and violent. He only makes one direct reference to hitting her and in all of it he attributes the blame to himself, he upbringing and his inabaility to control his temper but actually blames it on her and her manipulating ways (my words) he completely detracts from his own apologetic words but surreptitiously reversing it. The more I read this book the more it suggests that JB killed the family but equally, the more I read it the more I think that those involved had already been killed by each other and those around them.
AJ, it sounds as if Colin's book has had a profound effect on you. I do recall that it was very powerful, but I can't help but wonder if, in his own way, Colin is trying to apologize to Sheila for letting her down, by exonerating her from responsibility for the murders.
-
AJ, it sounds as if Colin's book has had a profound effect on you. I do recall that it was very powerful, but I can't help but wonder if, in his own way, Colin is trying to apologize to Sheila for letting her down, by exonerating her from responsibility for the murders.
It has had a profound effect on me in that it gives an insight into the charaters that has not been readily discussed on here. I asked many times about those pictures and was ignored. They were very worrying but now put in context they are sadly disturbing. I think a lot of people on here only discuss that which will further their cause. When I joined I believed JB innocent, now I think I believe him guity, what sets me apart from others is that I wish to be proved wrong. If Colin does try to exonerate Sheila I think he fails and I think that ultimately they are all guilty as they all led to this conclusion. More than exonerate her of murder i think he wanted to correct the public opinion partly created by himself. The only ones that are innocent are the boys who continually pleaded for help but were ignored.
-
It has had a profound effect on me in that it gives an insight into the charaters that has not been readily discussed on here. I asked many times about those pictures and was ignored. They were very worrying but now put in context they are sadly disturbing. I think a lot of people on here only discuss that which will further their cause. When I joined I believed JB innocent, now I think I believe him guity, what sets me apart from others is that I wish to be proved wrong. If Colin does try to exonerate Sheila I think he fails and I think that ultimately they are all guilty as they all led to this conclusion. More than exonerate her of murder i think he wanted to correct the public opinion partly created by himself. The only ones that are innocent are the boys who continually pleaded for help but were ignored.
AJ, I found those pictures shockingly disturbing. I just longed to hug those little boys and make everything safe and better. Like you, I had the feeling they were screaming for somebody to do something but didn't have the words to do it so they said it with drawings. We can be forgiven for not hearing them, but there are those who were there who might have heard them had they taken more notice of what was happening to them.
How odd, that when I first read it, in the 1990s, I was convinced that Jeremy was guilty. I wrote to Colin saying so. However, as time has passed, for numerous reasons, I've changed my mind. What hasn't changed, however, is my reaction to those terrible pictures.
-
AJ, I found those pictures shockingly disturbing. I just longed to hug those little boys and make everything safe and better. Like you, I had the feeling they were screaming for somebody to do something but didn't have the words to do it so they said it with drawings. We can be forgiven for not hearing them, but there are those who were there who might have heard them had they taken more notice of what was happening to them.
How odd, that when I first read it, in the 1990s, I was convinced that Jeremy was guilty. I wrote to Colin saying so. However, as time has passed, for numerous reasons, I've changed my mind. What hasn't changed, however, is my reaction to those terrible pictures.
Unfortunately, as I make my way through the book, I see more and more examples of where the boys could verbalise their fears and yet nobody took any notice of them, that is another thing that Colin seems to be trying to come to terms with in the book. On another note, i'd love to know who Beryl is, that is the woman who he has signed my copy for!
-
Hi Steve_uk
Is there any reason why your post 1328 is a doctored version of one of my earlier posts?
Hi egap 1 I'm attempting to reply to your post #1289..if you're accusing me of plagiarism please elucidate,but it's just not my style.
Dr Hugh Ferguson has to shoulder his share of the blame,which is considerable,and as said in this thread before Sheila was let down by many,and in this regard is no different from the thousands who suffer from mental illness today.
In my opinion Sheila was the perfect scapegoat for Jeremy,who resented his parents buying her a flat in a fashionable area of London whilst he owned a rented cottage in Goldhanger which he was expected to furnish himself.
We are expected to believe that a woman who was described by Pamela Boutflour whom she talked to on the phone the evening prior to the deaths as "a zombie" and who was spaced out with her period shot four people with over twenty bullets,reloading a rifle which she whacked Ralph(Nevill) in the head with,fracturing his jaw,damaging his teeth,neck and larynx,without receiving the slightest injury in return,she then showers,shoots herself once,then runs back upstairs and shoots herself again with blood running across her face and none streaming down her nightie.
On the other hand we have a man who had made no secret to his girlfriend of wishing to do away with his family,none of whom were blood relations and all of whom he despised(in his own mind he was doing the twins a favour as they would be away from their mother and grandmother,both of whom had suffered from mental illness).He arouses suspicions in Nevill who presciently forecasts he might die in a shooting accident to secretary Barbara Wilson,also commenting"I must never turn my back on that young man".
-
No really I don't. Here's the zombie quote:
On the last day of her life Sheila was reported as being a ‘zombie’. On the night of the massacre, June, a deeply religious woman, had not attended her usual Bible class. When Sheila spoke to her aunt, Pamela Boutflour, on the telephone at some time after 10 p.m. that evening, she didn’t say much and didn’t say goodbye. This all independently supported Jeremy’s testimony that Sheila was quiet and distant. ‘What,’ Rivlin asked the jury, ‘is going on in Sheila's mind? All the evidence reveals that Sheila that very night would be heading for - if she was already not in - a state of schizophrenic relapse.’ What Rivlin described as the ‘overkill’ of the twin boys was consistent with that of an altruistic killing (carried out in the belief it was right for the victim): each boy had received numerous bullets to the head after they were already dead.
http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/innocent-man-part-13.html
-
Hi ajross
Thanks for the updates.
I'm sorry you feel you were ignored re your requests for the pictures drawn by the twins. Had I have seen it I wld have pointed you in the direction of the 'case related photographs' page 1 in the archive/library section of the forum.
Is there anything in particular that has caused you to change your mind from innocent to probable guilt?
Hello Egap1,
I looked at the case related photos shortly after I joined and I believe that is where I first saw the pictures. I asked several times what people thought about them and nobody ever answered. Colin's book has now given me that (disturbing) insight and explanation.
Re your other point, I joined the forum already having looked into the story on the web, the evidence was mainly pro-Bamber that I read, it questioned the telephone calls,timings etc. when presented with that evidence it is hard to believe he is guilty. I was sure it was a set up. I read the arguements on here and started to come to the conclusion that he was probably guilty but given an unfair trial do to the use of contaminated and inadmissible evidence. I am now of the opinion that he is guilty due to what I have read about him, I think there were discrepancies in the reporting and investigating of the crime but I don't subscribe to all of the conspiracy theories. There are some wild suggestions on here, like witchcraft, there are some sound theories but every arguement from eitherside has a counter arguement and I now just believe that the police were inept in their dealing with the case. That said, I do actually hope that Mike comes up with solid, concrete proof to make me look a fool as I would rather JB hadn't killed those two boys! To a certain degree, if SC had killed June and Ralph, I can 'accept' the fact she wanted her sons with her and had she not killed them and herself they would obviously have been separated. But...they are just my views.
-
It has had a profound effect on me in that it gives an insight into the charaters that has not been readily discussed on here. I asked many times about those pictures and was ignored. They were very worrying but now put in context they are sadly disturbing. I think a lot of people on here only discuss that which will further their cause. When I joined I believed JB innocent, now I think I believe him guity, what sets me apart from others is that I wish to be proved wrong. If Colin does try to exonerate Sheila I think he fails and I think that ultimately they are all guilty as they all led to this conclusion. More than exonerate her of murder i think he wanted to correct the public opinion partly created by himself. The only ones that are innocent are the boys who continually pleaded for help but were ignored.
Hi AJ
Not been around for a few days, but just saw your post, so I will make a comment on it if I may.
At the end of the day it is a book and we must ask ourselves if by reading a book, it can convince us that JB might be guilty or innocent. When we become involved with the characters in the book, it had an affect on the way we think. It's like the book in guiding us into what might be a false or innocent conception. What we must adhere to is facts, evidence and forensic science.
I enjoyed Colin's book. My thoughts in the beginning was that if anyone knew Sheila, he did....In all fairness, he does not do her any favours. Her childlike ways, her inability to cope with her thoughts and, her forever pressing him and her friends in helping her make her decisions.
I don't like talking about Colin, but he was unfaithful to her, failed to understand her needs, he also failed to protect her form her parents. To me Colin is trying to put right his failures....by contacting psychics and, joining this group discussions of therapy...in order to lay his own demons to rest. I know he went through an ordeal, I think everyone would agree on that....but, there are some things better off not said...which are personal and private. Sorry, but I think Colin has his own agenda and when he wrote that book, I feel his was still the gullible soul he was when he was with Sheila. :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti, Thats what i sensed in Colins book , not so much in search of the rainbows end but in search of answers , answers perhaps were there all the time, plenty of softbacks of the book on Bookfinder now.
-
Hi AJ
Not been around for a few days, but just saw your post, so I will make a comment on it if I may.
At the end of the day it is a book and we must ask ourselves if by reading a book, it can convince us that JB might be guilty or innocent. When we become involved with the characters in the book, it had an affect on the way we think. It's like the book in guiding us into what might be a false or innocent conception. What we must adhere to is facts, evidence and forensic science.
I enjoyed Colin's book. My thoughts in the beginning was that if anyone knew Sheila, he did....In all fairness, he does not do her any favours. Her childlike ways, her inability to cope with her thoughts and, her forever pressing him and her friends in helping her make her decisions.
I don't like talking about Colin, but he was unfaithful to her, failed to understand her needs, he also failed to protect her form her parents. To me Colin is trying to put right his failures....by contacting psychics and, joining this group discussions of therapy...in order to lay his own demons to rest. I know he went through an ordeal, I think everyone would agree on that....but, there are some things better off not said...which are personal and private. Sorry, but I think Colin has his own agenda and when he wrote that book, I feel his was still the gullible soul he was when he was with Sheila. :) :) :)
I agree with all of that Patti and in the post you have quoted I should have made it clear that any change in my beliefs are not due to Colins book or anything he has said but everything I have seen and read on here and elsewhere. I do not simply get influenced by everything I read but have abosrbed all of the information I have found and drawn my conclusions. Colin's book has done nothing but make me think that he was not a partciularly nice person himself!
-
There is something worth consideration , for what its worth i dont think jeremy was the best to know , but its not that simple and no book is going to act as a end all, no book about the murders show anything good about him, i would be suprised if they did, but one thing needs remembering were are talking about him circa not now,read in colins book the replies jeremy sent to colin shortly after jeremy was in his sentence, just what was colin expecting to hear ?
-
I agree with all of that Patti and in the post you have quoted I should have made it clear that any change in my beliefs are not due to Colins book or anything he has said but everything I have seen and read on here and elsewhere. I do not simply get influenced by everything I read but have abosrbed all of the information I have found and drawn my conclusions. Colin's book has done nothing but make me think that he was not a partciularly nice person himself!
Aj I particularly like the bit where he said that before JB wrote his last letter, he was inclined to believe hi was innocent....this was towards the end of the book. I also want to draw your attention to the beginning of the book where he automatically thought Sheila had done it, before he heard all the facts....
I got to like Colin, he had a wide range of friends and his love for his children was paramount to him...but, I can't help feeling that he hasn't grieved yet....I also don't thin JB grieved either, there wasn't enough time....
I always look back on JB's statement where the talks about his mum and dad in the present tense...as if they were still living...a murderer always talks in past tense...that is what made the police suspicious of Ian Huntley...he talked about J and H in the past....this always sticks in my mind...
Btw , I hope you are OK I just read where you had an accident... :) :) :)
-
There is something worth consideration , for what its worth i dont think jeremy was the best to know , but its not that simple and no book is going to act as a end all, no book about the murders show anything good about him, i would be suprised if they did, but one thing needs remembering were are talking about him circa 1080s not now,read in colins book the replies jeremy sent to colin shortly after jeremy was in his sentence, just what was colin expecting to hear ?
Mertol :) :) Historian will tell you the same...we rely on documents and hearsay.....History can't be prove in my eyes...lol
Hope you are better? Not been around for few days, my son had an accident playing football and we were at the hospital till early hours Monday morning...and last night I took him to another hospital to re-accessed and there is a slight line on the bone, but it has not gone through the cortex, so he will be on crutches for the next couple of weeks and wont be able to coach for about 6 weeks....so been very tired out.... :) :) :) :)
-
I will finish reading Colin's book but I have lost interest now that he is blathering on about psychics and mediums, they are the desperate acts of a man who has suffered a great loss, i refuse to accept that they have anything to do with this case
-
I will finish reading Colin's book but I have lost interest now that he is blathering on about psychics and mediums, they are the desperate acts of a man who has suffered a great loss, i refuse to accept that they have anything to do with this case
Try not to be harsh on colin, no one is perfect , he was trying to find a path to understanding, if colin had not put pen to paper he could have gone into darker areas of his life , his two sons did not die they were murdered we must rember that ,i for one admire him to go on.
-
Hi ajross and Mertol22
I have posted this previously but one or both of you may have missed it so here it is again:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/colin-caffell/13/35b/a10
I found it interesting that Colin chose to get involved with Safe Harbours and Elisabeth Kubler-Ross.
ajross plse note the interpreting of spontaneous drawings.
Sorry Egap, that link takes me to a closed LinkedIn account
-
I have finished Colin's book and would say that if anybody is looking for answers or insight into the case then this is definitely not the book to read. It is written as an attempt to grieve and heal, it is mainly concerned with the therapies and people he met and his need to criticise the press. It offers no new evidence but has succeeded in convincing me that JB is 100% guilty, obviously not because of the evidence presented but because of the pain he feels as a father and his utter conviction that JB is guilty, through his depiction of JB he gives a convincing portrayal of somebody who indeed is evil beyond belief.
(but before anybody thinks that I am ignorantly being led by a book, I am writing this as being comepletely detatched, I am attempting to give an idea of how a reader might feel by this summary, one who was on the fence, as it were, and waiting to be swayed either way, on a personal note, the book has done nothing to give me conviction either way)
-
I have finished Colin's book and would say that if anybody is looking for answers or insight into the case then this is definitely not the book to read. It is written as an attempt to grieve and heal, it is mainly concerned with the therapies and people he met and his need to criticise the press. It offers no new evidence but has succeeded in convincing me that JB is 100% guilty, obviously not because of the evidence presented but because of the pain he feels as a father and his utter conviction that JB is guilty, through his depiction of JB he gives a convincing portrayal of somebody who indeed is evil beyond belief.
(but before anybody thinks that I am ignorantly being led by a book, I am writing this as being comepletely detatched, I am attempting to give an idea of how a reader might feel by this summary, one who was on the fence, as it were, and waiting to be swayed either way, on a personal note, the book has done nothing to give me conviction either way)
Hi AJ
Love reading your comments even if they are the opposite to mine. :)
Can I ask you what you mean about being 100% convinced that JB is guilty, then going on to say the book hasn't swayed you either way? I'm a tad confused... :-\ :) :)
-
I enjoy them too. Have you seen the sculptures on Colin's website AJ? There's one of a father hugging two young sons and it's heartbreaking if you know the story. I'll dig you out a link if you need it, but it'll have to be tomorrow when I'm not on this damn phone.
-
Ive seen them Bridget, i think that scilpture is in his book, along with a sculpture of sheila while she was pregnant with the twins.
The sculpture of the man with with 2 boys, he explains it as if the man is listening for a heartbeat in one of the boys that isnt there.
-
Hi AJ
Love reading your comments even if they are the opposite to mine. :)
Can I ask you what you mean about being 100% convinced that JB is guilty, then going on to say the book hasn't swayed you either way? I'm a tad confused... :-\ :) :)
I am neither guilty or innocent in all honesty, I am probably no clearer to making up my mind now than I ever have been.
However...as a reader of Colin's book and reviewing/assessing it with that and nothing else in mind, I am sure that JB is guilty, does that make sense?
I read Wilkes' book, that made me believe JB was guilty, it threw up some ideas that made me think he was innocent, then it reverted me back to not knowing.
Next I will read Lomax and see what that has to offer, I guess what I am trying to suggest/do is read each book on it's own merit and see how each book would influence 'the reader' in the hope of getting an honest assessment.
Colin's book was like an uncomfortable and tragic voyeurism into the broken heart and an attempt to repair it as opposed to an analysis of the murders and consequent trial.
-
Colins is the best book from the lot, in my opinion.
-
I enjoy them too. Have you seen the sculptures on Colin's website AJ? There's one of a father hugging two young sons and it's heartbreaking if you know the story. I'll dig you out a link if you need it, but it'll have to be tomorrow when I'm not on this damn phone.
Is it a father or a mother? I'm not questioning you to correct you i'm just curious, I have only seen the photos in the book, one is of a figure holding two children, one is 'flopped' as if dead, the other is slightly different. This is supposed to be Sheila and the boys and was one of the first he started. There is another called 'Boy with apple' which frankly makes me very uncomfortable as it is so realistic and reminds me of my own son. However, the sculpting is one of the reasons I found it difficult to like Colin. To put it very crudely, the book suggests that Colin needed to sculpt, the boys were murdered as they were old souls and had nothing else to learn in their bodies and they were 'sacrificed' to force Colin to do what he was on this planet for. He was being helped in the task by another soul, a dead sculptor who was named by two mediums, who could not move on until Colin had completed a certain piece of work, as a result of learning this, Colin put off doing said work hence 'trapping' that sould with him for want of a better word.
As i say, that is in very crude terms but the essence is the same and if you make sense of what I have written it ultimately makes Colin a very selfish individual.
-
Colins is the best book from the lot, in my opinion.
Will you ever change your opinion ;) ?
-
Colins is the best book from the lot, in my opinion.
In search of the Rainbows End has some touching chapters, its also the only book from one of the Family and most likely ever will be, in one chapter he returned to WHF but there was no one there, on a cold frosty morning, he sat on the front porch for a while and left some flowers, he also returned again and the twins coats were still on the end of the stairs , i dont have children and never want any but i was moved by his writing.
-
I find he is far too obsessed with Jung, Kubler-Ross and spirituality. I udnerstand that the man lost his family and that he had to find a way to dal with it but this book is more like a dogmatic manual on survival for others through his experiences. The most interesting part of the whole book was towards the end when he printed a couple of letters from JB. I think it is also pertinent to point out that on a number of occassions he says he has more information but that he won't make that information available. It is a shame that he wouldn't as i can see that it would do little harm, JB is in prison, where Colin believes he should be, unless the information would undermine that I see no reason not to share it.
-
In search of the Rainbows End has some touching chapters, its also the only book from one of the Family and most likely ever will be, in one chapter he returned to WHF but there was no one there, on a cold frosty morning, he sat on the front porch for a while and left some flowers, he also returned again and the twins coats were still on the end of the stairs , i dont have children and never want any but i was moved by his writing.
Some of it is very touching but doesn't 'help' the forum. It was also around the time he visited WHF that he starts talking in the book about the 'spiritual' powers of Robins! There is an interesting anecdote around this point about JB returning to WHF with JM and being seemingly terrified, crawling and blubbering and Colin attributes this to JB either seeing ghosts or pretending to see them to scare JM as she was a believer
-
I think he had said all he wanted to say, yes he does go elsewhere in the book, so did many during the last world war packing churches in search of God while their street was getting bombed by the Luftwaffe.
-
Will you ever change your opinion ;) ?
On the book? No.
Though i have changed my opinion on Bamber as everyone knows. It wasnt a sudden overnight change of mind like some think it was!
-
I think he had said all he wanted to say, yes he does go elsewhere in the book, so did many during the last world war packing churches in search of God while their street was getting bombed by the Luftwaffe.
I think it is a very good book for suggesting coping mechanisms for those that have suffered severe trauma or loss. It is also very sad as it brings home the loss of the two young lives more than anything else I have read. I personally do not believe in anything which is why it was difficult to read some parts. There is a picture on the back of the book and he offers a 'professional' interpretation of this book but (for me) it sounded too much like a man listening to what others wanted him to believe and him believing it because he wanted and needed to. He reads so much into so as to give him some sense that his boys are happy. The most poignant and sad part of the entire book was nothing to do with the trial, or the spirtitual aspects, the defamation via the media but, towards the end, when he says something along the lines of
' I am a father, Nicholas and Daniel will always be my sons and I will always be there father.' That is not a direct quote.
-
On the book? No.
Though i have changed my opinion on Bamber as everyone knows. It wasnt a sudden overnight change of mind like some think it was!
i believe the Z files formed Andrea s new view.
-
I will start the Lomax book tomorrow, Colin mentions another book and I will look into that. I did state on here that I had bought a VHS video on Amazon, it has never turned up and looks like it never will. And if anybody would like to know the exact quote i will find it tomorrow
-
It was before that, mertol. ;D
Well before that, infact. It was a gradual thing over a period of time.
-
It was before that, mertol. ;D
Well before that, infact. It was a gradual thing over a period of time.
Well the Z thing did not help i guess !
-
It doesnt help Bamber, mertol. Been to any carboots lately? weather apalling though isnt it.
-
I enjoy them too. Have you seen the sculptures on Colin's website AJ? There's one of a father hugging two young sons and it's heartbreaking if you know the story. I'll dig you out a link if you need it, but it'll have to be tomorrow when I'm not on this damn phone.
I think that I have just seen the one that you mention and it looks just like the one I was talking about. Either the context of the sculpture changed over time or he abandoned the one he was doing, but, the one I was refering to is the one that I believe his 'spiritual master' was guiding him on. (I don't believe in any of that by the way!)
-
It doesnt help Bamber, mertol. Been to any carboots lately? weather apalling though isnt it.
i could have gone to some boots andrea but while its fine here less than 12 miles away its been raining elsewhere, been going to a local one though, may be a bit brave this weekend.ive read claire powells book, thats raw sweeney todd all out against JB.
-
I think that I have just seen the one that you mention and it looks just like the one I was talking about. Either the context of the sculpture changed over time or he abandoned the one he was doing, but, the one I was refering to is the one that I believe his 'spiritual master' was guiding him on. (I don't believe in any of that by the way!)
I dont believe what any MP says if it helps, but many do believe in higher wisdom, workshops up and down the country and worldwide.
-
I think that I have just seen the one that you mention and it looks just like the one I was talking about. Either the context of the sculpture changed over time or he abandoned the one he was doing, but, the one I was refering to is the one that I believe his 'spiritual master' was guiding him on. (I don't believe in any of that by the way!)
(http://www.caffellsculpture.co.uk/img/Patradonna_HR.jpg)
It's called 'Patradonna' and it says: This piece represents the often uncelebrated tenderness of fathers.
-
(http://www.caffellsculpture.co.uk/img/Patradonna_HR.jpg)
It's called 'Patradonna' and it says: This piece represents the often uncelebrated tenderness of fathers.
Ye s that's what I saw of the web page and it is the same as in his book. I shall go back to the book later today and try and find the part he discusses the sculpture of sc and the boys, I may have just assumed this was it
-
I am neither guilty or innocent in all honesty, I am probably no clearer to making up my mind now than I ever have been.
However...as a reader of Colin's book and reviewing/assessing it with that and nothing else in mind, I am sure that JB is guilty, does that make sense?
I read Wilkes' book, that made me believe JB was guilty, it threw up some ideas that made me think he was innocent, then it reverted me back to not knowing.
Next I will read Lomax and see what that has to offer, I guess what I am trying to suggest/do is read each book on it's own merit and see how each book would influence 'the reader' in the hope of getting an honest assessment.
Colin's book was like an uncomfortable and tragic voyeurism into the broken heart and an attempt to repair it as opposed to an analysis of the murders and consequent trial.
Hi AJ
I think you will find Lomax's book a little out of date, but it is a worth while read. He tells it how it is and examines the evidence in each of his chapters. He begs good arguments from both sides, but is inclined to go with facts rather than chat about hearsay and who and what, if you know what I mean.
I wish Scott would update the book...for there is a lot more that could be added...
I hope you get a signed copy like I did... :) :) :)
-
Ye s that's what I saw of the web page and it is the same as in his book. I shall go back to the book later today and try and find the part he discusses the sculpture of sc and the boys, I may have just assumed this was it
It has been a while since I read CC's book, but if memory serves right, he did not care if the fingers of the sculpture were not right, he felt the need to bring out his feelings...and this he did...it; is not a perfect sculpture by all means, but it reflects his own personal feelings... :) :) :)
-
It has been a while since I read CC's book, but if memory serves right, he did not care if the fingers of the sculpture were not right, he felt the need to bring out his feelings...and this he did...it; is not a perfect sculpture by all means, but it reflects his own personal feelings... :) :) :)
his drawings are pure genious
-
his drawings are pure genious
Not seen many of his drawings...I am shattered Mertol...night to you and all...sleep well. :) :) :) :)
-
Not seen many of his drawings...I am shattered Mertol...night to you and all...sleep well. :) :) :) :)
sleep well patti pretend its not raining.
-
sleep well patti pretend its not raining.
tut...bloody rain is never ending....I shall sue the met office next Friday. They say we are in for a heat wave.....lolololololol What is a heat wave? :) :) :) :) :)
-
I would like to post a few thoughts on Colin Caffell’s book “In Search of the Rainbow’s End” and looking at the title of this thread it’s as good a place to post as anywhere though I might easily have posted it in the “grief” category, as no matter how Colin tries to live up to his tough father’s expectation descendant from slaveholders I sense all too often this forceful emotion understandable as it may be, and one hopes that this has not clouded his judgement or expression. It’s an absorbing book, a page-turner which if not directly then certainly through a kind of subliminal osmosis lends an insight into Colin’s family life with Sheila and the twins, their murder, the part he played at the trial and his subsequent quest for solace.
For those of you searching for that one piece of evidence which would ultimately confirm Jeremy’s guilt you will look in vain. There is circumstantial evidence galore for those of my mindset: Sheila lying down near her mother and not in her twins’ bedroom, her former room as a girl which would have made more sense if she were escaping the world and taking her sons with her, Nevill’s alleged dossier of evidence against Jeremy which he had mentioned to Robert Boutflour, Barbara Wilson’s conversation with Nevill who remarked on Jeremy’s desire to own a 5 shot automatic handgun: “If he gets one of those we’ll all have to look out” and his remark about the shooting season coming up that accidents do happen, both of which to my mind put the remark about “I must never turn my back on that young man” into an indisputable unambiguous context. There’s his boasting to Colin about how many pages his witness statement runs into, his crude sexual jokes in the hearse on the way to the crematorium, and Jeremy attempting to get Sheila to load a gun at David Boutflour’s son’s christening.
We are told of Jeremy’s unhappy schooldays at Gresham’s, where he was relentlessly physically, psychologically and allegedly sexually bullied by the older and stronger boys, who despised him for being the son of a tenant farmer when they were descended from landed East Anglian gentry, Jeremy finding escape in turn in bullying the younger boys as he learned to play the system. In his target practice skills he would learn that handling a gun earned him a modicum of respect among his peer group. His initial honesty in owning up to the fact that he was adopted, possibly in an attempt to seek affection was rewarded in him labelled as “The Bastard” throughout his schooldays.Maybe it was because of this his Housemaster described him as “aloof” and “a loner”.
If Jeremy was having a hard time at school Sheila was not having it much easier. Forced to find friends at a private school in Eastbourne mid-way through the term she was confronted with a series of cliques among her classmates who ridiculed her for her unsophistication in dress and speech. After many pleadings it would be Nevill not June who finally succumbed a year later to moving her to Old Hall School in Norfolk, where she appeared more contented. Both Jeremy and Sheila would experience this double feeling of rejection, once at birth and again when their parents sent them away. Both children would suffer psychologically with Sheila developing schizophrenia partly through the religious moralizing of her mother(there was no evidence of congenital mental illness among her natural birth parents) and expressing emotional outbursts which became all too common, whilst Jeremy bottled it all up inside, the explosive consequences of which became all too apparent.
The twins are the stars of this book and they shine out vividly: whether bringing a smile to one’s face with their common outburst of “it was p*ssing down” with rain said at the dinner table in front of what to them were frightening adult figures ,Colin’s recollection of his dropping them off for the last time at White House Farm with their clinging bodies sending an all too prescient message to their father, the family party which Jan in retrospect described as “their funeral”,Daniel’s series of sombre drawings which may have induced Colin’s surreal nightmarish dreams yet his insistence that the twins have gone to a better place and they will all be reunited one day in the future.
We continue on this rollercoaster journey with Colin with its chiaroscuro leitmotif as he discusses possibly at too great a length for some readers his life and alter-ego, or Shadow to use his words, as befits his anti-hero status in the book. One sympathises with Colin’s view that it is all too easy to kill in a rage,and his contrasting of this symbiotically with Jeremy’s planned executions. However we might not all feel the need to subject ourselves to expert psychoanalysis,or listen to Wagner’s Götterdämmerung in the process,( some of us might have more prosaic tastes),but then again how many of us will ever experience the shade of darkness on Colin’s level, however much we might all be searching for the crock of gold at Rainbow’s End.
-
Hi AJ
I think you will find Lomax's book a little out of date, but it is a worth while read. He tells it how it is and examines the evidence in each of his chapters. He begs good arguments from both sides, but is inclined to go with facts rather than chat about hearsay and who and what, if you know what I mean.
I wish Scott would update the book...for there is a lot more that could be added...
I hope you get a signed copy like I did... :) :) :)
I found Scott Lomax both in his book and in his person to be fair minded and well balanced. He is a very honest man and is interested in the truth. I think this comes over in his book. I know some here will didagree with my assessment of him. But I have known him NOT to be biased and if there are difficult questions he will either answer them or say he doesn't know.
I remember when this fraud came onto the forum professing to have the notebook of Taff Jones and had already made a deal with a newspaper. I contacted Scott and he informed me that this was completely untrue, because the police already had Taff Jones' notebook or had been among the itens destroyed by them.
In my humble opinion he is a well balanced and honest writer and is easy to read and uncomplicated.
-
I would like to post a few thoughts on Colin Caffell’s book “In Search of the Rainbow’s End” and looking at the title of this thread it’s as good a place to post as anywhere though I might easily have posted it in the “grief” category,as no matter how Colin tries to live up to his tough father’s expectation descendant from slaveholders I sense all too often this forceful emotion understandable as it may be,and one hopes that this has not clouded his judgement or expression. It’s an absorbing book,a page-turner which if not directly then certainly through a kind of subliminal osmosis lends an insight into Colin’s family life with Sheila and the twins,their murder,the part he played at the trial and his subsequent quest for solace.
For those of you searching for that one piece of evidence which would ultimately confirm Jeremy’s guilt you will look in vain. There is circumstantial evidence galore for those of my mindset: Sheila lying down near her mother and not in her twins’ bedroom,her former room as a girl which would have made more sense if she were escaping the world and taking her sons with her,Nevill’s alleged dossier of evidence against Jeremy which he had mentioned to Robert Boutflour,Barbara Wilson’s conversation with Nevill who remarked on Jeremy’s desire to own a 5 shot automatic handgun: “If he gets one of those we’ll all have to look out” and his remark about the shooting season coming up that accidents do happen, both of which to my mind put the remark about “I must never turn my back on that young man” into an indisputable unambiguous context. There’s his boasting to Colin about how many pages his witness statement runs into,his crude sexual jokes in the hearse on the way to the crematorium,and Jeremy attempting to get Sheila to load a gun at David Boutflour’s son’s christening.
We are told of Jeremy’s unhappy schooldays at Gresham’s,where he was relentlessly physically,psychologically and allegedly sexually bullied by the older and stronger boys,who despised him for being the son of a tenant farmer when they were descended from landed East Anglian gentry, Jeremy finding escape in turn in bullying the younger boys as he learned to play the system. In his target practice skills he would learn that handling a gun earned him a modicum of respect among his peer group. His initial honesty in owning up to the fact that he was adopted,possibly in an attempt to seek affection was rewarded in him labelled as “The Bastard” throughout his schooldays.Maybe it was because of this his Housemaster described him as “aloof” and “a loner”.
If Jeremy was having a hard time at school Sheila was not having it much easier. Forced to find friends at a private school in Eastbourne mid-way through the term she was confronted with a series of cliques among her classmates who ridiculed her for her unsophistication in dress and speech. After many pleadings it would be Nevill not June who finally succumbed a year later to moving her to Old Hall School in Norfolk,where she appeared more contented. Both Jeremy and Sheila would experience this double feeling of rejection,once at birth and again when their parents sent them away. Both children would suffer psychologically with Sheila developing schizophrenia partly through the religious moralizing of her mother(there was no evidence of congenital mental illness among her natural birth parents) and expressing emotional outbursts which became all too common, whilst Jeremy bottled it all up inside, the explosive consequences of which became all too apparent.
The twins are the stars of this book and they shine out vividly: whether bringing a smile to one’s face with their common outburst of “it was p*ssing down” with rain said at the dinner table in front of what to them were frightening adult figures ,Colin’s recollection of his dropping them off for the last time at White House Farm with their clinging bodies sending an all too prescient message to their father,the family party which Jan in retrospect described as “their funeral”,Daniel’s series of sombre drawings which may have induced Colin’s surreal nightmarish dreams yet his insistence that the twins have gone to a better place and they will all be reunited one day in the future.
We continue on this rollercoaster journey with Colin with its chiaroscuro leitmotif as Jeremy discusses possibly at too great a length for some readers his life and alter-ego,or Shadow to use his words, as befits his anti-hero status in the book. One sympathises with Colin’s view that it is all too easy to kill in a rage,and his contrasting of this symbiotically with Jeremy’s planned executions. However we might not all feel the need to subject ourselves to expert psychoanalysis,or listen to Wagner’s Götterdämmerung in the process,( some of us might have more prosaic tastes),but then again how many of us will ever experience the shade of darkness on Colin’s level,however much we might all be searching for the crock of gold at Rainbow’s End.
Hi Steve I have read Colin's book, but I haven't done a full study of it, then again do I need too? My heart goes out to Colin and his family for their terrible loss. I am sure Colin would agree with me when I say that he comes across with mixed feeling. For the first half of his book is written with great sadness, and, it made me tearful. One could never imagine his pain. Colin decided to write the book having started the book some years before, which becomes apparent when you read it.
I can't say nasty things about him, because it is not in my nature. I get the feeling towards the end of the book that he had his own agenda to fulfil his way of coming to terms with what happened. Colin was biased towards the family, then he wasn't...He is so mixed up bless him, that he write to Jeremy for answers, but Jeremy can't deliver any....and it gets nasty. Form a readers point of view we are only reading one side of events and that is Colin's, he doesn't disclose the letters he wrote to Jeremy, does he. So one can't analyse it all to it's full value.
Steve I must say that some of what you say I agree with. But, the 2nd paragraph is based on who said what, where and when. There is no justification of what you say in that said paragraph, it neither comprises of facts/forensic's or evidence that is documented to back up what you are saying...To be able to research a case like this in it's entirety you need to become none biased, for any reader will pick up an that and you will lose that readers faith....think about it... :) :) :)
-
Hi Steve I have read Colin's book, but I haven't done a full study of it, then again do I need too? My heart goes out to Colin and his family for their terrible loss. I am sure Colin would agree with me when I say that he comes across with mixed feeling. For the first half of his book is written with great sadness, and, it made me tearful. One could never imagine his pain. Colin decided to write the book having started the book some years before, which becomes apparent when you read it.
I can't say nasty things about him, because it is not in my nature. I get the feeling towards the end of the book that he had his own agenda to fulfil his way of coming to terms with what happened. Colin was biased towards the family, then he wasn't...He is so mixed up bless him, that he write to Jeremy for answers, but Jeremy can't deliver any....and it gets nasty. Form a readers point of view we are only reading one side of events and that is Colin's, he doesn't disclose the letters he wrote to Jeremy, does he. So one can't analyse it all to it's full value.
Steve I must say that some of what you say I agree with. But, the 2nd paragraph is based on who said what, where and when. There is no justification of what you say in that said paragraph, it neither comprises of facts/forensic's or evidence that is documented to back up what you are saying...To be able to research a case like this in it's entirety you need to become none biased, for any reader will pick up an that and you will lose that readers faith....think about it... :) :) :)
Hi Patti, you make an excellent point in your final paragraph. Everyone would do well to adopt your stance.
-
I found Scott Lomax both in his book and in his person to be fair minded and well balanced. He is a very honest man and is interested in the truth. I think this comes over in his book. I know some here will didagree with my assessment of him. But I have known him NOT to be biased and if there are difficult questions he will either answer them or say he doesn't know.
I remember when this fraud came onto the forum professing to have the notebook of Taff Jones and had already made a deal with a newspaper. I contacted Scott and he informed me that this was completely untrue, because the police already had Taff Jones' notebook or had been among the itens destroyed by them.
In my humble opinion he is a well balanced and honest writer and is easy to read and uncomplicated.
Hi Grahame I loved Scott's book. I think he is a cool dude. He also loves to research. His was indeed uncomplicated, which made it easy reading. :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti, you make an excellent point in your final paragraph. Everyone would do well to adopt your stance.
Hey Neil, thank you me duck! Now is that a Yorkshire/Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire/Lincolnshire saying? I have no idea, but I would say it was a Notts term...Hope you are OK. :) :) :)
-
as patti has said the full letters with jeremy were not printed, the book was also written 10 years or so after the murders, today , colins book is heading for 30 years old now its important to remember the timelines, his thoughts today may be quite different in parts, im considering buying Blood Relations.
-
Hi Steve I have read Colin's book, but I haven't done a full study of it, then again do I need too? My heart goes out to Colin and his family for their terrible loss. I am sure Colin would agree with me when I say that he comes across with mixed feeling. For the first half of his book is written with great sadness, and, it made me tearful. One could never imagine his pain. Colin decided to write the book having started the book some years before, which becomes apparent when you read it.
I can't say nasty things about him, because it is not in my nature. I get the feeling towards the end of the book that he had his own agenda to fulfil his way of coming to terms with what happened. Colin was biased towards the family, then he wasn't...He is so mixed up bless him, that he write to Jeremy for answers, but Jeremy can't deliver any....and it gets nasty. Form a readers point of view we are only reading one side of events and that is Colin's, he doesn't disclose the letters he wrote to Jeremy, does he. So one can't analyse it all to it's full value.
Steve I must say that some of what you say I agree with. But, the 2nd paragraph is based on who said what, where and when. There is no justification of what you say in that said paragraph, it neither comprises of facts/forensic's or evidence that is documented to back up what you are saying...To be able to research a case like this in it's entirety you need to become none biased, for any reader will pick up an that and you will lose that readers faith....think about it... :) :) :)
Hi Patti,from re-reading the second paragraph I can't really see what you are objecting to. We're getting back to this scenario where everyone is lying but Jeremy and I have to put it to you and the Jeremy supporters that maybe the six or seven people who claim to throw Jeremy in a bad light are telling the truth.
I see this case like Colin as a jigsaw puzzle and as I read Colin's book more of the pieces seemed to slot into place. Mike is continuously reiterating his order of photographs and which negatives were snipped and so on that it is hard to follow his thread;I would just like to mention the photographs which Colin requested from Jeremy at the London flat,and it was interesting to see that the only photographs Jeremy had kept of his sister(and there must have been many since she was a model) were the nude photographs and the ones with her on the grouse shoot several years earlier,in other words the only photographs he had kept of his dead sister were those which Jeremy could possibly use to his advantage at a further date in order to discredit her. This at a time when Jeremy was still a free man.
-
Hi Patti,from re-reading the second paragraph I can't really see what you are objecting to. We're getting back to this scenario where everyone is lying but Jeremy and I have to put it to you and the Jeremy supporters that maybe the six or seven people who claim to throw Jeremy in a bad light are telling the truth.
I see this case like Colin as a jigsaw puzzle and as I read Colin's book more of the pieces seemed to slot into place. Mike is continuously reiterating his order of photographs and which negatives were snipped and so on that it is hard to follow his thread;I would just like to mention the photographs which Colin requested from Jeremy at the London flat,and it was interesting to see that the only photographs Jeremy had kept of his sister(and there must have been many since she was a model) were the nude photographs and the ones with her on the grouse shoot several years earlier,in other words the only photographs he had kept of his dead sister were those which Jeremy could possibly use to his advantage at a further date in order to discredit her. This at a time when Jeremy was still a free man.
Hi Steve, It does not matter to me what Jeremy says. I look into it a bit deeper than that. I go with the evidence presented and sometimes I voice my own thoughts. But, I would not fool a reader by alleging a dossier exists and, that Sheila laying in the main bedroom as evidence that she was murdered and did not commit suicide. For the most of what you write in that paragraph is hearsay. I am not saying that you should not write those things, that is your choice, but I like to read facts and those facts analysed from both ends, before a conclusion is made by the reader.
-
Patti you are one special lady :) what have you done with poor Bridget today. ;)
-
as patti has said the full letters with jeremy were not printed, the book was also written 10 years or so after the murders, today , colins book is heading for 30 years old now its important to remember the timelines, his thoughts today may be quite different in parts, im considering buying Blood Relations.
Hi Mertol :) Are we refreshed? I would like that book too...but, financially I wont recover till the end of September :( Oh I do feel sorry for myself...Has anyone seen Lookout? :) :) :) :)
-
Patti you are one special lady :) what have you done with poor Bridget today. ;)
I have put her in a blackberry pie...hahahahahah So she is in the oven at moderate temperature..Right I am off to see to dinner...she will have my guts for garters, but she is in a good mood, so maybe she will just give me a ticking off....Hope you are OK.... :) :) :) :)
-
Patti not seen lookout since yesterday evening more to the point what have you done with Bridget :)
-
I have put her in a blackberry pie...hahahahahah So she is in the oven at moderate temperature..Right I am off to see to dinner...she will have my guts for garters, but she is in a good mood, so maybe she will just give me a ticking off....Hope you are OK.... :) :) :) :)
Ahem... I am allergic to pie.
-
Hi Bridget especially Bramble Pie :)
-
Hi Bridget especially Bramble Pie :)
Especially that. They are mainly in the wheelie bin now.
-
I have just finished reading Roger Wilkes’s book Blood Relations,the title expressing a certain ambiguity and irony contrasting as it does the adopted Jeremy and Sheila where the consanguinity was absent with the steadfastness of the prosecution’s case represented by the centuries- old farming bloodline of the Eaton’s and the Boutflour’s. The book comprises fifty chapters in all,detailing objectively this symbiotic relationship,the evidence,the trial and Jeremy’s subsequent and failed appeals.
The author does say at various stages that Jeremy is the only person who knows the truth as to what happened that morning of Wednesday August 7 1985,yet had he cooperated with this author in a way which he had previously with others failed singularly to do,in the hope that the book would depict a portrait of his innocence then Jeremy upon commencing reading would have been bitterly disappointed.
From the very beginning we get the feeling that Jeremy was the Prodigal Son,the parallel with the Biblical story in the Gospels of the man who had returned home after travelling widely and spending his fortune lavishly in the process and throwing himself upon the mercy of his father,yet this is where the story diverges as it becomes clear that both Ralph(Nevill) and June were not soft touches where finance was concerned,typical of their relatives and forbears who had thus kept the money in the family from one generation to the next. Jeremy had oh so obviously read his father’s will whereupon he would inherit the farm if the trustees thought that he had earned it,which is one explanation for Jeremy ostensibly settling down to the agricultural existence so evidently alien to him in the last year of his parents’ life.
The book is quite obsessed with finance,and this blackens Jeremy at the expense of Sheila,as of course this was the Prosecution’s case for the motive of gunning down an entire family. We are again told of Nevill’s temporary financial embarrassment as his legacy of Clifton Hall from his mother needed work in which to convert it into flats,and the subsequent bestowal of half of this to his sister Diana’s children Jackie and Anthony,another legacy which Jeremy would undoubtedly have been aware of as he snooped around his father’s den and safe. This is the reason for Nevill asking secretary Barbara Wilson to change the location of the safe key,the importance of that room and the authority emanating from it underlined in Jeremy’s consciousness after the murders when he instructed Barbara to destroy all documents, Jeremy’s position of feet up on the desk as he barked orders from the swivel chair. Jeremy would also have seen the bills for Sheila’s private medical treatment totalling £15,000,along with older school fees from Gresham’s which Nevill liked to keep,further reinforcing in Jeremy’s mind the trick and conspiracy his parents had perpetrated by packing him off to Gresham’s at eight years of age. Thinking of the future his parents were sure to want to do the same with Nicholas and Daniel,which would take another slice off his inheritance. His bitterness manifested itself openly in a comment to Doris Foalkes,wife of Len an employee,to whom he declared “I’m not sharing any of my money with Sheila”. This is confirmed when he rejects Robert Boutflour’s suggestion of giving Sheila shares in the caravan park.
Jeremy was quite blunt about his feelings towards his sister on that August morning. PC Myall,considering that they may be facing a siege at White House Farm as he had possibly dealt with in past scenarios enquired: “Who’s she more likely to be annoyed at seeing,you or us” to which Jeremy replied: “Both of us.I don’t get on with her at all. I don’t like her and she doesn’t like me.” It is Jeremy,at this stage the young,respectable public schoolboy who is calling the shots,and who successfully plants into the minds of the attending policemen the idea that Sheila had run amok inside the house with a loaded gun that he himself had left loaded on the settle only a few hours before. It is Jeremy who used the pretext of shooting foxes the night before,yet who had not used the telescopic sights,nor could not clearly remember whether he had discharged the rifle,possibly thinking about the wiping of the rifle after the glove came off in the struggle with Nevill,necessitating him to remove all traces of him using that weapon. None of Sheila’s fingerprints were found on the gun and one has to ask why did Sheila need to wipe the gun at all,thereby confirming Jeremy’s jitters about this evidence which was evidently occupying his thoughts that morning.
Yet Jeremy was prepared for the onslaught he was about to face;prepared for the endless Police questioning redolent of that stiff,formal,artificial atmosphere he had endured for nine years as a boarder at Gresham’s. His answers are careful,guarded and taciturn,where an innocent man would want to complete a full picture of his life and family to give credence to what he was saying. In reply to the known fact that he spent ten minutes in the fields with Sheila and the twins on the Tuesday and what did they talk about his reply is a resolute “No comment” as possibly his subconscious begins to realize the enormity of what he has done. This is contrasted by Julie Mugford’s words in court which were heartfelt,unrehearsed and unwavering. It’s not just the lies he told in his statements to Police,the telephone call from Nevill,his claim to Colin he had driven quickly to the farm,his rapport with his father when Ann Eaton knew they had had a recent argument over money,but Jeremy’s hardheartedness after the crimes,his refusal to acknowledge any regret over leaving a loaded rifle out and his lies that it would have not fitted into the gun cupboard with the silencer and sights attached,his desire to have the dog put down,his avoidance of the relatives at every turn in complete contrast to his demeanour over the whole of that last year,his precipitance in considering the monetary consequences of the crimes coupled with his lavish spending after the murders.
In this context it would not seem shocking that Jeremy blamed the murders on his mentally unstable sister. We have Freddi Emani’s evidence which vouches for her instability,yet still even in psychosis she beats her own hands against the wall and never harms others. We have the former boyfriend’s evidence to DC Barlow that Sheila was uncoordinated those last days,so much so that she couldn’t pour a drink without having to use both hands to steady the glass. So much for the theory that Sheila discharged a gun and reloaded twice. We have the two shot theory with half Sheila’s jaw blown off by the first shot, when Dr. Vanezis explains that it is unlikely she could move up and downstairs as a result of it. We have Dr. Herbert MacDonell’s evidence years later,the Isaac Newton of ballistics and blood spatter stating that Sheila was murdered,promoting the ludicrous riposte that Sheila must then have been shot by Police.
Of course the Jeremy supporters remain loyal to him as the years pass,though it is striking that the people who knew him best have all deserted him: his former friends at the Frog and Beans in Colchester,Suzette Ford who had a relationship with him lasting three years yet who went back to her husband, and Julie Mugford,who experienced the real delayed grief as she witnessed the impact of the crime on Colin and the immediate relatives. It was Jeremy who was a different person to the man she fell in love with,Jeremy who had changed so markedly after the murders,as the interminable mental efforts and strains in attuning himself to his adoptive family’s ways coupled with the hard physical labour which was expected of him finally took their toll and snapped something in him,culminating in the cataclysmic events of midweek,yet this had only unleashed a newer and even more unattractive personage,which far from unshackling him from his yoke gave vent to an even more unattractive side of Jeremy,the Jeremy who having committed five murders yearned for respect and attention as he scoured the nation’s newspapers,whilst continuing the pathological lies at every turn,and it is this Jeremy,rejected by his blood relations, that Julie finally saw,as she turned her back and determined on redress.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb5ndRhEzf8
I remember Jackanory. Those were the days when children's programmes were actually quite educational,when you could speak to children and they would answer you in sentences,not stare vacantly and ask "Wot"? as if nothing were expected of them at all. My mother who taught at Primary level in the 1950s told me that standards were high;every child in the class could read,write and add up. Of course Enid Blyton had her critics,but it got children reading,before some modern parents turn to the DVD recorder as a babysitter and are too worn out holding down two jobs,in the enervating effort to keep up with the Jones'.
It is such a shame that those often halcyon days have disappeared forever,typified by the Thatcherite greed and something for nothing mentality which pervaded Jeremy Bamber and his ilk,where to know what car a man drove was more important for the modern girl than what was in his head. Families were devastated as unemployment rose and communities were destroyed. The drug culture ravaged youth as all it wanted to do was forget at weekends what a savage jungle society had become,and maybe Jeremy's cocaine addiction led to the deaths of three generations of the same family because of some insane belief that he was doing everyone a favour.
-
I remember Jackanory. Those were the days when children's programmes were actually quite educational,when you could speak to children and they would answer you in sentences,not stare vacantly and ask "Wot"? as if nothing were expected of them at all. My mother who taught at Primary level in the 1950s told me that standards were high;every child in the class could read,write and add up. Of course Enid Blyton had her critics,but it got children reading,before some modern parents turn to the DVD recorder as a babysitter and are too worn out holding down two jobs,in the enervating effort to keep up with the Jones'.
It is such a shame that those often halcyon days have disappeared forever,typified by the Thatcherite greed and something for nothing mentality which pervaded Jeremy Bamber and his ilk,where to know what car a man drove was more important for the modern girl than what was in his head. Families were devastated as unemployment rose and communities were destroyed. The drug culture ravaged youth as all it wanted to do was forget at weekends what a savage jungle society had become,and maybe Jeremy's cocaine addiction led to the deaths of three generations of the same family because of some insane belief that he was doing everyone a favour.
I agree with your comment on Thacherite greed - however, now Jeremy is an addict? :)
-
I remember Jackanory. Those were the days when children's programmes were actually quite educational,when you could speak to children and they would answer you in sentences,not stare vacantly and ask "Wot"? as if nothing were expected of them at all. My mother who taught at Primary level in the 1950s told me that standards were high;every child in the class could read,write and add up. Of course Enid Blyton had her critics,but it got children reading,before some modern parents turn to the DVD recorder as a babysitter and are too worn out holding down two jobs,in the enervating effort to keep up with the Jones'.
It is such a shame that those often halcyon days have disappeared forever,typified by the Thatcherite greed and something for nothing mentality which pervaded Jeremy Bamber and his ilk,where to know what car a man drove was more important for the modern girl than what was in his head. Families were devastated as unemployment rose and communities were destroyed. The drug culture ravaged youth as all it wanted to do was forget at weekends what a savage jungle society had become,and maybe Jeremy's cocaine addiction led to the deaths of three generations of the same family because of some insane belief that he was doing everyone a favour.
Steve, this is an example of what I was trying to point out yesterday. IMO, this has to be, far and away, the best thing you have written. Far from continually wishing to denigrate everything you write I felt really excited by the obvious improvement.............but you had to spoil it, didn't you!!! Along with the conviction you appear to have that you know more of Jeremy's psyche than does God, suddenly he's a cocaine addict. Until that moment, all you said regarding Thatcherite Britain and its' values was spot on, socialogically accurate. What you said of Jeremy wasn't and in case you think I'm taking sides, I would have challenged you on it had you said it of Sheila even though I feel she would have had a problem balancing recreational drugs with maintainance drugs.
-
Steve, this is an example of what I was trying to point out yesterday. IMO, this has to be, far and away, the best thing you have written. Far from continually wishing to denigrate everything you write I felt really excited by the obvious improvement.............but you had to spoil it, didn't you!!! Along with the conviction you appear to have that you know more of Jeremy's psyche than does God, suddenly he's a cocaine addict. Until that moment, all you said regarding Thatcherite Britain and its' values was spot on, socialogically accurate. What you said of Jeremy wasn't and in case you think I'm taking sides, I would have challenged you on it had you said it of Sheila even though I feel she would have had a problem balancing recreational drugs with maintainance drugs.
Well thanks for the compliments april1. I will withdraw that Jeremy was a cocaine addict as I don't want to be sued,it's just that Julie confirmed in Roger Wilkes' book that Jeremy smoked a lot more than she did,and it seemed to be a part of his life which always seemed to be mentioned every time he was socializing among friends.
-
Hi Steve_uk
Given your statement above I'm surprised JB ever pulled with his Vauxhall Astra and BL Mini before that. Oh I forgot isn't that why he slayed his entire adoptive family so he could inherit the estate and purchase a Porsche kit car? My benchmark for a date was a Reliant Scimitar or Triumph Stag if I was in the mood for something a little older. I liked to keep it British despite the appalling quality.
To be honest I never really thought about what was in his head. I was more interested in what was in his trousers. Believe me size counts or it does in my books. I would home in to check whether it was tucked in left or right so as to relieve him of it in the shortest possible time, his wallet that is ;) ;D
jb had a wallett how it became full is worth a mention, he actually worked for it , not spending his time as a fat slob on benefits downing cans of beer and endless home delivery of pizza with extra toppings watching vhs pre recorded video films and the stations of the goggle box .
-
Well thanks for the compliments april1. I will withdraw that Jeremy was a cocaine addict as I don't want to be sued,it's just that Julie confirmed in Roger Wilkes' book that Jeremy smoked a lot more than she did,and it seemed to be a part of his life which always seemed to be mentioned every time he was socializing among friends.
Smoking cocaine? that must be 'crack'
-
Hi Steve_uk
Given your statement above I'm surprised JB ever pulled with his Vauxhall Astra and BL Mini before that. Oh I forgot isn't that why he slayed his entire adoptive family so he could inherit the estate and purchase a Porsche kit car? My benchmark for a date was a Reliant Scimitar or Triumph Stag if I was in the mood for something a little older. I liked to keep it British despite the appalling quality.
To be honest I never really thought about what was in his head. I was more interested in what was in his trousers. Believe me size counts or it does in my books. I would home in to check whether it was tucked in left or right so as to relieve him of it in the shortest possible time, his wallet that is ;) ;D
Once again you totally misread the human psyche and I am sick of quoting the seven or eight people whose anecdotal evidence is damning to the Jeremy supporters' cause. The glossy brochures on the coffee table at Goldhanger in the days after the murders were certainly not kit cars,but then I'm past caring,and the aphorism "if ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise" springs to mind.
-
Once again you totally misread the human psyche and I am sick of quoting the seven or eight people whose anecdotal evidence is damning to the Jeremy supporters' cause. The glossy brochures on the coffee table at Goldhanger in the days after the murders were certainly not kit cars,but then I'm past caring,and the aphorism "if ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise" springs to mind.
Hi Steve, please could you tell us how you know about the glossy brochures on the coffee table at Jeremy's cottage in Goldhanger? I am really curious, do you have any first hand knowledge of this or is this heresay? Thanks
-
Hi Steve, please could you tell us how you know about the glossy brochures on the coffee table at Jeremy's cottage in Goldhanger? I am really curious, do you have any first hand knowledge of this or is this heresay? Thanks
Whilst some of you are not reading the four books on the case because you might be influenced by one particular author's point of view,others like myself are trawling through them in an attempt to ascertain facts,lies and hearsay and feel empowered enough to make up our own minds as to whom one chooses to believe or not.
-
Whilst some of you are not reading the four books on the case because you might be influenced by one particular author's point of view,others like myself are trawling through them in an attempt to ascertain facts,lies and hearsay and feel empowered enough to make up our own minds as to whom one chooses to believe or not.
Out of interest, how do you know the authors aren't using a certain amount of 'poetic licence'? None of them provide proper references for all of the information they contain, especially Wilkes.
-
Out of interest, how do you know the authors aren't using a certain amount of 'poetic licence'? None of them provide proper references for all of the information they contain, especially Wilkes.
That is what I think Bridget. I don' think they are totally factual I'm sure there is some 'poetic license' involved.
-
Once again you totally misread the human psyche and I am sick of quoting the seven or eight people whose anecdotal evidence is damning to the Jeremy supporters' cause. The glossy brochures on the coffee table at Goldhanger in the days after the murders were certainly not kit cars,but then I'm past caring,and the aphorism "if ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise" springs to mind.
If you are sick of quoting anecdotes, perhaps it's time for you to stop. There really is not the necessity for you to make yourself sick on our behalf.
I would be very surprised if, during the course of your life, you never have on a coffee table, brochures displaying whatever it is you may long for, from bathrooms to Bali or kitchens to cars. It might suggest of you, that you have dreams, that you have earned, won or inherited money or taken out a loan. It is unlikely to suggest that you've killed. You, who have the temerity to tell us we have no understanding of the human psyche, may be surprised to learn that people regularly collect brochures of things they yearn for, or simply need.
Not only do you appear to have little knowledge of the human psyche, you appear to have NO knowledge of human psychology and on occasions I find myself wondering whether you're a man or a machine.
-
If you are sick of quoting anecdotes, perhaps it's time for you to stop. There really is not the necessity for you to make yourself sick on our behalf.
I would be very surprised if, during the course of your life, you never have on a coffee table, brochures displaying whatever it is you may long for, from bathrooms to Bali or kitchens to cars. It might suggest of you, that you have dreams, that you have earned, won or inherited money or taken out a loan. It is unlikely to suggest that you've killed. You, who have the temerity to tell us we have no understanding of the human psyche, may be surprised to learn that people regularly collect brochures of things they yearn for, or simply need.
Not only do you appear to have little knowledge of the human psyche, you appear to have NO knowledge of human psychology and on occasions I find myself wondering whether you're a man or a machine.
I congratulate you on a supreme post april....not a word I would disagree with. You always knew your psychology degree would come in handy!!!!! ;D
-
£250?? Are you mad? ;)
-
It was just to illustrate the point ;)
So you say...;)
-
Good morning ladies, well, those of you who are here!!! As I was reading last nights posts on the "Off topic" thread, I was reminded that all groups however small, are microcosms of what is happening in the wider world. None of us need reminding of the horrendous spiteful and frankly, childish squabbling which is presently threatening the stability of the forum, and which, during the day and early evening many of us seem to be doing our best to preserve.
Last night, a new thread, requesting "Amoment of your time" was started by Mat, who said, publically that he had removed himself from "the other" site on the grounds that the person who he believed to have set him up was a different person and when he said the things he said to the people he said it to it was because someone else had told him that the other person had said things about him! Confused, ladies? Believe me, by the time I'd finished reading, SO WAS I!!! The whole thing reminded me of how many of our villages, towns and cities change personality at night, and what may be a pleasant place to meet friends for lunch or supper, becomes something totally other after 11pm. Thus it was last night. The thread rapidly descended into a free for all in which the foulest of language was being thrown around and Mat was, once again, showing signs of the paranoia which caused the problem in the first place. His belief, (never, it seems, far from the surface, worries me, not least because he uses it a means of not having to take responsibility for his own behaviour,) that he is being persecuted, indicates that he is likely to fire the gun before asking the question, as IMO he has done in his dealings with Grahame. It also indicates serious errors of judgement in his readiness to trust the wrong people which could end up placing him in a position from which he cannot easily extricate himself if he doesn't do something to address it.
What ever it was that was driving forward last nights dialogue, I'm very thanful not to have been part of.
-
Good morning ladies, well, those of you who are here!!! As I was reading last nights posts on the "Off topic" thread, I was reminded that all groups however small, are microcosms of what is happening in the wider world. None of us need reminding of the horrendous spiteful and frankly, childish squabbling which is presently threatening the stability of the forum, and which, during the day and early evening many of us seem to be doing our best to preserve.
Last night, a new thread, requesting "Amoment of your time" was started by Mat, who said, publically that he had removed himself from "the other" site on the grounds that the person who he believed to have set him up was a different person and when he said the things he said to the people he said it to it was because someone else had told him that the other person had said things about him! Confused, ladies? Believe me, by the time I'd finished reading, SO WAS I!!! The whole thing reminded me of how many of our villages, towns and cities change personality at night, and what may be a pleasant place to meet friends for lunch or supper, becomes something totally other after 11pm. Thus it was last night. The thread rapidly descended into a free for all in which the foulest of language was being thrown around and Mat was, once again, showing signs of the paranoia which caused the problem in the first place. His belief, (never, it seems, far from the surface, worries me, not least because he uses it a means of not having to take responsibility for his own behaviour,) that he is being persecuted, indicates that he is likely to fire the gun before asking the question, as IMO he has done in his dealings with Grahame. It also indicates serious errors of judgement in his readiness to trust the wrong people which could end up placing him in a position from which he cannot easily extricate himself if he doesn't do something to address it.
What ever it was that was driving forward last nights dialogue, I'm very thanful not to have been part of.
April, what can I say, you put in a nutshell what I have been tryin g to ennunciate for months. Thank you so much. When I joined the forum, at the begining of March it was a pleasant enough place with decent debate and the occasional dispute. Since then this forum has been torn apart, while I cannot say that one person is to blame for it all there certainly seems to be a pattern to the attack, withdraw and lets see if we can start a riot here mentality. It's a little like chucking a grenade in and seeing who takes the worst of the blast. imo
-
April, what can I say, you put in a nutshell what I have been tryin g to ennunciate for months. Thank you so much. When I joined the forum, at the begining of March it was a pleasant enough place with decent debate and the occasional dispute. Since then this forum has been torn apart, while I cannot say that one person is to blame for it all there certainly seems to be a pattern to the attack, withdraw and lets see if we can start a riot here mentality. It's a little like chucking a grenade in and seeing who takes the worst of the blast. imo
In my opinion I believe if Grahame had support in any form when he posted about his mother's abuse, we would not be in the sorry state we are now in.
Whatever axe anyone has to grind against Grahame I believe we should all agree that it was a dispicable act which should not be acceptable.
My argument to mat at that time was that Grahame's mother was an innocent, we mainly are lucky enough to have or have known one and no mother should be treated in this way.
Mat refused to condemn the posting of the photo because he would not be seen to stand up for Graham and against the red forum.
My point is that it is a moral question as to whether this is acceptable and actually nothing to do with Grahame per se.
I wonder, as very shortly afterwards Mat stated he had left the red forum because he had apparrently just fallen in love with Jackie and Steph, is he now prepared to show his moral calibre and state that photos of elderly mothers with smutty inuendo beneath it is never acceptable whoever it is aimed at?
-
Maggie, I think that saying "it's a little like chucking in a grenade and seeing who takes the worst of the blast" says it perfectly. Perhaps all WE need to do is wait for the occasion when it fails to leave the hand of the person who is throwing it!!!
-
Maggie, I think that saying "it's a little like chucking in a grenade and seeing who takes the worst of the blast" says it perfectly. Perhaps all WE need to do is wait for the occasion when it fails to leave the hand of the person who is throwing it!!!
;D ;D ;D ;D....brilliant april!!x
-
In my opinion I believe if Grahame had had support in any form when he posted about his mother's abuse, we would not be in the sorry state we are now in.
Whatever axe anyone has to grind against Grahame I believe we should all agree that it was a dispicable act which should not be acceptable.
My argument to mat at that time was that Grahame's mother was an innocent, we mainly are lucky enough to have or have had one and no mother should be treated in this way.
Mat refused to condemn the posting of the photo because he would not be seen to stand up for Graham and against the red forum.
My point is that it is a moral question as to whether this is acceptable and actually nothing to do with Grahame per se.
I wonder as very shortly afterwards Mat stated he had left the red forum because he had apparrently just fallen in love with Jackie and Steph.
is he now prepared to show his moral calibre and state that photos of elderly mothers with smutty inuendo beneath it is never acceptable whoever it is aimed at?
Maggie, just when I believe there is nothing left to shock me I find find myself shocked by the depths of sick depravity to which some people can sink and believe themselves to be funny. I have to ask if Mat was too scared, or simply deficient in moral fibre, to condem such a dispicable and cowardly act? I picked up that he was prepared to denounce all his past behaviour, except that which concerned Grahame, from which I can only assume that he didn't believe that the posting of a picture of an elderly lady, and the insulting and derisive behaviour it incurred, to be inappropriate, which IMO says much about him. I also have to wonder for how long it would be possible to maintain a friendship with somebody who supports such behaviour and for how long could their loyalty be trusted.
-
Hi April1
Here, here old bean ;).
I personally would like to see a much, much tougher line with moderating now eg possibly a mod drawing up a bank of questions to test knowledge and style of posting before allowing the potential new member to post. In the first instance they wld be allowed access to all the info and posts but not actually be allowed to post. Ha ha bet this suggestion gets some laughs ;D
I think it wld also be a good idea to have some balance in the mod community ie an anti and a waiverer.
It wld be interesting to know how other forums fare where emotive topics are being discussed. Also as you said, is the late night boorish behaviour on this forum typical of forums within the UK and a mirror of every High St up and down the country ie does this sort of thing go on in European countries/forums? Perhaps locking the forum up for posting at say 11pm or midnight might be an idea? Posters can research the case and then post the following morning.
The nettle has to be grasped. Otherwise the minority spoil it for the majority. I'm just pleased to hear Mike is mulling things over re the future of the forum. :)
Egap, hi and thanks for the vote of confidence. Do you know, I haven't been called "old bean" since I was at school!!!!!
You're absolutely right. There need to be strictly adhered to rules surrounding the behaviour of members. I don't mean "one strike and you're out", I understand that passions run high concerning highly immotive issues, but the use of foul language and spiteful acts against members should not be given the chance to happen a THIRD time. I realize that lifetime bans can't be policed, but if the persona doesn't fit with clearly defined forum rules, bans should be put in place. At the moment it IS a minority who are causing problems and if it's not contained it will grow. Does anybody recall "Animal Farm"?
I think your idea regarding potential new members is a sound one. It may help to sort out the wheat from the chaff, but at the very least prevention is better than cure. Maybe we could persuade other members loyal to Mike to come up with their own ideas and perhaps together we can persuade him that we believe the future of the forum is worth fighting for.
-
Egap, hi and thanks for the vote of confidence. Do you know, I haven't been called "old bean" since I was at school!!!!!
You're absolutely right. There need to be strictly adhered to rules surrounding the behaviour of members. I don't mean "one strike and you're out", I understand that passions run high concerning highly immotive issues, but the use of foul language and spiteful acts against members should not be given the chance to happen a THIRD time. I realize that lifetime bans can't be policed, but if the persona doesn't fit with clearly defined forum rules, bans should be put in place. At the moment it IS a minority who are causing problems and if it's not contained it will grow. Does anybody recall "Animal Farm"?
I think your idea regarding potential new members is a sound one. It may help to sort out the wheat from the chaff, but at the very least prevention is better than cure. Maybe we could persuade other members loyal to Mike to come up with their own ideas and perhaps together we can persuade him that we believe the future of the forum is worth fighting for.
Hi April, I had a thought earlier this morning that you would make a very good mod. You are very perceptive, which is necessary for good modding and intelligent. However, I'm sure you will say you are too busy and wouldn't want the hassle for which I could not blame you.xx
-
Hi April, I had a thought earlier this morning that you would make a very good mod. You are very perceptive, which is necessary for good modding and intelligent. However, I'm sure you will say you are too busy and wouldn't want the hassle for which I could not blame you.xx
Lovely Maggie, I feel very humbled by your generous words. My ego is big enough to believe itself capable of being an innovator , ahead and "out there", but my id knows that I work best as a facilitator, behind the scenes, giving support and encouragement. I certainly could make time available but I don't think I would cope well with the hassle, however, I would be more than happy to lend support to anyone undertaking such a thankless position.........and thank you for showing such faith in me xx
-
I have just finished Claire Powell’s 1988 book Murder at White House Farm:The Story of Jeremy Bamber which arrived after a patient four day wait after ordering on an internet book site. I have mixed feelings after reading the 302 pages which I feel had it not been for the authoress’ prolixity could have been condensed into half that amount.
There is no real insight into any of the characters,with the possible exception of Sheila as she mingles with her Maida Vale model set in those self-reliant 1980s,where as a Lucie Clayton failure with already low self-esteem from her schooldays and her mother’s criticisms she was so unprepared for the cut-throat character of this brave new world. We are reminded that Sheila was not materialistic and married for love,in contrast to Jeremy Bamber who as a male Madame Bovary craved the security,respect and authority only money could bring.
Ms. Powell dwells far too much on the issue of sex,whether it’s Sheila’s steamy photographic session or her dates with the girlfriends’ cast-offs or spivs typifying the period,or Jeremy’s many affairs before and after the murders with corresponding bedroom talk suitable more for female readers of Cosmopolitan that a serious analysis of the crimes. The trial reporting itself is truncated possibly because Ms. Powell sees fit to give equal words to the trial of the conduct of Essex Police in the subsequent chapter,and some of the flow and tension of the book is lost. We have to wait until page 295 out of 302 pages to garner any theory about the murders at all,with the gem included of the wetsuit in two halves,the suggestion being that Jeremy had showered at the farm before riding along the sea wall back to the cottage.
Had there been more analysis in this vein instead of anecdotes such as Jeremy playing with his pet budgerigar in Wormwood Scrubs this might have been a worthwhile book. If it’s salacious titillation you’re after then this would be the one book of the four written which would be top of your list,but I found other books more compelling: the personal experiences of Colin Caffell were more powerfully sustained,and the Roger Wilkes book more analytical as to who the real murderer might be.
-
I have just finished Claire Powell’s 1988 book Murder at White House Farm:The Story of Jeremy Bamber which arrived after a patient four day wait after ordering on an internet book site. I have mixed feelings after reading the 302 pages which I feel had it not been for the authoress’ prolixity could have been condensed into half that amount.
There is no real insight into any of the characters,with the possible exception of Sheila as she mingles with her Maida Vale model set in those self-reliant 1980s,where as a Lucie Clayton failure with already low self-esteem from her schooldays and her mother’s criticisms she was so unprepared for the cut-throat character of this brave new world. We are reminded that Sheila was not materialistic and married for love,in contrast to Jeremy Bamber who as a male Madame Bovary craved the security,respect and authority only money could bring.
Ms. Powell dwells far too much on the issue of sex,whether it’s Sheila’s steamy photographic session or her dates with the girlfriends’ cast-offs or spivs typifying the period,or Jeremy’s many affairs before and after the murders with corresponding bedroom talk suitable more for female readers of Cosmopolitan that a serious analysis of the crimes. The trial reporting itself is truncated possibly because Ms. Powell sees fit to give equal words to the trial of the conduct of Essex Police in the subsequent chapter,and some of the flow and tension of the book is lost. We have to wait until page 295 out of 302 pages to garner any theory about the murders at all,with the gem included of the wetsuit in two halves,the suggestion being that Jeremy had showered at the farm before riding along the sea wall back to the cottage.
Had there been more analysis in this vein instead of anecdotes such as Jeremy playing with his pet budgerigar in Wormwood Scrubs this might have been a worthwhile book. If it’s salacious titillation you’re after then this would be the one book of the four written which would be top of your list,but I found other books more compelling: the personal experiences of Colin Caffell were more powerfully sustained,and the Roger Wilkes book more analytical as to who the real murderer might be.
Hi Steve, I haven't read your post yet but will do so first thing - but glad to see you back! Thought we had lost you _ I've really missed your posts (believe it or not!) and hope you're well! :)
-
Hi Steve, I haven't read your post yet but will do so first thing - but glad to see you back! Thought we had lost you _ I've really missed your posts (believe it or not!) and hope you're well! :)
Caroline, where did you spring from....bad night cant sleep, are you the same? ;Dxx
-
Caroline, where did you spring from....bad night cant sleep, are you the same? ;Dxx
Hi maggie, hope you are OK, you too Caroline, both of you were up very late, hope you both slept well in the end.... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi maggie, hope you are OK, you too Caroline, both of you were up very late, hope you both slept well in the end.... :) :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti....yes one of those nights last night........too much babysitti.g I think!! Have you managed to nick your sons laptop. I hope you asked him nicely!!! Good to see you on the forum. ;D
-
Hi Patti....yes one of those nights last night........too much babysitti.g I think!! Have you managed to nick your sons laptop. I hope you asked him nicely!!! Good to see you on the forum. ;D
Hi maggie...I will be looking after the children next weekend. In fact I might fetch them today and take them back tomorrow. Yes, I have son's lappy....I wont have it long. Idle bugger is still in bed. I normally start shouting him up, but I will leave it while I can use this...You must be tired out maggie...I bet you sleep tonight...zzzzzzzzzzzz lol :) :) :) :)
-
Hi maggie...I will be looking after the children next weekend. In fact I might fetch them today and take them back tomorrow. Yes, I have son's lappy....I wont have it long. Idle bugger is still in bed. I normally start shouting him up, but I will leave it while I can use this...You must be tired out maggie...I bet you sleep tonight...zzzzzzzzzzzz lol :) :) :) :)
Morning girls, good to see you all. Wish you all a happy day xx
-
Hi maggie...I will be looking after the children next weekend. In fact I might fetch them today and take them back tomorrow. Yes, I have son's lappy....I wont have it long. Idle bugger is still in bed. I normally start shouting him up, but I will leave it while I can use this...You must be tired out maggie...I bet you sleep tonight...zzzzzzzzzzzz lol :) :) :) :)
Yes Patti, I get overtired with little 17 month old beauty, I have had her loads this week.
I do agree with you about the abuse some of our posters have had to deal with. I also think its hard to understand until we experience it for ourselves. ;D
-
Yes Patti, I get overtired with little 17 month old beauty, I have had her loads this week.
I do agree with you about the abuse some of our posters have had to deal with. I also think its hard to understand until we experience it for ourselves. ;D
That is true maggie. I have been over to other forum and left words....It hurts maggie, when you are being atacked, there is no need for it. Anyway, son has arrived form the Z'D zone and wants his lap top....I might be back in a short while...He has just suggested that I get the desk top set up....:( Take care :) :) :) :)
-
That is true maggie. I have been over to other forum and left words....It hurts maggie, when you are being atacked, there is no need for it. Anyway, son has arrived form the Z'D zone and wants his lap top....I might be back in a short while...He has just suggested that I get the desk top set up....:( Take care :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti,I glanced at the dreaded board and some idiot is using my ID and has written vile things,so I've reported it. Not that it makes any difference,but it's putting me off posting altogether to think someone is spying on this forum from there.
-
Good afternoon to the girlies.x
-
Hi Patti,I glanced at the dreaded board and some idiot is using my ID and has written vile things,so I've reported it. Not that it makes any difference,but it's putting me off posting altogether to think someone is spying on this forum from there.
Ugh! They are everywhere lookout....what a bunch of saddos!!
-
Good afternoon to the girlies.x
Good afternoon from one girlie lookout. I think susie must have blown a fuse again as she is missing!! :o
-
Good afternoon to the girlies.x
Hi, lookout, have you just got up? :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi, lookout, have you just got up? :) :) :) :) :)
Oh no,April,I've been up since 6.30.Put the chicken in the oven,prepared veggies,hoovered,made the bed and polished everywhere.Oh yes,and showered. Received a call from daughter in Oz,e-mailed friends as I was out for lunch yesterday.All in a days work,hahahahaha.
-
Hi maggie, hope you are OK, you too Caroline, both of you were up very late, hope you both slept well in the end.... :) :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti, yes, I'm fine thanks! Didn't get until after 1am - it would have been a room spinning moment if I tried to go straight to sleep :). X
-
Oh no,April,I've been up since 6.30.Put the chicken in the oven,prepared veggies,hoovered,made the bed and polished everywhere.Oh yes,and showered. Received a call from daughter in Oz,e-mailed friends as I was out for lunch yesterday.All in a days work,hahahahaha.
You leave me quite breathless, lookout. I've been very idle.......but Mummy always did say I was a slut!!!!!
-
You leave me quite breathless, lookout. I've been very idle.......but Mummy always did say I was a slut!!!!!
:o
:-*?
-
:o
:-*?
To dispel any misconceptions. A slut was a woman NOT given to domesticity, which I am definitely NOT.........however, I'm still not entirely certain about what my mother meant by it!!! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :-* :-*
-
Oh no,April,I've been up since 6.30.Put the chicken in the oven,prepared veggies,hoovered,made the bed and polished everywhere.Oh yes,and showered. Received a call from daughter in Oz,e-mailed friends as I was out for lunch yesterday.All in a days work,hahahahaha.
Huh, where was my email? hahahah ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I am currently reading a book which has nothing to do with the Bamber case, but the morals are still the same; especially in a court of law. The book is based on a true story and has court transcripts of both CPS and defence council. It was written by a famous crime writer/journalist Percy Hoskins. It is called " Two men were acuitted. The trial and aquttal of John Bodkin Adams" It's a fantastic read.
Adams was a wealthy Doctor who lived in Eastbourne. Many of he patients died, they were in thier 70's and 80's. Because the death rate was high, rumours started to accur, then the press joined in and had a real old field day; claiming the doctor had murdered his patients for hamdsome payouts in their wills.
Eventually, due to rumour and media the respected doctor was arrested and his trial went to the Old Bailey. In the opening submissions by the prosceuction everything seemed to be cut a sealed and Adams would face being hung.....But, the defence council saved the day, he did his homework and tore the prosceuctions submission and witnesses to shreads...This trial changed the law as it stands today...for it was based on superstition, hearsay, rumour and bad press....well worth a read... :) :) :) :)
-
I am currently reading a book which has nothing to do with the Bamber case, but the morals are still the same; especially in a court of law. The book is based on a true story and has court transcripts of both CPS and defence council. It was written by a famous crime writer/journalist Percy Hoskins. It is called " Two men were acuitted. The trial and aquttal of John Bodkin Adams" It's a fantastic read.
Adams was a wealthy Doctor who lived in Eastbourne. Many of he patients died, they were in thier 70's and 80's. Because the death rate was high, rumours started to accur, then the press joined in and had a real old field day; claiming the doctor had murdered his patients for hamdsome payouts in their wills.
Eventually, due to rumour and media the respected doctor was arrested and his trial went to the Old Bailey. In the opening submissions by the prosceuction everything seemed to be cut a sealed and Adams would face being hung.....But, the defence council saved the day, he did his homework and tore the prosceuctions submission and witnesses to shreads...This trial changed the law as it stands today...for it was based on superstition, hearsay, rumour and bad press....well worth a read... :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti I've heard of the case before and I'll look out for the book. I saw a television drama on it years ago but didn't think it was particularly well done.
-
Hi Patti I've heard of the case before and I'll look out for the book. I saw a television drama on it years ago but didn't think it was particularly well done.
Hi Steve, I put off googling about the case and I am so glad I did, otherwise It would have spolied it for me...It's a brilliant book, one of the best I have read for a long while...Although he was arrested and charges there was never any real evidence to say he had committed any crime, but because of bad press and rumours....it all got out of hand....but something happened which was quite extrodinary, which saved the day and his life...It's a must read. :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti I've heard of the case before and I'll look out for the book. I saw a television drama on it years ago but didn't think it was particularly well done.
Yes, it was a BBC production ....my relative worked on it. They used the old law courts in St Georges Hall in Liverpool for the trial.
-
Yes, it was a BBC production ....my relative worked on it. They used the old law courts in St Georges Hall in Liverpool for the trial.
Hi maggie, I wish I had seen it...I shall have finished the book tomorrow...You have a famous relly? :) :) :) :)
-
Hi maggie, I wish I had seen it...I shall have finished the book tomorrow...You have a famous relly? :) :) :) :)
when are you not reading books patti
-
Hi maggie, I wish I had seen it...I shall have finished the book tomorrow...You have a famous relly? :) :) :) :)
No he works on the production side and lives with me. ;D
-
No he works on the production side and lives with me. ;D
REALLY.....WOW!!!!!! That must be a fascinating job maggie....a tiring one too. :) :) :) :)
-
REALLY.....WOW!!!!!! That must be a fascinating job maggie....a tiring one too. :) :) :) :)
Yes, its long, long hours away from home quite often. When he was young he loved it but the novelty wore off quite a long time ago.
-
I have just finished reading Scott Lomax’s book Jeremy Bamber: Evil,Almost Beyond Belief , the title quoting from the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake’s accusatory remarks to the appellant when sentencing him to 25 years, which was increased to a life tariff by the then Home Secretary Michael Howard in 1994. Regular members on this forum will remember this is the book I skim-read in an hour behind a pillar on the third floor of the Manchester branch of Waterstones a few weeks back, and I honestly wonder whether the extra effort in reading this tome from cover to cover was worth it.
To say the book is biased in favour of Jeremy Bamber is an understatement. From the opening pages this is clear when we are given a list of dramatis personae: for example Malcolm Fletcher is described as the ballistics “expert”,DCI Taff Jones’s “bizarre death” is alluded to even at this stage as is Matthew MacDonald’s irrelevance, and why we need to know that Liz Rimington slept with Jeremy Bamber at the page 11 stage is beyond me. Julie Mugford is often referred to simply as “Mugford” throughout the book and there is no analysis of her testimony, there is a mention of Barbara Wilson at this stage but no mention of her chats with Ralph(Nevill), neither of Charles Marsden’s, James Richards’ or Doris Foalkes’ evidence.There is no mention of Jeremy’s burglary of a jeweller’s in New Zealand. The very omissions which Lomax is fond of alluding to when this is part of an alleged Police cover-up he is guilty of himself, though he is unable to see the contradiction. Maybe he himself should be inadmissible for jury service, as in his opinion dim members of the public should be excluded, or as he puts it,people of “limited intelligence”. Maybe he aspires to become the physician and writer of detective stories Sir Arthur Conan Doyle he quotes;however on completion of the book I’m afraid to say in this context Lomax is no more than an amateur sleuth.
Let’s take the evidence against Sheila, because of course,it was Jeremy’s assertion that he had received a telephone call in the middle of the night from his father stating that Sheila had got one of the guns and had gone crazy, or words to that effect, which necessarily limit the suspects to either himself or Sheila. Lomax tells us that the twins were killed with “unnecessary violence” whch showed “hatred”, we are told Sheila’s bed was never slept in that night(how does he know for certain?),we are told of an allegation narrated by Jeremy that Sheila punched one of the children in the face when she was interrupted (the twins would have told Colin), we are told all shots hit the target, yet a woman in psychosis achieved this,we are told “it seems almost without doubt the killer moved Ralph’s body into this position”(on the overturned chair), when it’s inconceivable to assume Sheila had the strength to move her father’s body anywhere, we are told “by killing her children and herself they would be together for eternity in the afterlife”, yet Sheila does not lie down by her sons but shoots herself in the kitchen, then proceeds upstairs for the Defence’s necessary ritualistic washing, then kills herself in the same room as the one woman she did not get on with: her mother June.
We are given chapter and verse on blood and the silencer, yet even Lomax has to admit that a silencer was used because how else did June’s DNA come to be there? Lomax has more success with his laborious discussion of the hand swabs evidence, yet the lack of gun oil on Sheila’s nightdress is not sufficiently explained for my liking. Lomax also rushes to judgement about her knowledge of guns, stressing that she had been brought up in a farming environment, yet he is quick to say Sheila had been away at school much of the time and lived in London from the age of 16 when it suits his case that the relatives knew very little about her.
Now let’s look at Jeremy, whom let's face it Scott handles with kid gloves(did one fall off I wonder). The author has obviously had contact with the accused over a long period and fulfils the role of ersatz mother which Suzette Ford and Julie Mugford each provided in their turn. Thus Lomax quotes Jeremy’s verbal statements to Police on the morning of the murders: “What if anything has happened in there? They are all the family I’ve got”, yet nowhere is the allegation of Julie discussed that Jeremy screwed up June’s letter to be read in the event of her death, Jeremy telling Julie “I’m glad she’s dead”, his attempts to sell nude photographs of Sheila, and the existence of the torn-up photographs of the twins, nor are Jeremy’s trips abroad to Amsterdam and France successfully explained away, apart from to avoid media intrusion, which is understandable,except that the grief for the victims seemed to have dissipated as soon as Jeremy crossed the 21 miles to France.
Other things remain unexplained: why did Jeremy return to the scene of the crime on 14 September using the very same entry method he was accused of at trial, why did Jeremy have the bodies cremated when his parents were committed Christians and would have wanted a burial, why was Jeremy’s hair and skin so dark on the morning after the murders as noticed by Ann Eaton, if not for camouflage whilst on the bicycle, why was one half of the wetsuit found at the farm and the other half at Goldhanger, why were none of his prints on the murder weapon if he had handled it to shoot rabbits, why did Jeremy pretend to vomit in front of Police, yet was able to eat a hearty breakfast a couple of hours later?
The book is littered with similar howlers: a whole chapter is devoted to the lack of Jeremy’s financial motive, because, it is alleged, he had free use of a telephone,whilst Lomax ignores Jeremy living it up in London at the Maida Vale flat he had inherited as a direct consequence of Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel’s deaths. Does Scott see this or is he being deliberately naïve? The assertion that Nevill was held at gunpoint whilst making the original call to Jeremy also drops like a lead balloon on the kitchen table.
It’s my opinion that Jeremy should be made to confess by sycophants such as Lomax and the other people who have surrounded him for so long, some nonentities who like the false glamour association with Bamber has brought. If he said “I was young and stupid,it was the 1980s and I was carried away with the Zeitgeist of the times. I made a mistake and I bitterly regret it”-this would afford him at least a modicum of self- respect(if that is at all possible) in what might well prove to be a long and lonely old age. By the end of the book I just want Jeremy to be quoted as saying: “For f*** sake there was no sugar spilled in the kitchen and there was none of Sheila’s blood in the sound moderator because when I killed them all I didn’t use one”..likewise Scott Lomax’s tone becomes irritating when he repeats “I’m not saying the Police or the relatives lied but..” then goes on to quote at length evidence which puts them in just such a light. Thinking of Mike’s trip to Spain it’s a bit like the old joke of the official who says “Madam,I’m not saying you’re fat,but will you please get off the beach,the tide wants to come in..”
Jeremy at the end of the book asserts: “We cannot be certain that it was a third person who murdered my family. But if it wasn’t Sheila,and we know it definitely wasn’t me,then it had to be someone else. That is simply a possibility based on all the evidence and one that has been overlooked”.
Sorry Jeremy:do yourself a favour and everyone else one. Stop this charade and let’s get you on a course of rehabilitation. Maybe you can speak to current offenders in prison and help to prevent future murders. This would be the best testament to your future life,because you cannot bring back the five victims you slaughtered. You will never be allowed to walk along a Dorset beach, neither will you be allowed to eat Pot Noodle in your rocking chair as a free man. But a simple “sorry” to the people who have lived with dignity with the consequences of your actions 27 years ago would not go amiss.
-
Steve,,books like this wouldn't be written if there wasn't any truth in what was said. Because there is every chance that Jeremy is innocent,it's the authors' way of literally telling the world that he's been dealt an unfair deal,i.e. unfair trial and an overall weak defence during the trial and subsequent appeals.
Part of the reason for this,is material hidden from view for years,,,,,,impaired/contaminated forensic tests,,,,
and a " rush " to get him convicted,for reasons that will be made clear in time.
Notice that there were no books supporting Peter Sutcliffe and his ilk,,because it was a foregone conclusion that he was guilty,and those like him were.
It has now been made aware,that along with other MOJ's,,that Jeremys' case indeed is cause for alarm concerning a miscarriage,hence this is why he is determined to see it through this time round.
Why shouldn't the public know that the biggest mistake in history has been made.? It's only by writing books such as Scott Lomax has written,that Jeremy and others like him have got a chance of fighting their corners.
-
Hi steve, do you not have the slightest, teeniest doubt that Jeremy Bamberjustt may be innocent? Suely we should always have an element of doubt in any opinion we hold. Maybe not Mike who spent so much time with Jeremy but generally surely such doubt is healthy. As we weren't there we do surely have to keep a slightly open mind. Does it not ever worry you that an innocent man may have spent 27 years in prison and you believe this man should never be free I just wonder how you can be so definitely sure.
-
Steve,,books like this wouldn't be written if there wasn't any truth in what was said. Because there is every chance that Jeremy is innocent,it's the authors' way of literally telling the world that he's been dealt an unfair deal,i.e. unfair trial and an overall weak defence during the trial and subsequent appeals.
Part of the reason for this,is material hidden from view for years,,,,,,impaired/contaminated forensic tests,,,,
and a " rush " to get him convicted,for reasons that will be made clear in time.
Notice that there were no books supporting Peter Sutcliffe and his ilk,,because it was a foregone conclusion that he was guilty,and those like him were.
It has now been made aware,that along with other MOJ's,,that Jeremys' case indeed is cause for alarm concerning a miscarriage,hence this is why he is determined to see it through this time round.
Why shouldn't the public know that the biggest mistake in history has been made.? It's only by writing books such as Scott Lomax has written,that Jeremy and others like him have got a chance of fighting their corners.
Lookout I don't mind Jeremy Bamber going through the legitimate court process,but you know as well as I do that some of these books are made just to make money for the authors. I also don't think it's appropriate that Jeremy should be allowed to take part in a radio phone in or give a television interview. It's awarding him a status which he does not deserve and it's upsetting to the relatives.
-
Hi steve, do you not have the slightest, teeniest doubt that Jeremy Bamberjustt may be innocent? Suely we should always have an element of doubt in any opinion we hold. Maybe not Mike who spent so much time with Jeremy but generally surely such doubt is healthy. As we weren't there we do surely have to keep a slightly open mind. Does it not ever worry you that an innocent man may have spent 27 years in prison and you believe this man should never be free I just wonder how you can be so definitely sure.
Because I've weighed the evidence and I'm sure that even if Sheila had drifted into a state of psychosis due to the Haloperidol having dissipated from her system(and this is the strongest of the Defence's arguments),she still would not have run amok with a gun. In all her psychotic states before August 1985(and we cannot be sure just how many there were) Sheila had never taken a kitchen knife from a drawer to threaten anyone:the violence was always internalized.
-
Lookout I don't mind Jeremy Bamber going through the legitimate court process,but you know as well as I do that some of these books are made just to make money for the authors. I also don't think it's appropriate that Jeremy should be allowed to take part in a radio phone in or give a television interview. It's awarding him a status which he does not deserve and it's upsetting to the relatives.
Steve,I'm sorry,but after nearly 27 years don't you think that the least Jeremy can be given,is a voice.?
He was at one time " removed " from a category A to B,but the relatives as usual kicked off and blow me,their influence upped him back where he started. Why should they care anyway if he's inside.? What difference should it have made to them.? They're following this case with quite an unhealthy outlook,and their eagerness in keeping him behind bars is questionable.
It was the prison governor who allowed Jeremy to take part in radio and televised interviews,also permission for another forthcoming video to be shown in the near future in which Jeremy tells his version of events to put people in the picture.
I would think the relatives have more than upset Jeremy,but notice he's said little or nothing about them against what they've all had to say about Jeremy. No,,this is not about the relatives,,it's about Jeremy and his grievances for a change.
-
Steve,I'm sorry,but after nearly 27 years don't you think that the least Jeremy can be given,is a voice.?
He was at one time " removed " from a category A to B,but the relatives as usual kicked off and blow me,their influence upped him back where he started. Why should they care anyway if he's inside.? What difference should it have made to them.? They're following this case with quite an unhealthy outlook,and their eagerness in keeping him behind bars is questionable.
It was the prison governor who allowed Jeremy to take part in radio and televised interviews,also permission for another forthcoming video to be shown in the near future in which Jeremy tells his version of events to put people in the picture.
I would think the relatives have more than upset Jeremy,but notice he's said little or nothing about them against what they've all had to say about Jeremy. No,,this is not about the relatives,,it's about Jeremy and his grievances for a change.
We've been hearing about Jeremy and his grievances ever since the prison van arrived at Wormwood Scrubs from Chelmsford Crown Court. Didn't I read somewhere that Ann Eaton's children had been having nightmares over the whole case? Jeremy should be allowed to put his case through the proper channels,and have rewards for good behaviour like any other prisoner,but not be allowed preferential media access.
-
We've been hearing about Jeremy and his grievances ever since the prison van arrived at Wormwood Scrubs from Chelmsford Crown Court. Didn't I read somewhere that Ann Eaton's children had been having nightmares over the whole case? Jeremy should be allowed to put his case through the proper channels,and have rewards for good behaviour like any other prisoner,but not be allowed preferential media access.
No Steve,,the reason for Ann Eatons' kids nightmares stemmed from when they were at WHF and slept in the beds which the twins of Sheila had been found dead in. I'd have had nightmares too. It was only a year after that they comfortably moved themselves into the farmhous,without a thought as to how those impressionable children would have felt.
Ann actually asked one of the kids to help her make the bed/s.! Read about it,Steve,and please get your facts right.I'm surprised at you,as you're usually on the ball.
-
I have read about the nightmares which is why I alluded to them in the first place. But all the bloodstained bedding and carpets had been burned,so the point you make is dubious.
-
I have read about the nightmares which is why I alluded to them in the first place. But all the bloodstained bedding and carpets had been burned,so the point you make is dubious.
The beds weren't destroyed though,Steve. I would sincerely hope that the bedding and anything else heavily bloodstained would have been destroyed.
In fact,,given what had happened at that farmhouse,I,personally,would have thought twice at moving into it at all. In actual fact,I wouldn't have,let alone taking young children who'd known what had happened and Lord only knows what those children were told about Jeremy. So is it any wonder they had nightmares.?
-
Ann and Peter Eaton already had homes of their own,so why didn't they stay put.? Why be in such a hurry to take over where someone else left off.? Very discomforting to say the least.
Because the Bambers lived there for so long,I should imagine that their presence was still felt. Then again,,I don't think there was much love lost anyway.Where there's no sense,there's no feeling either,because I know someone who knows the relatives,who pretty well summed that up.
-
Ann and Peter Eaton already had homes of their own,so why didn't they stay put.? Why be in such a hurry to take over where someone else left off.? Very discomforting to say the least.
Because the Bambers lived there for so long,I should imagine that their presence was still felt. Then again,,I don't think there was much love lost anyway.Where there's no sense,there's no feeling either,because I know someone who knows the relatives,who pretty well summed that up.
They were only tenants,as were June and Nevill,so why not move in over the shop? The relatives had to pick up the pieces of Jeremy's evil scheme,and have behaved with dignity at every turn.
-
This is merely conjecture on your part. I don't see why you continue to make such comments.. ? Unless you were there and know these people, how can you make such statements as though they are fact.
Because it's dramatic licence which adds variety to the posts in this forum.You can take it or leave it as you see fit.
-
They were only tenants,as were June and Nevill,so why not move in over the shop? The relatives had to pick up the pieces of Jeremy's evil scheme,and have behaved with dignity at every turn.
The relatives did very well picking up the pieces ( of eight ) Steve. I bet they didn't complain. Except that there was trouble at t'mill 10 years later when AP thought he'd been diddled and there was a court case. Jeremy couldn't join in,could he.? And he'd been well fleeced.
-
The relatives did very well picking up the pieces ( of eight ) Steve. I bet they didn't complain. Except that there was trouble at t'mill 10 years later when AP thought he'd been diddled and there was a court case. Jeremy couldn't join in,could he.? And he'd been well fleeced.
Jeremy joined in as much as he could,throwing a spanner into the works at every opportunity,dragging Ann and Peter Eaton up to Full Sutton prison when they both had a farm to manage as well as looking after children. When they got to York Jeremy had mysteriously dropped his claim to the tenancy of the farm,spending his last amount of money in the process.
-
Because it's dramatic licence which adds variety to the posts in this forum.You can take it or leave it as you see fit.
Steve? Don't you think the events were dramatic enough? I think I have mentioned before but every time I read one of your posts, I see JB in a long cloak and top hat, twiddling a heavily waxed moustache as a piano is being played frantically in the background! Just state you point without the flowery nonsense! It's much easier to read and you might get taken more seriously!
-
'Dramatic licence?' Are you into drama by any chance... ;D I think you enjoy attempting to put erroneous information into the public domain.
If you are able to try to stick to matters of factual accuracy then your posts would probably bear more weight. You will only have limited influence on others with your fictitious representations, but then you probably know that... ;)
If I were you I'd stick to Freeing Simon Hall;by the looks of things he needs all the help he can get. For your information I welcome all comments,critical or otherwise,but countering with an alternative point of view instead of just depicting my posts as rubbish might be mutually beneficial.
-
Steve has always ploughed his own furrow and while I do not know whether he has any motivation other than a genuine interest in the case, I feel we should continue to debate with him on the level. There is a lot in Steve's posts that I do not agree with but there's been a few occasions where he's made me think twice.
Steve has been resilient to criticism but I would like to think that whoever he is, he can be challenged on his arguments and we can avoid getting personal.
-
Steve has always ploughed his own furrow and while I do not know whether he has any motivation other than a genuine interest in the case, I feel we should continue to debate with him on the level. There is a lot in Steve's posts that I do not agree with but there's been a few occasions where he's made me think twice.
Steve has been resilient to criticism but I would like to think that whoever he is, he can be challenged on his arguments and we can avoid getting personal.
I wasn't sure about Steve initially but now I think Steve is genuine and although I don't agree with his stance, I do like to banter with him -It's only ever meant to be light hearted and I hope he takes it as such!
-
I wasn't sure about Steve initially but now I think Steve is genuine and although I don't agree with his stance, I do like to banter with him -It's only ever meant to be light hearted and I hope he takes it as such!
When I was attacked for no reason on the forum...steve sent me a reassuring pm immediately, I'll always be grateful to him for that...I may not agree with him but I think he's a good guy. ;D
-
Roch you are a mod therefore I bow down to you kind sir. ;D
But can I make a suggestion that you practice what you preach. Over the past few days you have bought up 'issues' surrounding ex member where it appears there may still be personal grudges and where in my opinion, there was no need to bring up your personal views but you have vocal in expressing your critisms when challenged and have also ploughed on regardless.
Can us mere members be afforded the same entitlement of expression, as opposed to being pulled up at every turn... Pretty please... ;D
Steph I will try to practice what I preach. I will also endeavour to give an honest account of how I see things, such as past disputes, if they become relevant. I am happy to take criticism and consider it.
-
Hi Mags I agree with you I think steve is a good guy and a very clever guy but as far as the Jeremy Bamber case is concerned I do not find any of his posts at all credible.I like to have some fun with him and he takes in his stride :)
-
Have you got that written on your CV ;) if not; add it... ;D
Ha ha. yeah it did sound a bit corny ;) In relation to Steve, with him taking a hard line stance against JB all the time, I am just a bit concerned he will get stick from all angles. I'm not saying he shouldn't be challenged.
-
I have just finished reading Scott Lomax’s book Jeremy Bamber: Evil,Almost Beyond Belief , the title quoting from the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake’s accusatory remarks to the appellant when sentencing him to 25 years,which was increased to a life tariff by the then Home Secretary Michael Howard in 1994. Regular members on this forum will remember this is the book I skim-read in an hour behind a pillar on the third floor of the Manchester branch of Waterstones a few weeks back,and I honestly wonder whether the extra effort in reading this tome from cover to cover was worth it.
To say the book is biased in favour of Jeremy Bamber is an understatement. From the opening pages this is clear when we are given a list of dramatis personae:for example Malcolm Fletcher is described as the ballistics “expert”,DCI Taff Jones’s “bizarre death” is alluded to even at this stage as is Matthew MacDonald’s irrelevance,and why we need to know that Liz Rimington slept with Jeremy Bamber at the page 11 stage is beyond me. Julie Mugford is often referred to simply as “Mugford” throughout the book and there is no analysis of her testimony,there is a mention of Barbara Wilson at this stage but no mention of her chats with Ralph(Nevill),neither of Charles Marsden’s,James Richards’ or Doris Foalkes’ evidence.There is no mention of Jeremy’s burglary of a jeweller’s in New Zealand. The very omissions which Lomax is fond of alluding to when this is part of an alleged Police cover-up he is guilty of himself,though he is unable to see the contradiction.Maybe he himself should be inadmissible for jury service,as in his opinion dim members of the public should be excluded,or as he puts it,people of “limited intelligence”. Maybe he aspires to become the physician and writer of detective stories Sir Arthur Conan Doyle he quotes;however on completion of the book I’m afraid to say in this context Lomax is no more than an amateur sleuth.
Let’s take the evidence against Sheila,because of course,it was Jeremy’s assertion that he had received a telephone call in the middle of the night from his father stating that Sheila had got one of the guns and had gone crazy,or words to that effect,which necessarily limit the suspects to either himself or Sheila. Lomax tells us that the twins were killed with “unnecessary violence” whch showed “hatred”,we are told Sheila’s bed was never slept in that night(how does he know for certain?),we are told of an allegation narrated by Jeremy that Sheila punched one of the children in the face when she was interrupted(the twins would have told Colin),we are told all shots hit the target,yet a woman in psychosis achieved this,we are told “it seems almost without doubt the killer moved Ralph’s body into this position”(on the overturned chair),when it’s inconceivable to assume Sheila had the strength to move her father’s body anywhere,we are told “by killing her children and herself they would be together for eternity in the afterlife”,yet Sheila does not lie down by her sons but shoots herself in the kitchen,then proceeds upstairs for the prosecution’s necessary ritualistic washing,then kills herself in the same room as the one woman she did not get on with,her mother June.
We are given chapter and verse on blood and the silencer,yet even Lomax has to admit that a silencer was used because how else did June’s DNA come to be there? Lomax has more success with his laborious discussion of the hand swabs evidence,yet the lack of gun oil on Sheila’s nightdress is not sufficiently explained for my liking. Lomax also rushes to judgement about her knowledge of guns,stressing that she had been brought up in a farming environment,yet he is quick to say Sheila had been away at school much of the time and lived in London from the age of 16 when it suits his case that the relatives knew very little about her.
Now let’s look at Jeremy. To say that Scott Lomax handles him with kid gloves is an understatement. The author has obviously had contact with the accused over a long period and fulfils the role of ersatz mother which Suzette Ford and Julie Mugford each provided in their turn. Thus Lomax quotes Jeremy’s verbal statements to Police on the morning of the murders: “What if anything has happened in there? They are all the family I’ve got”,yet nowhere is the allegation of Julie discussed that Jeremy screwed up June’s letter to be read in the event of her death,Jeremy telling Julie “I’m glad she’s dead”, his attempts to sell nude photographs of Sheila,and the existence of the torn-up photographs of the twins,nor are Jeremy’s trips abroad to Amsterdam and France successfully explained away,apart from to avoid media intrusion,which is understandable,except that the grief for the victims seemed to have dissipated as soon as Jeremy crossed the 21 miles to France.
Other things remain unexplained:why did Jeremy return to the scene of the crime on 14 September using the very same entry method he was accused of at trial,why did Jeremy have the bodies cremated when his parents were committed Christians and would have wanted a burial,why was Jeremy’s hair and skin so dark on the morning after the murders as noticed by Ann Eaton,if not for camouflage whilst on the bicycle,why was one half of the wetsuit found at the farm and the other half at Goldhanger,why were none of his prints on the murder weapon if he had handled it to shoot rabbits,why did Jeremy pretend to vomit in front of Police,yet was able to eat a hearty breakfast a couple of hours later?
The book is littered with similar howlers: a whole chapter is devoted to the lack of Jeremy’s financial motive,because,it is alleged,he had free use of a telephone,whilst Lomax ignores Jeremy living it up in London at the Maida Vale flat he had inherited as a direct consequence of Sheila,Nicholas and Daniel’s death. Does Scott see this or is he being deliberately naïve? The assertion that Nevill was held at gunpoint whilst making the original call to Jeremy also drops like a lead balloon on the kitchen table.
It’s my opinion that Jeremy should be made to confess by sycophants such as Lomax and the other people who have surrounded him for so long,some nonentities who like the false glamour association with Bamber has brought. If he said “I was young and stupid,it was the 1980s and I was carried away with the Zeitgeist of the times. I made a mistake and I bitterly regret it”-this would afford him at least a modicum of self- respect(if that is at all possible) in what might well prove to be a long and lonely old age. By the end of the book I just want Jeremy to be quoted as saying: “For f*** sake there was no sugar spilled in the kitchen and there was none of Sheila’s blood in the sound moderator because when I killed them all I didn’t use one”..likewise Scott Lomax’s tone becomes irritating when he repeats “I’m not saying the Police or the relatives lied but..” then goes on to quote at length evidence which puts them in just such a light. Thinking of Mike’s trip to Spain it’s a bit like the old joke of the official who says “Madam,I’m not saying you’re fat,but will you please get off the beach,the tide wants to come in..”
Jeremy at the end of the book asserts: “We cannot be certain that it was a third person who murdered my family. But if it wasn’t Sheila,and we know it definitely wasn’t me,then it had to be someone else. That is simply a possibility based on all the evidence and one that has been overlooked”.
Sorry Jeremy:do yourself a favour and everyone else one. Stop this charade and let’s get you on a course of rehabilitation. Maybe you can speak to current offenders in prison and help to prevent future murders. This would be the best testament to your future life,because you cannot bring back the five victims you slaughtered. You will never be allowed to walk along a Dorset beach,neither will you be allowed to eat Pot Noodle in your rocking chair as a free man. But a simple “sorry” to the people who have lived with dignity with the consequences of your actions 27 years ago would not go amiss.
"Regular members on this forum will remember this is the book I skim-read in an hour behind a pillar on the third floor of the Manchester branch of Waterstones a few weeks back"
This is so funny!
Are you sure you didn't secretly buy a copy? You seem to recall an awful lot for a skim read ;)
-
Hi Roch steve loves being challenged especially by lookout he thrives on it :)
-
Ha ha. yeah it did sound a bit corny ;) In relation to Steve, with him taking a hard line stance against JB all the time, I am just a bit concerned he will get stick from all angles. I'm not saying he shouldn't be challenged.
Hi Roch, I think we're all familiar with Steve's posting style and I don't think anyone here would mean to offend him - certainly not intentionally! He does get stick, but as Kenny Everett used to say "It's all in the best possible taste!! ;)
-
Hi Roch, I think we're all familiar with Steve's posting style and I don't think anyone here would mean to offend him - certainly not intentionally! He does get stick, but as Kenny Everett used to say "It's all in the best possible taste!! ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yeah I've noticed Steve likes to duel with Lookout :D
-
Hi HMEssex what steve is failing to tell you he hides behind the pillar and does a skim read daily until the book is finished much cheaper than buying :) :) :)
-
Hi HMEssex what steve is failing to tell you he hides behind the pillar and does a skim read daily until the book is finished much cheaper than buying :) :) :)
No doubt, Susan!
But there's nothing more likely to draw attention to oneself than furtively 'reading behind a pillar' in a bookstore - CCTV is everywhere!
-
But I guess Steve_UK does his reading during the day and is caught on camera read handed every time... ;)
Nice one Steph...would think Steve should appreciate that :D
-
In Ipswich; all CCTV camera tapes in the town centre run out at approx 1829 hours and no one bothers to replace them? ;D ;D
But I guess Steve_UK does his reading during the day and is caught on camera read handed every time... ;)
I was thinking more about in-store security cameras - if in fact that's how our Steve read the book.
It's a bit daft if a town (Ipswich or any other) switches them off in the evenings as that's when lots of trouble starts!
-
Steve, I don't understand why you are so certain of Jeremy Bamber's guilt either.
I for one, find this an incredibly complex case.
I don't for a minute think that even all the potential characters with motive to do this crime were ever interviewed and 27 years in Prison - I think a person has the right to be heard if still protesting their innocence, in my opinion.
Summer
-
Where is my learned friend,anyway.? Probably out on the town.
-
Steve has always ploughed his own furrow and while I do not know whether he has any motivation other than a genuine interest in the case, I feel we should continue to debate with him on the level. There is a lot in Steve's posts that I do not agree with but there's been a few occasions where he's made me think twice.
Steve has been resilient to criticism but I would like to think that whoever he is, he can be challenged on his arguments and we can avoid getting personal.
Dear Roch. May I suggest that possibly Steve enjoys his exchanges with us. Was it not so, I feel he could have chosen to modify his posts, leaving out those parts which create reaction. I believe that I have been critical of what he has said, that, I believe, is what debate is, but I don't believe I've been critical of him personally. It is perhaps to his credit, that whatever is suggested to him he remains true his own unshakable view that justice was seen to be done.
-
Where is my learned friend,anyway.? Probably out on the town.
No I've just become rather fussy to whom I speak over the past few hours.
-
I set my stall out in #1449 anyway. It's time for others to respond.
-
Steve, I don't understand why you are so certain of Jeremy Bamber's guilt either.
I for one, find this an incredibly complex case.
I don't for a minute think that even all the potential characters with motive to do this crime were ever interviewed and 27 years in Prison - I think a person has the right to be heard if still protesting their innocence, in my opinion.
Summer
Yes Summer they have a right to go through the proper legal process,not to abuse it or become a media celebrity.
-
Dear Roch. May I suggest that possibly Steve enjoys his exchanges with us. Was it not so, I feel he could have chosen to modify his posts, leaving out those parts which create reaction. I believe that I have been critical of what he has said, that, I believe, is what debate is, but I don't believe I've been critical of him personally. It is perhaps to his credit, that whatever is suggested to him he remains true his own unshakable view that justice was seen to be done.
Point taken April. Maybe I misread the situation. No harm done.
-
When #1468 and #1469 are removed I will reevaluate,otherwise I think Simon Hall is better off in prison without a nagging wife to face. I may remove this if the posts I alluded to disappear;otherwise this post stays and the personage in question is on ignore.
-
I'm not sure where Steve reads? or even if he does.... ;D ;)
I don't wish to go off topic - but yes; according to Suffolk police CCTV camera records on 15th December 2001 - all tapes had run out at 1829 hours.
Appart from the ones they seized @ 1830 & 2100hrs, of course ;) Work that one out....
Right! I see. I didn't catch on - sorry!
-
When #1468 and #1469 are removed I will reevaluate,otherwise I think Simon Hall is better off in prison without a nagging wife to face. I may remove this if the posts I alluded to disappear;otherwise this post stays and the personage in question is on ignore.
Just carry on posting regardless,Steve.
-
No,but Simon Hall is better off away from you,and when the mods see your posts I hope they take the appropriate action.
-
Steph, the solution might be for you to remove the posts.. and you both start afresh after Steve removes his post?
-
Hi all can we try and respect views rather than become personal....Thankas muchas.... :) :) :)
-
No,but Simon Hall is better off away from you,and when the mods see your posts I hope they take the appropriate action.
I'm sorry steve but I think that is really harsh and over reactive imo
-
Good evening Patti. Welcome to the party. Hope you've had a wonderful day. :) :) :)
-
Plan B ... just place each other on ignore :-\
-
Good evening Patti. Welcome to the party. Hope you've had a wonderful day. :) :) :)
Hi Lovely April, I have had a lovely day...I have two of my grandchildren here one 15 and the other 5....I have read that many stories I have lost my voice...I have been learning her the calender....and the four seasons.....she loves the attention..Now she is sat watching television with my son...I think she will be asleep in the next few minutes...Hope you have had a good day... :) :) :) :)
-
Plan B ... just place each other on ignore :-\
Roch, Confucious, he say we cannot change behaviour of others, instead we must change way we deal with it. He knew a thing or two, did Confucious :) :) :) :) :)
-
Roch, Confucious, he say we cannot change behaviour of others, instead we must change way we deal with it. He knew a thing or two, did Confucious :) :) :) :) :)
Well spotted April 8)
-
BUMP! I have finally ordered Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes.... :D :D :D :D
-
BUMP! I have finally ordered Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes.... :D :D :D :D
What for? Steve-uk quotes from it extensively.
-
What for? Steve-uk quotes from it extensively.
Lol.............Well I can quote back after I have read. ;) :) :) :) :)
-
What for? Steve-uk quotes from it extensively.
This was one of the best threads on the site and I commend egap1 for starting it,even though we had our differences. I don't know what happened to her. Since the books have been alluded to I reviewed all four main books on this thread which can be found at:
1) #1374 Colin Caffell "In Search of the Rainbow's End"
2)#1390 Roger Wilkes "Blood Relations"
3)#1392 Jackanory
4)#1420 Claire Powell's "Murder at White House Farm"
5)#1449 Scott Lomax "Evil Beyond Belief"
If I had to choose the one which most touched my heart it has to be Colin's. The book which most convinced me of Jeremy's guilt was Blood Relations,even though some members here have said the author remained impartial throughout.
By the way 3) Jackanory is not a book on the case,but it took my mind off murder at least for awhile.
-
I agree Steve it is a brilliant thread...I did not know that Egap started it though....I hope you await my interpretations of Roger Wilkes book.
Did you know that Wilkes book was published by Robinson#s publishers?
Now take you mind back to the great forensic scientist of the USA Macdonell who wrote the forensic findings of the said Bamber family in depth. The document was sent to Robinson publishers....It's on here somewhere!
Well I recently contacted Mr N. Robinson, the said publisher and we had a lovely chat about JB...He told me that he had paid for the work to be done by Mcdonnell the most sort after forensic scientist of the USA so long as he was the owner of the document and, the contents of that document was published in Wilkes book...JB was sent a copy of Mcdnnell report, hence that is why it was posted on this forum... :) :) :) :)
-
I agree Steve it is a brilliant thread...I did not know that Egap started it though....I hope you await my interpretations of Roger Wilkes book.
Did you know that Wilkes book was published by Robinson#s publishers?
Now take you mind back to the great forensic scientist of the USA Macdonell who wrote the forensic findings of the said Bamber family in depth. The document was sent to Robinson publishers....It's on here somewhere!
Well I recently contacted Mr N. Robinson, the said publisher and we had a lovely chat about JB...He told me that he had paid for the work to be done by Mcdonnell the most sort after forensic scientist of the USA so long as he was the owner of the document and, the contents of that document was published in Wilkes book...JB was sent a copy of Mcdnnell report, hence that is why it was posted on this forum... :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti it would be interesting in McDonnell had access to all the photos which I believe were held back. Didn't he also change his mind on his conclusions(which at the time were that Sheila was murdered) stating that he hadn't had enough photographs at the time to make a correct judgement.
-
Hi Patti it would be interesting in McDonnell had access to all the photos which I believe were held back. Didn't he also change his mind on his conclusions(which at the time were that Sheila was murdered) stating that he hadn't had enough photographs at the time to make a correct judgement.
I do believe he was sent some photographs, but he was not aware of all the details surrounding the case to the fullest extent. Therefore his report was based on what he received and not what he could have known, if that makes sense? I doubt he had enough evidence to make to make a correct judgement, yes! :) :) :) :) :)
-
I sound a bit like our Bridget...lol :) :) :) :) :)
-
I sound a bit like our Bridget...lol :) :) :) :) :)
And egap1 is NN. ;)
-
And egap1 is NN. ;)
Well,,it just goes to show,,,Lugg. ;)
-
This was one of the best threads on the site and I commend egap1 for starting it,even though we had our differences. I don't know what happened to her. Since the books have been alluded to I reviewed all four main books on this thread which can be found at:
1) #1374 Colin Caffell "In Search of the Rainbow's End"
2)#1390 Roger Wilkes "Blood Relations"
3)#1392 Jackanory
4)#1420 Claire Powell's "Murder at White House Farm"
5)#1449 Scott Lomax "Evil Beyond Belief"
If I had to choose the one which most touched my heart it has to be Colin's. The book which most convinced me of Jeremy's guilt was Blood Relations,even though some members here have said the author remained impartial throughout.
By the way 3) Jackanory is not a book on the case,but it took my mind off murder at least for awhile.
your third book steve may well be EP version of the events that night.
-
Personally,I feel that Macdonnell ripped JB off good and proper. Isn't he a blood patterns expert or something? His reasoning on the blood patterns could have been worked out by anyone with half a brain,and in fact have been by various members of this forum. He only concluded that Sheila had been murdered because he accepted it as fact that a silencer had been involved.It doesn't take rocket science to realise that Sheila couldn't have shot herself dead using a silencer on the rifle and then returned the silencer to a downstairs cupboard! Yes,he has since changed his stance.Perhaps he too has looked into the silencer evidence and found it farcial!
-
your third book steve may well be EP version of the events that night.
Like it mertol ;D ;D ;D
-
HaHa Mertol....brilliant!
-
Personally,I feel that Macdonnell ripped JB off good and proper. Isn't he a blood patterns expert or something? His reasoning on the blood patterns could have been worked out by anyone with half a brain,and in fact have been by various members of this forum. He only concluded that Sheila had been murdered because he accepted it as fact that a silencer had been involved.It doesn't take rocket science to realise that Sheila couldn't have shot herself dead using a silencer on the rifle and then returned the silencer to a downstairs cupboard! Yes,he has since changed his stance.Perhaps he too has looked into the silencer evidence and found it farcial!
Bring back the ten members of that jury,,older and wiser and they too would say it was farcical. They'd have an entirely different view on things that's for sure.
-
Hi Patti it would be interesting in McDonnell had access to all the photos which I believe were held back. Didn't he also change his mind on his conclusions(which at the time were that Sheila was murdered) stating that he hadn't had enough photographs at the time to make a correct judgement.
Hi Steve :)
It is correct MaCdonnell did not have all the photographs to consider his findings. Jeremy had given some photographs to Wikes and Robinson publishers along with questions asked about the blood spatter and the way the bodies were found,. Jeremy did not pay Mcdonnell...Robinson publishers paid for the work to be done, so they owned the document and had copy rights to it. Some of the work that was done was later published in Wilkes book. I don't know if the document was used in the last court of appeal. Wilkes was originally on Jeremy's side, but I think their relationship somewhat diminished towards the end. :( :) :) :) :)
-
Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes has arrived and immediately I looked at the middle where all the photo's are....Guess what the light in the kitchen is above the sink, not the table....Yet there is no glass on the floor near the sink...mmmmmmmmmmmmm ;) :) :) :) :)
-
Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes has arrived and immediately I looked at the middle where all the photo's are....Guess what the light in the kitchen is above the sink, not the table....Yet there is no glass on the floor near the sink...mmmmmmmmmmmmm ;) :) :) :) :)
Happy sleuthing, Patti :D
-
Happy sleuthing, Patti :D
I knew the lamp shade was not above the table April....I need to make notes this time...I might even spoil the book, but it is a 1st edition which seems a shame! I shall see...It might take me months to read it...I am such a slow reader. See you in June lol :D :D :D :D
-
Just thought of a title for Mason Doyle's book: 'Perfect Match'. This represents the start ie the Bambers being 'perfectly matched' with their adopted children by the authorities. And the end ie the jury being misled at trial that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's.
Any other ideas for a book title?
I hope I've been missed :D. Lots to catch up on both on and off forum so won't be posting much for a while.
*****being the operative word, ********** to be more precise ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;)
-
Just thought of a title for Mason Doyle's book: 'Perfect Match'. This represents the start ie the Bambers being 'perfectly matched' with their adopted children by the authorities. And the end ie the jury being misled at trial that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's.
Any other ideas for a book title?
I hope I've been missed :D. Lots to catch up on both on and off forum so won't be posting much for a while. Look forward to winding up my *old adversaries: Lookout, Lugg and Maggie.
*Old being the operative word, well ancient to be more precise ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;)
"Wrongly Accused"
Your back then trouble... ;)
-
Just thought of a title for Mason Doyle's book: 'Perfect Match'. This represents the start ie the Bambers being 'perfectly matched' with their adopted children by the authorities. And the end ie the jury being misled at trial that the blood in the silencer was a "perfect match" for Sheila's.
Any other ideas for a book title?
I hope I've been missed :D. Lots to catch up on both on and off forum so won't be posting much for a while.
*****being the operative word, ********** to be more precise ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;)
This is pathetic. So your friends are able to insult me by accusing me of being unbalanced, a total bitch, sex starved, needing a shrink etc, etc all of which mods turn a blind eye to and yet I retaliate by jesting and you see fit to edit my post. Lofl.
The s**t that gets thrown round this place unedited and you deem the above worthy of editing as directed by your furry forum friends. Nothing like impartiality I guess.
-
This is pathetic. So your friends are able to insult me by accusing me of being unbalanced, a total bitch, sex starved, needing a shrink etc, etc all of which mods turn a blind eye to and yet I retaliate by jesting and you see fit to edit my post. Lofl.
The s**t that gets thrown round this place unedited and you deem the above worthy of editing as directed by your furry forum friends. Nothing like impartiality I guess.
If only you yourself were impartial. It appears that when you insult people its ok. Byt when those people stand up to you suddenly it becomes an insult. Abit of advice. If you want to be respected, then respect other people.
-
If only you yourself were impartial. It appears that when you insult people its ok. Byt when those people stand up to you suddenly it becomes an insult. Abit of advice. If you want to be respected, then respect other people.
But in this instance Lugg, Patti should be an unbiased mod, not 'one of those people'. Are we really going to be modded for using 'old' and 'ancient' when the forum owner regularly throws personal insults like confetti???!!!!
-
But in this instance Lugg, Patti should be an unbiased mod, not 'one of those people'. Are we really going to be modded for using 'old' and 'ancient' when the forum owner regularly throws personal insults like confetti???!!!!
Vic she is unbiased and she has edited Mikes posts and you yourself have congratulated her on that. So I am a bit bewildered by your reaction here? My post was in direct response to NN's post.
-
Vic she is unbiased and she has edited Mikes posts and you yourself have congratulated her on that. So I am a bit bewildered by your reaction here? My post was in direct response to NN's post.
I'm missing your point Lugg, neither did you answer mine. How can 'old' and 'ancient' be edited in any seriousness??!!!
You inferred in your post that this was 'people' standing up to NN for things she said in the past. My point is that If true, then that's not the role of a mod.
-
I'm missing your point Lugg, neither did you answer mine. How can 'old' and 'ancient' be edited in any seriousness??!!!
You inferred in your post that this was 'people' standing up to NN for things she said in the past. My point is that If true, then that's not the roll of a mod.
It is what she has said in her last post Vic. I really understand your point? I was referring to you hinting at Patti of being biased in her modding. I have just told you that she isn't, citing the editing of Mikes posts recently as an example. In which she was thanked by several people including you. So how can che be unbiased?
-
Lugg, either I'm wording it poorly or you're not reading it right, but forget it! I'm not arguing with you.
-
Lugg, either I'm wording it poorly or you're not reading it right, but forget it! I'm not arguing with you.
Well that makes a change. I really don't know what you're on about. Also you appear to be defending NN. Strange isn't it. Unless of course she is an anti bamber in disguise? Do you come on here just to create arguments and then fail to follow them through so you can accuse others of being argumentative? I don't get it? :o
-
I'm missing your point Lugg, neither did you answer mine. How can 'old' and 'ancient' be edited in any seriousness??!!!
You inferred in your post that this was 'people' standing up to NN for things she said in the past. My point is that If true, then that's not the role of a mod.
Hi Vic I think what was edited was ageist...ageism is pretty offensive and can be seen as bullying. Sometimes nipping situations in the bud is the role of a mod. Imo
-
Well that makes a change. I really don't know what you're on about. Also you appear to be defending NN. Strange isn't it. Unless of course she is an anti bamber in disguise? Do you come on here just to create arguments and then fail to follow them through so you can accuse others of being argumentative? I don't get it? :o
Ah! It's about teams is it?! I'm not allowed to defend someone from the other side?
I'll spell it out for you Lugg. I think it laughable that 'old' and 'ancient' should be modded but unfounded allegations of illegal acts remain. From my little post bag that's materialised in the last few minutes, from pro's and anti's, I'd suggest, with respect, that many agree.
-
Hi Vic I think what was edited was ageist...ageism is pretty offensive and can be seen as bullying. Sometimes nipping situations in the bud is the role of a mod. Imo
Alternatively it could be a 'joke'. Remember them?
-
Alternatively it could be a 'joke'. Remember them?
I think I can tell the difference Vic. Of course some people always make jokes at other people's expense. Being offensive and personal and then calling it a 'joke' is bullying imo.
-
Alternatively it could be a 'joke'. Remember them?
Well you certainly don't remember them thats for sure. My post was directed against NN who continues to carry on harping on an issue that we all thought to be settled. If you cannot see that kind of abuse, one who I fully expected to understand then who on here will? She has been continually offensive towards me from the very bewginning, without any reaction by myself, for what I can only describe as something within her own mind for I certainly gave her no reason to pick on me. Then when I complain to the mods, who expertly handled the situation. Instead of letting things boil over I am accused by her of being their friend and that was the reason they edited her post.
When I myself have tried my hardest to be civil on the forum. Then to cap it all I am used as an example so that you can complain about the biased ways of the moderators. What do you want from me Vic? All I can do is remind you that I too do not like some of Mikes posts. But what has that got to do with my answer to NN?
-
I think I can tell the difference Vic. Of course some people always make jokes at other people's expense. Being offensive and personal and then calling it a 'joke' is bullying imo.
But it's ok to attack the Eatons/Boutflours?
-
Well you certainly don't remember them thats for sure. My post was directed against NN who continues to carry on harping on an issue that we all thought to be settled. If you cannot see that kind of abuse, one who I fully expected to understand then who on here will? She has been continually offensive towards me from the very bewginning, without any reaction by myself, for what I can only describe as something within her own mind for I certainly gave her no reason to pick on me. Then when I complain to the mods, who expertly handled the situation. Instead of letting things boil over I am accused by her of being their friend and that was the reason they edited her post.
When I myself have tried my hardest to be civil on the forum. Then to cap it all I am used as an example so that you can complain about the biased ways of the moderators. What do you want from me Vic? All I can do is remind you that I too do not like some of Mikes posts. But what has that got to do with my answer to NN?
Well, I would seem to have done you a favour then as you have now fully aired your views on NN.
-
But it's ok to attack the Eatons/Boutflours?
Vic, I have never said it was ok to attack the Eatons or the Boutflours or the people who died that night. However, as this is an MOJ site supporting the belief that Jeremy Bamber is innocent you cannot be surprised that such opinions are posted on here. We mods are here to protect members from personal abuse etc., whether we do a good or bad job is up to everyone's personal opinion but we do our best.
-
Well, I would seem to have done you a favour then as you have now fully aired your views on NN.
Well don't do me any more favours vic. I expected better from you. Seems I was wrong. Makes me wonder why you are not against this abuser?
-
But it's ok to attack the Eatons/Boutflours?
How on earth can you come to that conclusion from what Maggie just said? Are you paranoid or what?
-
Alternatively it could be a 'joke'. Remember them?
Ok for 'Maggie The Mod' to 'joke' about 'cuckoos' and yet 'old' and 'ancient' are deemed to be 'offensive' and require 'editing' by an 'impartial mod'. Lofl. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well don't do me any more favours vic. I expected better from you. Seems I was wrong. Makes me wonder why you are not against this abuser?
"Abuser"...you BIG GIRLS BLOUSE. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think I can tell the difference Vic. Of course some people always make jokes at other people's expense. Being offensive and personal and then calling it a 'joke' is bullying imo.
Maggie The Mod please see my previous post re your 'cuckoo' joke.
-
"Abuser"...you BIG GIRLS BLOUSE. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Give it a rest. ::)
-
Maggie The Mod please see my previous post re your 'cuckoo' joke.
Now now NN, is that a big green spoon you're holding? ;)
-
Maggie The Mod please see my previous post re your 'cuckoo' joke.
Why does Maggie have to be addressed in those terms? I think 'Maggie' is enough.
-
"Wrongly Accused"
Your back then trouble... ;)
Talking of being 'offensive' Patti for reasons unknown you appear to take great delight in referring to me as 'trouble' even on threads/posts that lack banter. Perhaps this should be dropped after all I wouldn't want it to develop into a self-fullfilling phrophecy would I? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie The Mod please see my previous post re your 'cuckoo' joke.
NN, I would like to point out something which you should know very well. I of all people would never 'joke' about cuckoo's in the context you are quoting. It was not a joke although it was a comment which I made. I am the adoptive mother of two children who I have loved and cared for to the very best of my ability. Why should I ever find such a phrase directed at adopted children funny?
-
Why does Maggie have to be addressed in those terms? I think 'Maggie' is enough.
Oh has Maggie The Mod complained to a senior Mod? Hohoho...
Why am I addressed as 'trouble'? Say no more ... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh has Maggie The Mod complained to a senior Mod? Hohoho...
Why am I addressed as 'trouble'? Say no more ... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No NN I have only just come on the forum and I have NOT complained to anyone.
-
NN, I would like to point out something which you should know very well. I of all people would never 'joke' about cuckoo's in the context you are quoting. It was not a joke although it was a comment which I made. I am the adoptive mother of two children who I have loved and cared for to the very best of my ability. Why should I ever find such a phrase directed at adopted children funny?
Agreed my friend but surely you must see how subjective 'joking' is? You 'joke' about cuckoos/adoptees = joke. I joke about your good self, Lookout and Lugg being old/ancient and that is deemed to be 'offensive' so much that it requires editing by Patti The Plod.
-
No NN I have only just come on the forum and I have NOT complained to anyone.
Pleased to hear it. Makes a refreshing change. You're obviously developing as a person and might yet make the criteria for Filly membership . ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Agreed my friend but surely you must see how subjective 'joking' is? You 'joke' about cuckoos/adoptees = joke. I joke about your good self, Lookout and Lugg being old/ancient and that is deemed to be 'offensive' so much that it requires editing by Patti The Plod.
Whatever Patti chose to do she did, whatever I said to Vic is my personal opinion about bullying. How you can state in all seriousness that I was making a joke about adoption when it is something I have lived with for nearly 30 years and something I hope enabled me to give my two children the very best I could and would in the fact never turn my back on any child. Your insinuations are offensive NN.
-
Agreed my friend but surely you must see how subjective 'joking' is? You 'joke' about cuckoos/adoptees = joke. I joke about your good self, Lookout and Lugg being old/ancient and that is deemed to be 'offensive' so much that it requires editing by Patti The Plod.
I'm not entirely sure why I'm even attempting to explain this, but here goes..
You are taking Maggie's comment completely out of context. If memory serves there was banter going on which involved naming birds. Maggie was in no way implying that she thought the term cuckoo was funny or acceptable when applied to adoptees, other than perhaps to laugh at those people stupid enough to use the term.
Your comment regarding the ages of Maggie, Lookout and Lugg served no other purpose than to be offensive. Agreed, it was probably mildly so, but offensive all the same. If it had been the first time you had said such a thing you may have got away with it, but I recall earlier comments in a discussion with lookout in which you attributed her views to her age.
You would do well to stick with the old adage "attack the post, not the poster", does that help?
-
Oh has Maggie The Mod complained to a senior Mod? Hohoho...
Why am I addressed as 'trouble'? Say no more ... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi NN,
Maggie has not complained to me about anything. I intervened off my own back. Your attacks on her are over the top, in my opinion. You may disagree with that.
-
Could I suggest here that we all kiss and make up and put all previous comments behind us and try and get along from now on? I admit that at times my comments are sometimes over the top, hurtful and sarcastic. I apologise to NN here and now and take back everything hurtful I have said to her. :)
-
Could I suggest here that we all kiss and make up and put all previous comments behind us and try and get along from now on? I admit that at times my comments are sometimes over the top, hurtful and sarcastic. I apologise to NN here and now and take back everything hurtful I have said to her. :)
Well said Lugg!!
-
Lugg very well said I think you should all kiss and make up and have a group hug as N/N means no actual harm just likes a little banter and does post up some brilliant posts when she has a mind to. :-* :-* :-* :-* all of you.
-
Could I suggest here that we all kiss and make up and put all previous comments behind us and try and get along from now on? I admit that at times my comments are sometimes over the top, hurtful and sarcastic. I apologise to NN here and now and take back everything hurtful I have said to her. :)
Good for you Lugg, I have apologised twice to NN although unaware of what I was supposed to have done, twice is enough imo.
-
I'm not entirely sure why I'm even attempting to explain this, but here goes..
You are taking Maggie's comment completely out of context. If memory serves there was banter going on which involved naming birds. Maggie was in no way implying that she thought the term cuckoo was funny or acceptable when applied to adoptees, other than perhaps to laugh at those people stupid enough to use the term.
Your comment regarding the ages of Maggie, Lookout and Lugg served no other purpose than to be offensive. Agreed, it was probably mildly so, but offensive all the same. If it had been the first time you had said such a thing you may have got away with it, but I recall earlier comments in a discussion with lookout in which you attributed her views to her age.
You would do well to stick with the old adage "attack the post, not the poster", does that help?
You would do well to read the posts in the 'adoption debate' thread and I think you will find the ageism theme was fired up by Lookout. I seem to recall you were otherwise engaged at the time.
-
You would do well to read the posts in the 'adoption debate' thread and I think you will find the ageism theme was fired up by Lookout. I seem to recall you were otherwise engaged at the time.
Leave me out of it in case I say something that I'll be sorry for.!
-
Leave me out of it in case I say something that I'll be sorry for.!
Bring it on Golden Oldie.
-
Hi NN,
Maggie has not complained to me about anything. I intervened off my own back. Your attacks on her are over the top, in my opinion. You may disagree with that.
What 'attacks'? 'Maggie The Mod'? Lol... Childs play after "total bitch". Btw Maggie I've yet to receive apology for this or was this just a 'joke' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dt
-
What 'attacks'? 'Maggie The Mod'? Lol... Childs play after "total bitch". Btw Maggie I've yet to receive apology for this or was this just a 'joke' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dt
NN, you know that was a private conversation which should never have been posted on the forum, it was my mistake but I have a right to say thing privately just as I'm sure you do. It was in response to your baiting and actually I have apologised to you via pm and on the forum for anything I may have done to upset you but it's all pointless.
I would suggest to you no one is interested in any of this.
-
"Wrongly Accused"
Your back then trouble... ;)
Please refer to posts #1522 and #1523 where Lugg and Lookout are linking me to a previous poster and making snide comments with emoticons. When these posts were made I hadn't been on the forum for nearly two weeks.
-
NN, you know that was a private conversation which should never have been posted on the forum, it was my mistake but I have a right to say thing privately just as I'm sure you do. It was in response to your baiting and actually I have apologised to you via pm and on the forum for anything I may have done to upset you but it's all pointless.
I would suggest to you no one is interested in any of this.
[/qoute]
You will know from my pm's with you that I do not bitch and gossip unlike some! If I have anything to say I say it on the open forum. Please post up any of my pm's where you feel this is not the case. You have repeatedly sent me pm's intended for others. I don't believe I have ever been offensive, attacked or goaded anyone on this forum. Why would I? It's just a forum. :)
-
Could I suggest here that we all kiss and make up and put all previous comments behind us and try and get along from now on? I admit that at times my comments are sometimes over the top, hurtful and sarcastic. I apologise to NN here and now and take back everything hurtful I have said to her. :)
Apolgogy accepted Lugg and I too apologise to you, Lookout and Maggie and any other poster if I have ever been offensive.
Maggie is it possible that you could to do a post about Scott Lomax's book please? It's the only book I haven't read re the case as I understand it is very biased towards JB being innocent?
-
Hello N/N very well done now you can all be friends and hug and kiss :-* :-* :-* I will join in the kisses ;D
-
Mo to Yipee! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
Apolgogy accepted Lugg and I too apologise to you, Lookout and Maggie and any other poster if I have ever been offensive.
Maggie is it possible that you could to do a post about Scott Lomax's book please? It's the only book I haven't read re the case as I understand it is very biased towards JB being innocent?
(http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/flowers/smileys-flowers-719593.gif) (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/) Thank you NN.
-
(http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/flowers/smileys-flowers-719593.gif) (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/) Thank you NN.
Hey we're all now 8). Brilliant :)
-
Apolgogy accepted Lugg and I too apologise to you, Lookout and Maggie and any other poster if I have ever been offensive.
Maggie is it possible that you could to do a post about Scott Lomax's book please? It's the only book I haven't read re the case as I understand it is very biased towards JB being innocent?
Thanks for the apology NN, all forgotten. Am willing to lend you the book if you would like to read it plus Rough Justice by Tim Healey which is a personal story of the area, including
his own take on WHF murders. :) I understand you may not want to give me your address but
the offer's there if you would like to take it up. Back later.
-
Thanks for the apology NN, all forgotten. Am willing to lend you the book if you would like to read it plus Rough Justice by Tim Healey which is a personal story of the area, including
his own take on WHF murders. :) I understand you may not want to give me your address but
the offer's there if you would like to take it up. Back later.
That's a lovely gesture Maggie... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's a lovely gesture Maggie... ;D ;D ;D ;D
IJust an offer but no strings attached...... Poor Patti misery, misery. Hope you had fun and more tonight...Sunday's not looking good ;D
-
IJust an offer but no strings attached...... Poor Patti misery, misery. Hope you had fun and more tonight...Sunday's not looking good ;D
Hi Maggie. Sunday will be a chill out day...I'm just starting to perk up... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Apolgogy accepted Lugg and I too apologise to you, Lookout and Maggie and any other poster if I have ever been offensive.
Maggie is it possible that you could to do a post about Scott Lomax's book please? It's the only book I haven't read re the case as I understand it is very biased towards JB being innocent?
I'll do it tomorrow NN :)
-
(http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/flowers/smileys-flowers-719593.gif) (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/) Thank you NN.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( - that's sooooo lovely!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Apolgogy accepted Lugg and I too apologise to you, Lookout and Maggie and any other poster if I have ever been offensive.
Maggie is it possible that you could to do a post about Scott Lomax's book please? It's the only book I haven't read re the case as I understand it is very biased towards JB being innocent?
Evil, Almost Beyond Belief? by Scott Lomax
It's a while since I read this, I always avoided books on the White House Farm Murders because I believed they were biased for or against Jeremy and didn't particualarly stick to the facts.
Personally, I found it easy to read and although I already knew many of the facts and theories it did hold my attention. For anyone who has read the archives on this forum there is little you wouldn't have already read but because it's a relatively new book, published in 2008, it does include the more recent evidence which is examined in depth. Lomax spent a great deal of time discussing Jeremy's feeings about the case during the time he was working on the book but personally, I didn't find it biased. The facts were presented and the reader was left to make up their own mind. There are a few mistakes where Lomax gets his facts wrong but generally it's pretty accurate and everything is explained and discussed in depth.
It's difficult to know whether someone who considered Jeremy guilty might find the book biased mainly because Jeremy Bambers opinions are included in the book and it's really up to the individual as to whether they find that ok or not. To my mind it was an easy read with clearly laid out facts which are discussed in depth....I enjoyed it and my daughter who knew nothing about the case found it an interesting read and is now a convinced supporter of Jeremy Bamber's MOJ claim.
-
None of the books on the case maggie paint jeremy in a good light, they are all negative to him, that said they have to be to sell.
-
None of the books on the case maggie paint jeremy in a good light, they are all negative to him, that said they have to be to sell.
Haveyou read Scott Lomax Mertol? I think he was pretty fair? :)
-
Evil, Almost Beyond Belief? by Scott Lomax
It's a while since I read this, I always avoided books on the White House Farm Murders because I believed they were biased for or against Jeremy and didn't particualarly stick to the facts.
Personally, I found it easy to read and although I already knew many of the facts and theories it did hold my attention. For anyone who has read the archives on this forum there is little you wouldn't have already read but because it's a relatively new book, published in 2008, it does include the more recent evidence which is examined in depth. Lomax spent a great deal of time discussing Jeremy's feeings about the case during the time he was working on the book but personally, I didn't find it biased. The facts were presented and the reader was left to make up their own mind. There are a few mistakes where Lomax gets his facts wrong but generally it's pretty accurate and everything is explained and discussed in depth.
It's difficult to know whether someone who considered Jeremy guilty might find the book biased mainly because Jeremy Bambers opinions are included in the book and it's really up to the individual as to whether they find that ok or not. To my mind it was an easy read with clearly laid out facts which are discussed in depth....I enjoyed it and my daughter who knew nothing about the case found it an interesting read and is now a convinced supporter of Jeremy Bamber's MOJ claim.
Hi Maggie :)
Only just seen this review and I can't really say anymore that what you have pointed out...well done me duck! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie :)
Only just seen this review and I can't really say anymore that what you have pointed out...well done me duck! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks Patti, NN wanted one done :)
Howre you feeling after your Super Saturday? Hope it was fun ;) ;) x
-
Haveyou read Scott Lomax Mertol? I think he was pretty fair? :)
Hi Maggie, good review by the way. I have to say that I think it was biased but I think Lomax believes Jeremy to be innocent and as such, it's difficult for him to keep his prejudices from creeping in. I do however, think he has tried to be as fair as possible and most of the relevant facts are there - and it's very easy to read.
-
Thanks Patti, NN wanted one done :)
Howre you feeling after your Super Saturday? Hope it was fun ;) ;) x
Twas good Maggie thank you...I do feel a bit tender, but still holding up...wont be long before I hit the sack....or my son..lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie, good review by the way. I have to say that I think it was biased but I think Lomax believes Jeremy to be innocent and as such, it's difficult for him to keep his prejudices from creeping in. I do however, think he has tried to be as fair as possible and most of the relevant facts are there - and it's very easy to read.
Well yes maybe if I had read it again I may have noticed it more but need to get it back from my daughter. To be fair to Lomax he presented the facts in an unbiased way but maybe I was giving him a bit of the benefit of the doubt. However, I don't believe it was his intention to mislead.
-
I have read the book and I really so no serious bias in it. In fact he seems to face up to and point out many difficulties withing the case. More than could be said for the other books on the subject. On those we of course have a daily review in the posts of Steve-uk. So you can judge for yourself just how biased those books are.
-
I have read the book and I really so no serious bias in it. In fact he seems to face up to and point out many difficulties withing the case. More than could be said for the other books on the subject. On those we of course have a daily review in the posts of Steve-uk. So you can judge for yourself just how biased those books are.
It's really not what he says, but how he says it. There is no 'serious' bias but reading it I could tell he was on the side of innocence.
-
Evil, Almost Beyond Belief? by Scott Lomax
It's a while since I read this, I always avoided books on the White House Farm Murders because I believed they were biased for or against Jeremy and didn't particualarly stick to the facts.
Personally, I found it easy to read and although I already knew many of the facts and theories it did hold my attention. For anyone who has read the archives on this forum there is little you wouldn't have already read but because it's a relatively new book, published in 2008, it does include the more recent evidence which is examined in depth. Lomax spent a great deal of time discussing Jeremy's feeings about the case during the time he was working on the book but personally, I didn't find it biased. The facts were presented and the reader was left to make up their own mind. There are a few mistakes where Lomax gets his facts wrong but
generally it's pretty accurate and everything is explained and discussed in depth.
It's difficult to know whether someone who considered Jeremy guilty might find the book biased mainly because Jeremy Bambers opinions are included in the book and it's really up to the individual as to whether they find that ok or not. To my mind it was an easy read with clearly laid out facts which are discussed in depth....I enjoyed it and my daughter who knew nothing about the case found it an interesting read and is now a convinced supporter of Jeremy Bamber's MOJ claim.
Hi Maggie
Many thanks for the feedback/review and thanks for the offer of borrowing your copy. I think I'll get my own copy; I might find your copy has too many pages stuck together and crumbs dropping out ;). Seriously reading these second hand books ie Caffell, Wilkes and Powell has wreaked havoc with my OCD. I've got thru' what feels like a ton of anti-bacterial handwash and hand cream. Plus I like to read in bed, amongst other things (when I'm not sex starved) and I could never entertain what to my mind are 'dirty' books. Perhaps a business opportunity to get every book ever published onto an E-reader?
I will do a review for the books I've read: Caffell, Powell and Wilkes. Interestingly all these books are supposedly bias towards JB's guilt. As such I was hoping they would challenge my beliefs and yet I came away even more convinced of JB's innocence! So perhaps Scott's book will have the opposite effect!
I would hang on to you copy. When ;) JB's conviction is overturned these books could become valuable collectables ;)
-
Hello N/N never mind when Mason Doyle's book comes out in Autumn you can buy it new so it will be germ free. Did you know you can get anti bacterial spray for your nose just incase the germs jump out of the book up your nose whilst sat up in bed ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie
Many thanks for the feedback/review and thanks for the offer of borrowing your copy. I think I'll get my own copy; I might find your copy has too many pages stuck together and crumbs dropping out ;). Seriously reading these second hand books ie Caffell, Wilkes and Powell has wreaked havoc with my OCD. I've got thru' what feels like a ton of anti-bacterial handwash and hand cream. Plus I like to read in bed, amongst other things (when I'm not sex starved) and I could never entertain what to my mind are 'dirty' books. Perhaps a business opportunity to get every book ever published onto an E-reader?
I will do a review for the books I've read: Caffell, Powell and Wilkes. Interestingly all these books are supposedly bias towards JB's guilt. As such I was hoping they would challenge my beliefs and yet I came away even more convinced of JB's innocence! So perhaps Scott's book will have the opposite effect!
I would hang on to you copy. When ;) JB's conviction is overturned these books could become valuable collectables ;)
Just thought I'd offer because you asked me once if you could borrow one of the other books which I didn't have. Scott Lomax is the only one I've read, maybe I should try to get hold of some of the others, plus boxes of disposable masks and gloves?. ;)
-
Maggie just put a goldfish bowl on your head and have done with it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie just put a goldfish bowl on your head and have done with it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thats no good. You wont be able to pick your nose as others have done before you got the book.
I know what NN means. I bought a book once. I thought I'd read a few pages one night. Before I knew it I had read the whole book. Unfortunately there was a dirty dark streak along the edges of the pages where I had flicked through it. I had to buy them abother one. Advice: When going into second hand book shops don't lick your index finger when you thumb through the books. Many have probably done that before you.
-
Just thought I'd offer because you asked me once if you could borrow one of the other books which I didn't have. Scott Lomax is the only one I've read, maybe I should try to get hold of some of the others, plus boxes of disposable masks and gloves?. ;)
Hi Maggie
You are welcome to borrow mine so long as I can have them back. I thought you said you would find them 'difficult' because they emphasise the toxic June/Sheila relationship? I could always deliver them personally if you could put me up overnight with my windsurfer ;). I'm small, tidy and clean and you would hardly know I'm there apart from my incessant chatter. Is your house ultra clean? I will need proof. You seem to spend too much time on the forum to take housework seriously unless you have a cleaner? I'm not too keen on pets either. :)
-
Haveyou read Scott Lomax Mertol? I think he was pretty fair? :)
Ive not read the book maggie , with the quotes from it by steve uk he has saved me buying it, however is this the author who says at the end he thought jeremy was hiding a part of himself to him ??
-
Colin Caffell has never written another book on the case , his sole one is now quite old.
-
Ive not read the book maggie , with the quotes from it by steve uk he has saved me buying it, however is this the author who says at the end he thought jeremy was hiding a part of himself to him ??
Hi Mertol
No I think that was David James Smith, a journalist from The Times, who interviewed JB fairly recently. I'll download the link for you. Coming up...
-
Hi Mertol
No I think that was David James Smith, a journalist from The Times, who interviewed JB fairly recently. I'll download the link for you. Coming up...
Thank you NN
-
http://davidjamessmith.net/pdf_articles/DJS_bamber.pdf
Here we go Mertol :)
-
Many thanks NN , ive read the article, a few notes ive seen, the frequent reminder of the value of the estate, and those who felt they had a slice of it , several people wanting the same thing, little mention of those killed, the test by jeremy and a inmate in the prison on a red cast metal doorstop, it does draw that he has been duped , been had.
-
Ive not read the book maggie , with the quotes from it by steve uk he has saved me buying it, however is this the author who says at the end he thought jeremy was hiding a part of himself to him ??
No Mertol i think that may have been Wilkes but not sure. No Scott Lomax believes Jeremy to be innocent, he does'nt make any comments about Bambers personality if I remember rightly. ;D
-
No Mertol i think that may have been Wilkes but not sure. No Scott Lomax believes Jeremy to be innocent, he does'nt make any comments about Bambers personality if I remember rightly. ;D
And Steve-uk rarely quotes Scott and when he does he misquotes him. Basically because by his own admission he has only skim read the book in Waterstones, probably with an already biased mind.
-
Hi NN
Don't remember having any worry re. reading of June and Sheila's relationship, the reason I haven"t read the books is that I don't want to read a load of other people's opinions wrapped up as facts, however, it may be time to reconsider and give them a go.
Although I don't dispute June and Sheila had a difficult relationship, my point of view is that relationships are complex and both Sheila and June's mental health illness complicated their relationship even more. I also accept that vulnerable Sheila struggled with her mothers dogma and lack of understanding. On the otherhand, i feel it's too easy for some to just say 'Sheila hated June, well what d'you expect she wasn't Sheila's "real" mother'......I'm not suggesting at
all that you feel that way.
Anyway, :) thank you so much for your kind offer re. books, particularly your offer of free
delivery but I fear my 3 Great Danes, 4 house rabbits assorted cats....not to mention the pet rats
in the kitchen.....bear in mind the rats are caged ;D may not be to your taste. ;D ;Dx
-
Maggie now be totally honest you omitted to mention your husband amongst your pets ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie now be totally honest you omitted to mention your husband amongst your pets ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's true susie, I keep him in a cage in the kitchen too just forgot he's not one of the rats! ;D ;D
-
There's a rat in ma kitchen,what am I gonna do? Seriously though,I feel that Sheila desperately wanted Junes love. Of coarse she did! I also believe that June caused Sheila's mental illness by projecting her own mental health problems on to her. Sheila appeared to be an insecure child and therefore was vulnerable to "put downs" and "being judged". I hate to think of the impact being called a "devils child" had on Sheila, who very possibly already felt inadequate and unworthy. Allegedly,June constantly told Sheila that she was an unfit mother too!
-
That's true susie, I keep him in a cage in the kitchen too just forgot he's not one of the rats! ;D ;D
I love kids and animals.The mess they make gives you a strong resistance to germs and bugs and strengthens your immune system.
I've just rescued a big toad from a fate worse than death near a water pipe,,,and put him in the garden.
My good deed for the day.
-
Lookout....kids and pets make a house a home,don't you think?
-
I love kids and animals.The mess they make gives you a strong resistance to germs and bugs and strengthens your immune system.
I've just rescued a big toad from a fate worse than death near a water pipe,,,and put him in the garden.
My good deed for the day.
Sadly lookout, I don't have any pets these days, have had various and beloved adopted cats over the years but am now animal free. 8) 8)
-
Sadly lookout, I don't have any pets these days, have had various and beloved adopted cats over the years but am now animal free. 8) 8)
Me too,tyler. I lost my 20 year old cat last November.Was hoping that there was the odd stray knocking around,,but no,there isn't.
-
Lookout,the post you replied to was from Maggie,not me! Lol. I have a gorgeous German Shepherd and a mass of kids!
-
Me too,tyler. I lost my 20 year old cat last November.Was hoping that there was the odd stray knocking around,,but no,there isn't.
Hi lookout, that was my post. Poor little puss, I'm sure you still miss her loads. One may turn up lookout, they have radar!! ;D
-
Lookout,the post you replied to was from Maggie,not me! Lol. I have a gorgeous German Shepherd and a mass of kids!
Oh,heck,,another " senior moment " :-[
I had a German Shepherd many years ago,,and what an intelligent animal he was.
-
And Steve-uk rarely quotes Scott and when he does he misquotes him. Basically because by his own admission he has only skim read the book in Waterstones, probably with an already biased mind.
I haven't misquoted him at all:merely put my own interpretation of events on what Lomax writes as I'm perfectly at liberty to do so. I skim read the book but made notes,and if you want to criticize I suggest you furnish further detail.
-
Steve,,have you not had a good day.?
-
Sadly lookout, I don't have any pets these days, have had various and beloved adopted cats over the years but am now animal free. 8) 8)
Hi Maggie
So there's space for a bitch ;).
-
I love kids and animals.The mess they make gives you a strong resistance to germs and bugs and strengthens your immune system.
I've just rescued a big toad from a fate worse than death near a water pipe,,,and put him in the garden.
My good deed for the day.
I love children but I'm not keen on animals in the home at all.
Over the years I've found with my own children and others that regardless of all the toys, children love playing role-playing games ie customer/shopkeeper - parent/child - pupil/school teacher etc also I love asking them complex ?'s and they never say "I don't know" they always come up with the most amazing explanations! Brilliant! Hahaha a bit like some of the posters on this forum.
-
I love children but I'm not keen on animals in the home at all.
Over the years I've found with my own children and others that regardless of all the toys, children love playing role-playing games ie customer/shopkeeper - parent/child - pupil/school teacher etc also I love asking them complex ?'s and they never say "I don't know" they always come up with the most amazing explanations! Brilliant! Hahaha a bit like some of the posters on this forum.
Ha! If you knew what was dangling from your eyelashes, you would be very careful when eating a chicken breast....they fall off you know ;D ;D ;D ;D grubby little things!!!! :) :) :) :)
-
Ha! If you knew what was dangling from your eyelashes, you would be very careful when eating a chicken breast....they fall off you know ;D ;D ;D ;D grubby little things!!!! :) :) :) :)
Patti
Please don't do this to me so close to bedtime...what do you mean?
-
Patti
Please don't do this to me so close to bedtime...what do you mean?
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X Best you don't know! ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Patti
Please don't do this to me so close to bedtime...what do you mean?
Wear goggles when eating, then you won't have to worry..
-
I read Murder At White House Farm by Claire Powell earlier in the year over one day. I've now read it again at a leisurely pace and found the following excerpt telling and sad:
Excerpt from above:
"June’s expectations of her daughter were fulfilled in one respect: Sheila had matured into a graceful and very feminine young woman. She was also attractive to and attracted to men. There was nothing unusual in that, but June found it difficult to cope with what a modern teenager considered to be normal fun. The years spent in boarding school with infrequent visits to White House Farm had turned Sheila into a stranger in Tolleshunt D’Arcy. She could not adapt to a rural way of life, and likewise her own habits were totally alien to her parents. June, born and bred in the country, expected her daughter to accede to the strict regime which she had established both for the farm and for her personal conduct. June could be a hard task-master and the time spent at home, between boarding school and finishing school, became increasingly fraught.
There was tension on both sides, and June and Sheila no longer understood each other. Her daughter’s day-dreaming exasperated June, and for her part Sheila chafed at her mother’s restrictions on how and with whom she spent her time. Shortly after her seventeenth birthday, in July 1974, Sheila and June clashed head-on in an incident which was to scar both women for the rest of their lives.
During her solitary walks about the farm, Sheila met a good-looking young man helping out in the fields. They began to see a lot of each other but Sheila was careful to keep the relationship secret, aware that her mother would never permit a liaison with a farm labourer. Instead she would creep out of the farmhouse and slip unseen through the fields to a remote spot for a clandestine meeting. Sheila was inexperienced with men of her own age and her physical development far outstripped her emotional understanding. The pair became lovers quickly and recklessly. For Sheila, completely swept off her feet by passion, this was the first outpouring of love and tenderness she had ever received. Her guard was down and the pair became more audacious. It was only a matter of time before June noticed a change in Sheila’s usually docile manner. She began to watch the young woman closely.
Late one afternoon June set off in pursuit of Sheila, who once again had seized a quiet moment to steal away from the house to find her lover. After a long, fruitless search, June decided to give up and take a short cut through the fields back to the house. Two minutes later she almost stumbled over the pair as they lay – her daughter and a young farmhand making love in a ditch.
Even a sophisticated young woman would have found it difficult to talk her way out of that situation, and Sheila did not even try. June was hysterical: the incident was a catastrophe almost beyond comprehension. She hauled Sheila back to the farm, screaming all the way. She was completely devastated by her daughter’s behaviour, nothing she had ever known could have ever prepared her for such a crippling blow. Then, quite suddenly, she realised she knew the truth. Turning to her terrified daughter, June calmly explained it over and over again: Sheila was the child of the Devil, she was the Devil’s child on earth, spreading evil around her. The words sank deep into Sheila, who was almost out of her mind with fear and confusion.
It was a phrase that Sheila would never forget and which would become the root of her latent paranoia. She did not have the ability to defend herself against her mother’s frenzied outburst. Neither woman had any real idea about normal human desires and expectations: June thought Sheila’s sexual development was ungodly, the work of the Devil; Sheila disturbed by the power of her newly awakened sexuality, guiltily acknowledged that her behaviour was the result of an evil mind. Nevill was informed of the episode and reprimanded Sheila but could do little to alleviate the incredible ferocity of his wife’s reaction. The incident was kept within the family, and so there was no confidant to reassure Sheila that her actions were not evil but merely ill advised.
June Bamber had already suffered one nervous break-down and would within a few years succumb to another. Unlike most parents who catch their teenage children petting on sofas or in bus shelters, June was not able to take the incident in her stride and content herself with a stern reprimand. She unwittingly planted a seed of foreboding in her daughter that in time would grow too great for Sheila to conquer. The teenager was dangerously impressionable and did not possess the ability to vanquish superstition with logic. Her self-esteem was tenuous and had been so ever since her childhood, when she had been coldly informed of her adoption. The sense of alienation had inevitably increased when she was dispatched to boarding school and now she was more than ever an outcast in her surrogate home.
Sheila would never shake off the repercussions of that brief affair, but there was yet another, more immediate consequence to be dealt with. Sheila was pregnant, and in June’s eyes her disgrace was complete. Marriage was completely out of the question, and Sheila was clearly ill equipped to be a mother even with support of her parents. After much heart-searching Nevill and June decided there could be only one solution. Sheila did not object – she simply wanted to please her parents after causing them so much pain. The pregnancy was terminated".
-
There is no shock and awe to this paragraph in Sheilas' life. It must have happened in many a household of both adopted and biological siblings. It by no means paints a darker picture of adoptees at all,,just an inexperienced mother,of which there are many,whose experience doesn't stretch to situations such as what happened in Junes' case,so to deal with such a problem is up to the individual ( parent ) as best they can,,and to my mind,the final solution was the right one.
-
There is no shock and awe to this paragraph in Sheilas' life. It must have happened in many a household of both adopted and biological siblings. It by no means paints a darker picture of adoptees at all,,just an inexperienced mother,of which there are many,whose experience doesn't stretch to situations such as what happened in Junes' case,so to deal with such a problem is up to the individual ( parent ) as best they can,,and to my mind,the final solution was the right one.
I agree the final solution was the right one.
Not sure the author or the poster were suggesting that it had anything much to do with being adopted.
I'm sure the above, or similar, happens in many households but most don't end up discussing the theme with a consultant psychiatrist:
"During her treatment I found that Sheila had bizarre delusions about possession by the devil"...
"She said she felt as it she was caught up in a "coven of evil". These feelings appeared to be involved with her relationship with her adoptive mother, and her standards of good and evil".
Here's the link to Dr F's wit stat confirming the above:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6191
-
Hi All :)
You're not born a schizophrenic nor a psychopath in my opinion, but what happens at a vulnerable age has an effect on who you become. I don't know where Claire Powell got her information from, but Colin tells a similar story in his book.
If you look at the backgrounds on both Jeremy and Sheila it must have been more difficult for Sheila being female and having the risk of pregnancy. Poor girl had an awful time coming to grips with her abortions and feared this would stop her having children. What her mother told her about being a devil's child stuck in her mind that much is true, for Sheila would make comments regarding that not only to Colin but to her doctors.
I get the feeling that Sheila needed love and needed to be be hugged and touched. Both Sheila and Jeremy were never allowed birthday party's at home nor did they mix with villagers. They were sent away to school having been told they were adopted and this could not have been easy for either of them. Sheila met Colin she fell in love and I have no doubt that Collin loved her....but this is where it all started to go wrong. Sheila got pregnant again she married Colin in Chelmsford, they went to live in London. Jeremy traveled and when he came back he went to work away from the farm, but then decided to come back home. The rest we know and I am rambling on....What I am trying to say is that Jeremy saw his family everyday, he worked long hours, he was paid well, had money in the bank and wanted for nothing. Sheila on the other hand did...Colin was struggling to hold a job down. June took food for them and bought them a flat....June was very much in control of her two children...money and provisions were keeping both of the afloat and tied to their mother.
To be fair to June...My mother would have not liked it if she caught me with a farmhand in a ditch...Its not the sort of thing a mother would be happy about.....and not the sort of thing a parents would want villagers to know about. Sheila getting pregnant must have devastated the family and put them in shame...I know today it is more acceptable....we seem to forget that this was in the late 70's :(
-
I should have said I agree unplanned pregnancies/terminations happen with many teenagers/households but as far as I am aware most mothers: birth, adoptive, step or whatever do not tell their daughter that she is the Devil's child spreading evil on earth. That imo is emotional/mental/psychological abuse. I agree totally with the author's sentiments on the matter.
-
I will argue until the cows come home,,that it has nothing whatsoever to do with adoption. I can bet that had Sheila been their biological child,,she'd have still kicked off once she was in her teens. Some girls are like this,,and nobody but nobody can do a thing about it,,hoping one day that " they'll grow out of it ",but sadly,a lot continue on a downward spiral no matter how much support they get from the different authorities.
This " adoption " issue has been ingrained in peoples' minds,,and it's wrong. Sometimes it's to do with parenting,,but a lot of the time,it isn't,,and nobody can get into the mind of a teenager whether adopted or not.
I'd say it was down to the child on how the adoption issue is put over,once it's of the understanding that the child has been adopted. If they wish to continue a " saga " about this,then it's the child who chooses to carry that " chip " and not the parents. It's mainly those who want to make a big issue of it. It's up to a child to accept that they've been chosen out of love and to cherish that gift by nurturing as if it were your own,,and not to ever present the fact as a stigma for the rest of their lives.
Nor should it ever be a reminder in a family that some children are " different ",because they're not.
Adoption shouldn't ever come into the equation amongst family members or relatives. I'm so dead against the use of the word,never mind about the children involved.
Like it or not,,they are members of that family and remain so,,without any qualms whatsoever. They are YOUR children and should be treated as such. I feel very strongly about the subject as you can see.
-
They were June and Nevilles' children-------------------------end of.
-
I read Murder At White House Farm by Claire Powell earlier in the year over one day. I've now read it again at a leisurely pace and found the following excerpt telling and sad:
Excerpt from above:
"June’s expectations of her daughter were fulfilled in one respect: Sheila had matured into a graceful and very feminine young woman. She was also attractive to and attracted to men. There was nothing unusual in that, but June found it difficult to cope with what a modern teenager considered to be normal fun. The years spent in boarding school with infrequent visits to White House Farm had turned Sheila into a stranger in Tolleshunt D’Arcy. She could not adapt to a rural way of life, and likewise her own habits were totally alien to her parents. June, born and bred in the country, expected her daughter to accede to the strict regime which she had established both for the farm and for her personal conduct. June could be a hard task-master and the time spent at home, between boarding school and finishing school, became increasingly fraught.
There was tension on both sides, and June and Sheila no longer understood each other. Her daughter’s day-dreaming exasperated June, and for her part Sheila chafed at her mother’s restrictions on how and with whom she spent her time. Shortly after her seventeenth birthday, in July 1974, Sheila and June clashed head-on in an incident which was to scar both women for the rest of their lives.
During her solitary walks about the farm, Sheila met a good-looking young man helping out in the fields. They began to see a lot of each other but Sheila was careful to keep the relationship secret, aware that her mother would never permit a liaison with a farm labourer. Instead she would creep out of the farmhouse and slip unseen through the fields to a remote spot for a clandestine meeting. Sheila was inexperienced with men of her own age and her physical development far outstripped her emotional understanding. The pair became lovers quickly and recklessly. For Sheila, completely swept off her feet by passion, this was the first outpouring of love and tenderness she had ever received. Her guard was down and the pair became more audacious. It was only a matter of time before June noticed a change in Sheila’s usually docile manner. She began to watch the young woman closely.
Late one afternoon June set off in pursuit of Sheila, who once again had seized a quiet moment to steal away from the house to find her lover. After a long, fruitless search, June decided to give up and take a short cut through the fields back to the house. Two minutes later she almost stumbled over the pair as they lay – her daughter and a young farmhand making love in a ditch.
Even a sophisticated young woman would have found it difficult to talk her way out of that situation, and Sheila did not even try. June was hysterical: the incident was a catastrophe almost beyond comprehension. She hauled Sheila back to the farm, screaming all the way. She was completely devastated by her daughter’s behaviour, nothing she had ever known could have ever prepared her for such a crippling blow. Then, quite suddenly, she realised she knew the truth. Turning to her terrified daughter, June calmly explained it over and over again: Sheila was the child of the Devil, she was the Devil’s child on earth, spreading evil around her. The words sank deep into Sheila, who was almost out of her mind with fear and confusion.
It was a phrase that Sheila would never forget and which would become the root of her latent paranoia. She did not have the ability to defend herself against her mother’s frenzied outburst. Neither woman had any real idea about normal human desires and expectations: June thought Sheila’s sexual development was ungodly, the work of the Devil; Sheila disturbed by the power of her newly awakened sexuality, guiltily acknowledged that her behaviour was the result of an evil mind. Nevill was informed of the episode and reprimanded Sheila but could do little to alleviate the incredible ferocity of his wife’s reaction. The incident was kept within the family, and so there was no confidant to reassure Sheila that her actions were not evil but merely ill advised.
June Bamber had already suffered one nervous break-down and would within a few years succumb to another. Unlike most parents who catch their teenage children petting on sofas or in bus shelters, June was not able to take the incident in her stride and content herself with a stern reprimand. She unwittingly planted a seed of foreboding in her daughter that in time would grow too great for Sheila to conquer. The teenager was dangerously impressionable and did not possess the ability to vanquish superstition with logic. Her self-esteem was tenuous and had been so ever since her childhood, when she had been coldly informed of her adoption. The sense of alienation had inevitably increased when she was dispatched to boarding school and now she was more than ever an outcast in her surrogate home.
Sheila would never shake off the repercussions of that brief affair, but there was yet another, more immediate consequence to be dealt with. Sheila was pregnant, and in June’s eyes her disgrace was complete. Marriage was completely out of the question, and Sheila was clearly ill equipped to be a mother even with support of her parents. After much heart-searching Nevill and June decided there could be only one solution. Sheila did not object – she simply wanted to please her parents after causing them so much pain. The pregnancy was terminated".
Hi NN, I must say that event was written with enormous compassion by Claire Powell. Are we sure events happened in this way?
If it is a true re-enactment it points very clearly to June's severe inability to cope and is certainly explains how 'the devil's child' sank so deeply into Sheila's psychie. It was an event guaranteed to alienate and damage any 17 year old girl but for Sheila with her sensitive and delicate nature, maybe already struggling to cope it must have been a complete disaster setting in motion dreadful feelings of guilt and dread. What a fiasco........thanks for that NN :)
-
They were June and Nevilles' children-------------------------end of.
Lookout I would love to agree with you, but a part of me is wanting to say...yes they were, but! Its a touchy subject. Sheila made the effort to find out who her real parents were and had recently met her natural mother. She has also confided in AE about this and did not want June to know about it all. What we don't know is how June would have reacted about Sheila meeting her natural mother. I mean why did Sheila feel the need to keep this from June? There must have been a reason, did Sheila keep this from her, so not to hurt her, or was she fearful of a reaction? We don't know! but, one thing is for certain and that is that June didn't know, or was she told on the 6th August! :) :) :) :)
-
Lookout I would love to agree with you, but a part of me is wanting to say...yes they were, but! Its a touchy subject. Sheila made the effort to find out who her real parents were and had recently met her natural mother. She has also confided in AE about this and did not want June to know about it all. What we don't know is how June would have reacted about Sheila meeting her natural mother. I mean why did Sheila feel the need to keep this from June? There must have been a reason, did Sheila keep this from her, so not to hurt her, or was she fearful of a reaction? We don't know! but, one thing is for certain and that is that June didn't know, or was she told on the 6th August! :) :) :) :)
Patti,,it was Sheilas' fault that she wanted to know of her " real " parents.If she couldn't accept the ones in-situ,,June and Neville,,then it was her with the problem,,not them.
-
Hi NN, I must say that event was written with enormous compassion by Claire Powell. Are we sure events happened in this way?
If it is a true re-enactment it points very clearly to June's severe inability to cope and is certainly explains how 'the devil's child' sank so deeply into Sheila's psychie. It was an event guaranteed to alienate and damage any 17 year old girl but for Sheila with her sensitive and delicate nature, maybe already struggling to cope it must have been a complete disaster setting in motion dreadful feelings of guilt and dread. What a fiasco........thanks for that NN :)
Hi Maggie
As we know we can't accept these books as the whole truth and nothing but the truth but there are themes that run across all three: Caffell, Powell and Wilkes, and the above incident is one such theme so I'm happy to accept the general theme which is also supported by Dr F's wit stat.
-
In a lot of cases where there has been adoption,,it's usually the mothers' who seek their children,,and being that Sheilas' biological mother hadn't made contact over the years,the subject should have been put to bed. This meeting that Sheila had with her biological mother could have had a profound effect on Sheila,,as I think it did,,and only added to Sheilas' already fragile mind. No,I didn't agree with it.
-
In a lot of cases where there has been adoption,,it's usually the mothers' who seek their children,,and being that Sheilas' biological mother hadn't made contact over the years,the subject should have been put to bed. This meeting that Sheila had with her biological mother could have had a profound effect on Sheila,,as I think it did,,and only added to Sheilas' already fragile mind. No,I didn't agree with it.
Hi Lookout
Up until 2002 it was not possible for birth parents to trace their birth children due to the strict privacy laws surrounding adoption. In fact prior to 1975/6 it was not possible for adoptees to make contact with their birth parents due again to the law. I am sure you will think the law should have remained unchanged :)
-
Hi Lookout
Up until 2002 it was not possible for birth parents to trace their birth children due to the strict privacy laws surrounding adoption. In fact prior to 1975/6 it was not possible for adoptees to make contact with their birth parents due again to the law. I am sure you will think the law should have remain unchanged :)
Let Sleeping Dogs Lie,,is my motto,NN.
-
Sheila did not give any impression that she was violent or potentially violent;she was bewildered..
This is just what I would expect from Sheila given her upbringing and having to adapt to a woman such as the character of June,though the tragedy was that June herself had had mental problems which is possibly why she felt unable to discuss issues such as sex education,contraception and so on. I genuinely believe that June was trying desperately to win back the trust of her children that last year. I also believe that Nevill was the one rock in Sheila's life which is why I don't think she was the perpetrator of the massacre that August morning.
-
Lookout I would love to agree with you, but a part of me is wanting to say...yes they were, but! Its a touchy subject. Sheila made the effort to find out who her real parents were and had recently met her natural mother. She has also confided in AE about this and did not want June to know about it all. What we don't know is how June would have reacted about Sheila meeting her natural mother. I mean why did Sheila feel the need to keep this from June? There must have been a reason, did Sheila keep this from her, so not to hurt her, or was she fearful of a reaction? We don't know! but, one thing is for certain and that is that June didn't know, or was she told on the 6th August! :) :) :) :)
I believe many adopted children find it hard to tell their parents they would like to find one or other, or both natural parents. It is hopefully easier these days but in the past it was often a subject only mentioned once and then hidden back under the carpet. This must have bred feelings of guilt and disloyalty in the adoptees when they wanted to discover their roots etc. I believe every child has a different reason for meeting their natural parents and that every child has a right to know where they come from. I also believe the natural parents have a right to know how their child has developed etc, even if only by letter.
Imo the only way to deal with adopted children is to always speak of their natural parents as part of the accepted way of things and speak about it on any occasion which is appropriate, only that way can it be an acceptable part of their life. Even then it can be a difficult thing for them to deal with, it's not easy to accept that your natural mother gave you away, whatever the reason and however strong the relationship with the adoptive parents. This surely should be accepted by adoptive parents before they are able to adopt.imo.
-
Sheila did not give any impression that she was violent or potentially violent;she was bewildered..
This is just what I would expect from Sheila given her upbringing and having to adapt to a woman such as the character of June,though the tragedy was that June herself had had mental problems which is possibly why she felt unable to discuss issues such as sex education,contraception and so on. I genuinely believe that June was trying desperately to win back the trust of her children that last year. I also believe that Nevill was the one rock in Sheila's life which is why I don't think she was the perpetrator of the massacre that August morning.
Steve,,it's a known fact and a true one in that " you always hurt the one you love ". As in this case.
-
Steve,,it's a known fact and a true one in that " you always hurt the one you love ". As in this case.
Sheila didn't have the nous to plan the murders as they were implemented,with the ammunition by the telephone in the kitchen being needed to be reached quickly on three occasions as the perpetrator ran up and downstairs to reload. Sheila just didn't have that vengeful personality necessary to instigate these crimes,which is not to understate the seriousness of the illness which had been diagnosed.
-
Sheila didn't have the nous to plan the murders as they were implemented,with the ammunition by the telephone in the kitchen being needed to be reached quickly on three occasions as the perpetrator ran up and downstairs to reload. Sheila just didn't have that vengeful personality necessary to instigate these crimes,which is not to understate the seriousness of the illness which had been diagnosed.
These were random,frenzied murders and weren't planned,as these type of murders aren't. They're literally carried out on a whim,,thus the sick state of the one whose life came to an end when it was discussed about the futures of the twins.
You don't have to be vengeful to carry out such a tragedy,,just unpredictable,as Sheila was in her state of mind with all her irrational thoughts.
Her doctor,Dr.Ferguson thought her capable of killing her children,,particularly after the turning point in the conversation at dinner that night.
-
These were random,frenzied murders and weren't planned,as these type of murders aren't. They're literally carried out on a whim,,thus the sick state of the one whose life came to an end when it was discussed about the futures of the twins.
You don't have to be vengeful to carry out such a tragedy,,just unpredictable,as Sheila was in her state of mind with all her irrational thoughts.
Her doctor,Dr.Ferguson thought her capable of killing her children,,particularly after the turning point in the conversation at dinner that night.
Re that conversation, lookout. With possible talk about her competancy as a mother and her childrens future, was it possible that at some point Sheila told June that she's met her biological mother and what might have been the outcome of that.
Regarding your views on adoption. It was at the forefront of my existence. Not for one moment was I allowed to forget it. My faults, and believe me, they were countless, were all blamed on my Mother(interesting, don't you think, that the adopted one always referred to the biological one as such)thus exonerating herself from all responsibility for them and pushing me from her.
-
author=april1 link=topic=2787.msg172501#msg172501 date=136655477
Regarding your views on adoption. It was at the forefront of my existence. Not for one moment was I allowed to forget it. My faults, and believe me, they were countless, were all blamed on my Mother(interesting, don't you think, that the adopted one always referred to the biological one as such)thus exonerating herself from all responsibility for them and pushing me from her.
Interesting april because my girls had photos of the whole procedure which they had in little albums as soon as they could hold them and look at them. I always spoke of their natural mums but called each by their first names. It seemed to work and as they got older they would tell me to shut up about it, which was fine but I don't believe it would ever in my wildest dreams have occured to me to blame their considerable sins (!! ;D) on their mothers.
-
Interesting april because my girls had photos of the whole procedure which they had in little albums as soon as they could hold them and look at them. I always spoke of their natural mums but called each by their first names. It seemed to work and as they got older they would tell me to shut up about it, which was fine but I don't believe it would ever in my wildest dreams have occured to me to blame their considerable sins (!! ;D) on their mothers.
Mine was a VERY special case, Maggie. They broke the mould after they had delivered to to my set of circumstances. At least, I hope they did :D :D :D
-
Mine was a VERY special case, Maggie. They broke the mould after they had delivered to to my set of circumstances. At least, I hope they did :D :D :D
:-* :-* :-*xx
-
Re that conversation, lookout. With possible talk about her competancy as a mother and her childrens future, was it possible that at some point Sheila told June that she's met her biological mother and what might have been the outcome of that.
Regarding your views on adoption. It was at the forefront of my existence. Not for one moment was I allowed to forget it. My faults, and believe me, they were countless, were all blamed on my Mother(interesting, don't you think, that the adopted one always referred to the biological one as such)thus exonerating herself from all responsibility for them and pushing me from her.
April,,it did cross my mind as to Junes' thoughts when Sheila met her birth mother,,,but not knowing if whether June was in agreement to this meeting,or whether she wished to sever all connections,I don't know. Nor do I know what Junes reactions were either. Both,,if had been printed,would have made for some interesting reading. I can only surmise the reactions of June.
-
April,,it did cross my mind as to Junes' thoughts when Sheila met her birth mother,,,but not knowing if whether June was in agreement to this meeting,or whether she wished to sever all connections,I don't know. Nor do I know what Junes reactions were either. Both,,if had been printed,would have made for some interesting reading. I can only surmise the reactions of June.
Hi lookout, from what I have gleaned from reading, at that time I would imagine most adoptive mother's may have struggled to accept such a meeting and have seen it as an insult to themselves. So many adoptees wait until their adoptive parents have died before they make contact with natural parents.
I would guess generally the problem stems from the parents or particularly the mother who never really faces the fact that no one can own a child, natural or adopted, they have to make their own choices and we can all really only do the best we can and then hope for the best!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi lookout, from what I have gleaned from reading, at that time I would imagine most adoptive mother's may have struggled to accept such a meeting and have seen it as an insult to themselves. So many adoptees wait until their adoptive parents have died before they make contact with natural parents.
I would guess generally the problem stems from the parents or particularly the mother who never really faces the fact that no one can own a child, natural or adopted, they have to make their own choices and we can all really only do the best we can and then hope for the best!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's right,Maggie. Because of Junes' previous medical history,,I imagine that this episode upset her greatly and may have affected her in such a way as to have set her own brain off-kilter somewhat.
Maybe Jeremy would know if the conversation that evening included the " estranged " mother of Sheila,,,perhaps with mention of even going to Canada with the twins with a view to settling there and making a new life.
Whatever went on that night,,it had been heated until it got out of hand.
-
These were random,frenzied murders and weren't planned,as these type of murders aren't. They're literally carried out on a whim,,thus the sick state of the one whose life came to an end when it was discussed about the futures of the twins.
You don't have to be vengeful to carry out such a tragedy,,just unpredictable,as Sheila was in her state of mind with all her irrational thoughts.
Her doctor,Dr.Ferguson thought her capable of killing her children,,particularly after the turning point in the conversation at dinner that night.
No the thoughts were about the ability of her to project evil onto others as induced by the Devil's child remark of June:by the time of her second hospitalization these thoughts had vanished and she wrote to Ann Eaton how she missed her children. Jeremy must have caught wind of something which is why the twins were doomed. The shots were not random at all but carefully placed to incapacitate Nevill,and I just don't accept Scott Lomax's view that she could hardly miss,when she knew very little about wielding a gun,which is one of the reasons Jeremy preloaded it before he left that evening. The adoption conversation was instigated by Jeremy that Tuesday night to sow discord;Julie tells us this in her statement.
Sheila was tired all week from the party on the Saturday night,from which she was driven home early. In that final telephone call from Auntie Pam June said Sheila was off to bed,and that's exactly where she did go to be woken from slumber in the early hours by a malevolent Jeremy who had already shot dead her children just across the corridor.
-
I find it unbelievable that EP and JB's defence did not make more of this reunion and at least obtain a witness statement from Sheila's birth mother given that the event took place only weeks before the murders.
Dr F was asked what effect the reunion might have had on Sheila and he said he didn't know but that the parting may have been painful.
As part of the appeal in '02 EP obtained the letters sent by Sheila to her birth mother but as I understand it these have never been released to the defence and remain under pii.
It's all so unsatisfactory. Yet again another person benefits by remaining :-X . Sheila's birth mother is hardly likely to come forward voluntarily with anything that might incriminate Sheila as it suits her for JB to carry the can. Likewise with Colin.
-
That's right,Maggie. Because of Junes' previous medical history,,I imagine that this episode upset her greatly and may have affected her in such a way as to have set her own brain off-kilter somewhat.
Maybe Jeremy would know if the conversation that evening included the " estranged " mother of Sheila,,,perhaps with mention of even going to Canada with the twins with a view to settling there and making a new life.
Whatever went on that night,,it had been heated until it got out of hand.
It's a possibility lookout but I doubt that Jeremy would know the answer.
-
No the thoughts were about the ability of her to project evil onto others as induced by the Devil's child remark of June:by the time of her second hospitalization these thoughts had vanished and she wrote to Ann Eaton how she missed her children. Jeremy must have caught wind of something which is why the twins were doomed. The shots were not random at all but carefully placed to incapacitate Nevill,and I just don't accept Scott Lomax's view that she could hardly miss,when she knew very little about wielding a gun,which is one of the reasons Jeremy preloaded it before he left that evening. The adoption conversation was instigated by Jeremy that Tuesday night to sow discord;Julie tells us this in her statement.
Sheila was tired all week from the party on the Saturday night,from which she was driven home early. In that final telephone call from Auntie Pam June said Sheila was off to bed,and that's exactly where she did go to be woken from slumber in the early hours by a malevolent Jeremy who had already shot dead her children just across the corridor.
Those shots to the family were at close quarters,,dithery or not,,nobody could miss. Sheila was more used to handling a rifle than you imagine,having been to shooting expeditions grouse shooting,so she was familiar with them given the amount of shot she fired,knowing full well that the type of rifle doesn't always shoot to kill with one blast. That's why everyone was peppered,to make sure that they were dead.
Anyone can say they're off to bed,but it doesn't mean to say that they're actually getting into it to sleep.
The bed hadn't been slept in at all,only the top cover was depressed as though someone had just lain on top of it enough to make an impression.
-
That's right,Maggie. Because of Junes' previous medical history,,I imagine that this episode upset her greatly and may have affected her in such a way as to have set her own brain off-kilter somewhat.
Maybe Jeremy would know if the conversation that evening included the " estranged " mother of Sheila,,,perhaps with mention of even going to Canada with the twins with a view to settling there and making a new life.
Whatever went on that night,,it had been heated until it got out of hand.
I very much doubt a relocation to Canada was on the cards. At the time of the murders Sheila's birth mother hadn't even told her other children about Sheila's existence :o Which rather begs the question of whether she ever had any intention of doing so. And her husband wasn't very supportive either. Sheila had no transferable skills, qualifications, money etc so how would she have supported herself in Canada? Plus her ongoing mental health issues. Also how would Colin have felt about the twins relocating to Canada? With an ocean between the pair and the birth mother reluctant to introduce Sheila to the wider family it's difficult to see this reunion as anything other than another bitter blow for Sheila :(
-
I very much doubt a relocation to Canada was on the cards. At the time of the murders Sheila's birth mother hadn't even told her other children about Sheila's existence :o Which rather begs the question of whether she ever had any intention of doing so. And her husband wasn't very supportive either. Sheila had no transferable skills, qualifications, money etc so how would she have supported herself in Canada? Plus her ongoing mental health issues. Also how would Colin have felt about the twins relocating to Canada? With an ocean between the pair and the birth mother reluctant to introduce Sheila to the wider family it's difficult to see this reunion as anything other than another bitter blow for Sheila :(
It's what I would have thought what Sheila was thinking,NN,,just to get away. Her mind was already in turmoil as we know,,and we also know that going to Canada wasn't a practical solution either,nor an option.
It was just something that I surmised that possibly came up in the conversation,amongst other things. There'd have been a lot of hurtful things said against June,,and possibly Sheilas' own disappointment when Neville wouldn't " back her up ". The man that she leaned on had also let her down,,and that's when things came to a head.
If she herself couldn't have charge of her children,,nobody else was.
-
I very much doubt a relocation to Canada was on the cards. At the time of the murders Sheila's birth mother hadn't even told her other children about Sheila's existence :o Which rather begs the question of whether she ever had any intention of doing so. And her husband wasn't very supportive either. Sheila had no transferable skills, qualifications, money etc so how would she have supported herself in Canada? Plus her ongoing mental health issues. Also how would Colin have felt about the twins relocating to Canada? With an ocean between the pair and the birth mother reluctant to introduce Sheila to the wider family it's difficult to see this reunion as anything other than another bitter blow for Sheila :(
Yes, I should imagine because of Sheila's withdrawn and unhappy state, she may very well have believed she could move near to her natural mother in Canada and then everything would be ok. In reality this was never going to be possible. She may have built up in her head a happy ever after picture with her natural mother but unfortunately that was 20 odd years too late. Poor Sheila, more abandonment but we don't know if this was ever mentioned or had any bearing on what happened that night.
-
I very much doubt a relocation to Canada was on the cards. At the time of the murders Sheila's birth mother hadn't even told her other children about Sheila's existence :o Which rather begs the question of whether she ever had any intention of doing so. And her husband wasn't very supportive either. Sheila had no transferable skills, qualifications, money etc so how would she have supported herself in Canada? Plus her ongoing mental health issues. Also how would Colin have felt about the twins relocating to Canada? With an ocean between the pair and the birth mother reluctant to introduce Sheila to the wider family it's difficult to see this reunion as anything other than another bitter blow for Sheila :(
It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to experience a Sheila who felt totally rejected. Her biological mother had rejected her. He hadn't met the expectations of her adopted mother, thus feeling rejected by her. Her husband had found love elsewhere, rejecting her. Her biological mother had rejected her a second time by not offering her and the children a new life in Canada. The adopted father she relied upon for support seemed, on this occasion perhaps, to be withdrawing his support in favour of the adopted mother who had rejected her as the Devil's child, and there may have been the possibility that someone else would have the care of her children.
-
So many motives.
-
It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to experience a Sheila who felt totally rejected. Her biological mother had rejected her. He hadn't met the expectations of her adopted mother, thus feeling rejected by her. Her husband had found love elsewhere, rejecting her. Her biological mother had rejected her a second time by not offering her and the children a new life in Canada. The adopted father she relied upon for support seemed, on this occasion perhaps, to be withdrawing his support in favour of the adopted mother who had rejected her as the Devil's child, and there may have been the possibility that someone else would have the care of her children.
A history of rejection and abandonment, April real or imagined. It is very possible her natural mother didn't reject her as a baby but had no option but to put her up for adoption. In 1957 it wasn't just the disgrace of what was seen as an illegitimate or bastard child but also without family support it was nigh on impossible for a single mother to manage. With no support from the state or childcare, what was she supposed to do?. However, as mentioned before to Sheila there would have been no excuse, not really, she would have seen herself as not wanted by her mother.
Of course the mother no doubt mourned for her baby daughter but the grown up girl was a stranger...sadly, that's often the reaction of the mother.
-
A history of rejection and abandonment, April real or imagined. It is very possible her natural mother didn't reject her as a baby but had no option but to put her up for adoption. In 1957 it wasn't just the disgrace of what was seen as an illegitimate or bastard child but also without family support it was nigh on impossible for a single mother to manage. With no support from the state or childcare, what was she supposed to do?. However, as mentioned before to Sheila there would have been no excuse, not really, she would have seen herself as not wanted by her mother.
Of course the mother no doubt mourned for her baby daughter but the grown up girl was a stranger...sadly, that's often the reaction of the mother.
Maggie, I wasn't trying to imply that Christine gave her baby up willingly, only the impression formed by Sheila. I would also suggest that the feeling that she had been rejected by Christine could have been further compounded when June accused her of being the Devil's child. It could have given her the reason for the rejection. It may even have told her she was unworthy of being loved by anyone.
-
Those shots to the family were at close quarters,,dithery or not,,nobody could miss. Sheila was more used to handling a rifle than you imagine,having been to shooting expeditions grouse shooting,so she was familiar with them given the amount of shot she fired,knowing full well that the type of rifle doesn't always shoot to kill with one blast. That's why everyone was peppered,to make sure that they were dead.
Anyone can say they're off to bed,but it doesn't mean to say that they're actually getting into it to sleep.
The bed hadn't been slept in at all,only the top cover was depressed as though someone had just lain on top of it enough to make an impression.
Of course,because it was a warm Essex Summer's night. Schizophrenics in a state of psychosis don't get all 25 bullets to hit target,and according to Mike June was attacked first which makes sense if the panic button is located in the bedside cabinet. Nevill by necessity couldn't be pelleted with bullets in the bedroom because it was necessary through Jeremy's wicked plan to have made a call in the kitchen.
No mentally ill person could have seriously thought this out if by any chance the Haloperidol medication had worn off,which in any case it hadn't.
-
Maggie, I wasn't trying to imply that Christine gave her baby up willingly, only the impression formed by Sheila. I would also suggest that the feeling that she had been rejected by Christine could have been further compounded when June accused her of being the Devil's child. It could have given her the reason for the rejection. It may even have told her she was unworthy of being loved by anyone.
No april, I'm agreeing with you just emphasising the situation that a single woman at that time faced :) I agree to Sheila it would be rejection which would be compounded by every negative event.
-
Of course,because it was a warm Essex Summer's night. Schizophrenics in a state of psychosis don't get all 25 bullets to hit target,and according to Mike June was attacked first which makes sense if the panic button is located in the bedside cabinet. Nevill by necessity couldn't be pelleted with bullets in the bedroom because it was necessary through Jeremy's wicked plan to have made a call in the kitchen.
No mentally ill person could have seriously thought this out if by any chance the Haloperidol medication had worn off,which in any case it hadn't.
But steve, if it was Sheila, what would she have to work out. Sheila didn't know anything about a plan to get her Dad in the kitchen and Mike reckons June was shot first which if it were true may just be coincidental if the panic buttonwas in the cabinet. Don't really find your argument convincing.
-
It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to experience a Sheila who felt totally rejected. Her biological mother had rejected her. He hadn't met the expectations of her adopted mother, thus feeling rejected by her. Her husband had found love elsewhere, rejecting her. Her biological mother had rejected her a second time by not offering her and the children a new life in Canada. The adopted father she relied upon for support seemed, on this occasion perhaps, to be withdrawing his support in favour of the adopted mother who had rejected her as the Devil's child, and there may have been the possibility that someone else would have the care of her children.
Her biological mother had exceeded all expectations when they met at Heathrow Airport and they were going to stay in touch. Dr. Hugh Ferguson wrote that Sheila would not have committed suicide as she had too much to live for. June was trying her hardest that last year to make amends for previous disagreements,which were exaggerated anyway as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. Nevill was there on the other end of a telephone line,along with his and his wife's money to come to Sheila in due course.
Jeremy had worked all this out with his remark to Doris Foakes that he "wasn't sharing any of my money with Sheila". I suggest that you all look a little further in that direction and you will find the pieces do begin to slot in together.
-
But steve, if it was Sheila, what would she have to work out. Sheila didn't know anything about a plan to get her Dad in the kitchen and Mike reckons June was shot first which if it were true may just be coincidental if the panic buttonwas in the cabinet. Don't really find your argument convincing.
It was Jeremy's plan which he thought foolproof,but the weakness which he couldn't see was that he needed a pretext to get to the Farm to prevent early entry in case Sheila hadn't died with just the one bullet. The weakness necessitated a telephone call from Nevill in the kitchen so he had to be placed there and not killed in the bedroom without venturing out from its confines.
-
Further excerpt from author Claire Powell - Murder At White House Farm
Sheila's reunion with her birth mother:
As divorce proceedings began, Sheila pondered on her apparent inability to sustain the love of those close to her. She wondered whether first her mother and then her husband had sensed an innate evil in her. Or was it simply that neither her adoptive mother nor her soon-to-be ex-husband had the requisite understanding to form a real affinity with her? After several months, Sheila believed she had found the answer. She was convinced that the only person who could understand her was her real mother, and she began the search to find her.
By the time the divorce was finalised, Sheila had managed to achieve her objective. After more than a year she had eventually traced her natural mother to Canada and contacted her with the help of British and Canadian social services. The two women arranged to meet at Heathrow Airport – their first sight of each other since Sheila had been an eight-week-old baby. According to one of the social workers involved, this initial meeting was full of tension and very stressful. Sheila, however, was delighted. There was a further meeting and Sheila confided to a girlfriend that her long-lost mother was all she had hoped for,
‘You know it was marvellous,’ Sheila told her friend Sonja. ‘My mother was just like me. I mean she was very affectionate and she liked me straight away. I knew immediately she was my real mother and I felt much more at home with her than with my other mother. We were crying and hugging and I’m going to see a lot of her, I’m going to make sure I see her regularly. She lives in Canada, but now I’ve found her I’m going to make sure that we keep together. Now I’ve found her I want to see her’.
‘She told me that her mother had been a student when she got pregnant,’ Sonja remembered. ‘She couldn’t manage to keep on studying and bring up a baby and had been forced to have her adopted. I think her father was a student as well. Sheila was delighted they had met up and that her mother was so pleased to see her,’ said Sonja.
The joyful effects of the reunion did not last very long, however. Soon Sheila’s natural mother returned to Canada and those close to Sheila realised with concern that her behaviour was becoming increasingly erratic
Right off for the daily run now. How else is a nun, albeit a naughty one, to dispel excess energy? ;) At least being active on the forum, especially all this typing, lessens the chance of impure thoughts creeping in ;) Seriously I think I may have said it before but I can't help thinking that at the root of the case lies religion especially in connection with chastity and sexual morality.
-
Of course,because it was a warm Essex Summer's night. Schizophrenics in a state of psychosis don't get all 25 bullets to hit target,and according to Mike June was attacked first which makes sense if the panic button is located in the bedside cabinet. Nevill by necessity couldn't be pelleted with bullets in the bedroom because it was necessary through Jeremy's wicked plan to have made a call in the kitchen.
No mentally ill person could have seriously thought this out if by any chance the Haloperidol medication had worn off,which in any case it hadn't.
If it was so imperative to get Nevill into the kitchen, how does it explain his blood being found on the stair way. That would suggest that he was trying to be prevented from reaching the kitchen.
-
No the route cause of these crimes is the greed which was fostered and sustained albeit unwittingly by Margaret Thatcher and her era of government which left the haves and the have nots clique. Jeremy jumped on the bandwagon and determined that he would be in the former group.
-
Her biological mother had exceeded all expectations when they met at Heathrow Airport and they were going to stay in touch. Dr. Hugh Ferguson wrote that Sheila would not have committed suicide as she had too much to live for. June was trying her hardest that last year to make amends for previous disagreements,which were exaggerated anyway as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. Nevill was there on the other end of a telephone line,along with his and his wife's money to come to Sheila in due course.
Jeremy had worked all this out with his remark to Doris Foakes that he "wasn't sharing any of my money with Sheila". I suggest that you all look a little further in that direction and you will find the pieces do begin to slot in together.
Hello Steve_uk
Yes and wasn't Doris Foakes, or a family member, given notice to leave Bourtree Cottage by the Bambers so that they could install JB? Also I believe a member of the Foakes family was made redundant from WHF when JB committed himself to working full-time on the farm? I guess Doris Foakes may have been a little aggrieved?
-
Her biological mother had exceeded all expectations when they met at Heathrow Airport and they were going to stay in touch. Dr. Hugh Ferguson wrote that Sheila would not have committed suicide as she had too much to live for. June was trying her hardest that last year to make amends for previous disagreements,which were exaggerated anyway as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. Nevill was there on the other end of a telephone line,along with his and his wife's money to come to Sheila in due course.
Jeremy had worked all this out with his remark to Doris Foakes that he "wasn't sharing any of my money with Sheila". I suggest that you all look a little further in that direction and you will find the pieces do begin to slot in together.
So how does it explain that when Colin phoned her, she told him that her other children didn't know about Sheila so it seems highly unlikely that a close bond would exist between them. Also Dr Ferguson based what he said on the last time he had seen Sheila which was approximately 12 earlier. Much had happened to her emotionally since then. He was also aware that she had left the clinic before she was fully recovered.
-
If it was so imperative to get Nevill into the kitchen, how does it explain his blood being found on the stair way. That would suggest that he was trying to be prevented from reaching the kitchen.
We don't know the reason,but Nevill possibly turned round to confront his son as he moved from the hallway to the kitchen,and made it as far as the blue and white chequered worktop where his bloodstained fingerprints were to be found. But it's not credible that he reached the telephone that morning.
-
No the route cause of these crimes is the greed which was fostered and sustained albeit unwittingly by Margaret Thatcher and her era of government which left the haves and the have nots clique. Jeremy jumped on the bandwagon and determined that he would be in the former group.
How do you know the motive was greed when there's as much evidence to support that it may have been caused by real or perceived rejections experienced by Sheila and/or multiple failures: June, school, Colin, hairdressing job, modelling, birth mother and potential loss of twins? :(
-
No the route cause of these crimes is the greed which was fostered and sustained albeit unwittingly by Margaret Thatcher and her era of government which left the haves and the have nots clique. Jeremy jumped on the bandwagon and determined that he would be in the former group.
Jeremy didn't need a bandwagon to jump on, he'd grown up on it.
-
How do you know the motive was greed when there's as much evidence to support that it may have been caused by real or perceived rejections experienced by Sheila and/or multiple failures: June, school, Colin, hairdressing job, modelling, birth mother and potential loss of twins? :(
Colin knew that the rumour spread by Jeremy that first morning at Goldhanger was a complete pack of lies,along with the rest of his story. Grandparents had no rights in law whatsoever at that time and I'm surprised that many of you are swallowing Jeremy's tissue of lies hook,line and sinker,entertaining as the stories of Sheila desirous of emigrating to Canada with the twins are..
-
We don't know the reason,but Nevill possibly turned round to confront his son as he moved from the hallway to the kitchen,and made it as far as the blue and white chequered worktop where his bloodstained fingerprints were to be found. But it's not credible that he reached the telephone that morning.
It still doesn't explain why, if it was so imperative to get Nevill to the kitchen, he wasn't encouraged down the stairs into the kitchen unharmed.
-
Colin knew that the rumour spread by Jeremy that first morning at Goldhanger was a complete pack of lies,along with the rest of his story. Grandparents had no rights in law whatsoever at that time and I'm surprised that many of you are swallowing Jeremy's tissue of lies hook,line and sinker,entertaining as the stories of Sheila desirous of emigrating to Canada with the twins are..
Please can you point me in the direction of anywhere Jeremy has said that Sheila was desirous of moving her and the twins to Canada. As for grandparents having no rights in law at the time, you are correct, but imagine how you might feel as a grandparent if you had only just found out that ex in law, your grandchildrens main carer was about to remarry. Were there any guarantees that they would stay in the same area. Suppose they wanted to take the children to the other end of the country. I imagine that you, like they, would want to make cintingency plans.
-
Colin knew that the rumour spread by Jeremy that first morning at Goldhanger was a complete pack of lies,along with the rest of his story. Grandparents had no rights in law whatsoever at that time and I'm surprised that many of you are swallowing Jeremy's tissue of lies hook,line and sinker,entertaining as the stories of Sheila desirous of emigrating to Canada with the twins are..
Never mind what the law states. Such a conversation was undertaken by Colin's mother and June about foster care:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=970.0;attach=4911
It is possible that June was using this in an attempt to persuade Sheila to move back to Essex. Please remember we are talking of what appears to have been a domineering and controlling June and a very vulnerable Sheila. If June said "you might lose the twins to foster care" can you really imagine Sheila being assertive and quoting her rights? Dr F confirms that she was unlikely to remain passive about any threat, real or percieved, over the loss of the twins.
-
Her biological mother had exceeded all expectations when they met at Heathrow Airport and they were going to stay in touch. Dr. Hugh Ferguson wrote that Sheila would not have committed suicide as she had too much to live for. June was trying her hardest that last year to make amends for previous disagreements,which were exaggerated anyway as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. Nevill was there on the other end of a telephone line,along with his and his wife's money to come to Sheila in due course.
Jeremy had worked all this out with his remark to Doris Foakes that he "wasn't sharing any of my money with Sheila". I suggest that you all look a little further in that direction and you will find the pieces do begin to slot in together.
Unfortunately, that meeting was the first flush but it would be very unusual if the relationship contined in that vein. Sheila and her natural mother would have to get to know and understand each other. It takes patience, total commitment and understanding. You cannot just meet at an airport and everythings wonderfull forever, it doesn't work like that.imo
-
Unfortunately, that meeting was the first flush but it would be very unusual if the relationship contined in that vein. Sheila and her natural mother would have to get to know and understand each other. It takes patience, total commitment and understanding. You cannot just meet at an airport and everythings wonderfull forever, it doesn't work like that.imo
Dr Ferguson confirms Sheila's emotional immaturity and the way Colin and Claire Powell describe the reunions as told by Sheila to Colin and girlfriends really confirms this. For someone like Sheila I feel this reunion was simply too much without proper support and counselling.
-
Hello Maggie I don't know much about adoption but I would have thought when you meet your birth Mother for the first it would be like meeting a stranger and it would take many meetings to learn to get to know one another and in many cases it ends up in tears I have seen it happen. I suspect in some cases a child may not even like his/her birth parents the child will bond with the parents who have brought them up from being babies and they will be their parents. Just my opinion of course.
-
Hello Maggie I don't know much about adoption but I would have thought when you meet your birth Mother for the first it would be like meeting a stranger and it would take many meetings to learn to get to know one another and in many cases it ends up in tears I have seen it happen. I suspect in some cases a child may not even like his/her birth parents the child will bond with the parents who have brought them up from being babies and they will be their parents. Just my opinion of course.
Susan Hello :) You're absolutely correct. I know of cases where people have gone blundering in like bulls in china shops, with beautiful happy ever after fantasies in their heads, only for it to end in disaster and tears. It should never be undertaken without ongoing support and counselling, especially so in the case of someone as emotionally immature as Sheila.
-
Hello Maggie I don't know much about adoption but I would have thought when you meet your birth Mother for the first it would be like meeting a stranger and it would take many meetings to learn to get to know one another and in many cases it ends up in tears I have seen it happen. I suspect in some cases a child may not even like his/her birth parents the child will bond with the parents who have brought them up from being babies and they will be their parents. Just my opinion of course.
You're right susie I've two children, both found their birth mothers and both reacted differently, it's all so complicated and convolvulated on both sides it's not surprising many such relationships fail. The higher the expectations the harder the fall I would think, therefore would imagine Sheila was ripe for a fall if she hadn't yet experienced it....poor Sheila.
-
Hello Maggie I don't know much about adoption but I would have thought when you meet your birth Mother for the first it would be like meeting a stranger and it would take many meetings to learn to get to know one another and in many cases it ends up in tears I have seen it happen. I suspect in some cases a child may not even like his/her birth parents the child will bond with the parents who have brought them up from being babies and they will be their parents. Just my opinion of course.
Hi Susan
Yes it is! I can't understand Sheila with all this hugging and crying. Why would you want to hug and cry with a stranger? When I met my birth mother I was petrified she would get all emotional as I knew I wouldn't. Thankfully she didn't. We met outside Liberty, Regent St, London. Went to a pub for a drink and then had lunch in a restuarant down Regent Street. We were together for about 5/6 hours but we never met again.
I wasn't close to my adoptive mother but I certainly didn't feel I wanted another mother at 22 yoa. One was quite enough ;D
Bizarrely I did feel a connection with my birth father when we met many years later and we formed an on-going relationship and just seemed to hit it off as I did with other members of his family.
-
It still doesn't explain why, if it was so imperative to get Nevill to the kitchen, he wasn't encouraged down the stairs into the kitchen unharmed.
Jeremy couldn't estimate how many slugs from a rifle manufactured to kill vermin would be needed to kill a human being,but one pellet as Mike suggested was put into Nevill would wound if not incapacitate and make him more pliable should Jeremy have to take him head on,which is of course what happened.
-
Never mind what the law states. Such a conversation was undertaken by Colin's mother and June about foster care:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=970.0;attach=4911
It is possible that June was using this in an attempt to persuade Sheila to move back to Essex. Please remember we are talking of what appears to have been a domineering and controlling June and a very vulnerable Sheila. If June said "you might lose the twins to foster care" can you really imagine Sheila being assertive and quoting her rights? Dr F confirms that she was unlikely to remain passive about any threat, real or percieved, over the loss of the twins.
This is old ground which was gone over when June offered to buy Colin and Sheila an antiques shop in the country and was turned down flat by Sheila who wanted to remain in London.
-
Jeremy couldn't estimate how many slugs from a rifle manufactured to kill vermin would be needed to kill a human being,but one pellet as Mike suggested was put into Nevill would wound if not incapacitate and make him more pliable should Jeremy have to take him head on,which is of course what happened.
No,,I couldn't envisage Jeremy being able to estimate anything seeing that he had the brain of an amoeba.
-
Unfortunately, that meeting was the first flush but it would be very unusual if the relationship contined in that vein. Sheila and her natural mother would have to get to know and understand each other. It takes patience, total commitment and understanding. You cannot just meet at an airport and everythings wonderfull forever, it doesn't work like that.imo
No,but I bet if Sheila had met a June frump Mark II at the airport that day we'd never hear the last of it from the Jeremy supporters;similarly if Sheila had told a Goldsmiths' student "I f***ing hate my parents" you'd be singing it from the rooftops on every possible occasion.
-
No,but I bet if Sheila had met a June frump Mark II at the airport that day we'd never hear the last of it from the Jeremy supporters;similarly if Sheila had told a Goldsmiths' student "I f***ing hate my parents" you'd be singing it from the rooftops on every possible occasion.
Sorry Steve, that's a bit over the top, are you addressing that to me because I feel it's uncalled for.No I wouldn't be doing any such thing and why are you calling June a frump?
-
Hi N/N that is great how you took to your Father and his side of the family and I can understand the relationship with your Mother did not go well as she was a complete stranger to you. I have a friend who had a little girl adopted as she was unmarried at 17 and later she married and had two more children. Later her daughter and her were reunited and everything was wonderful for a time then her daughter became jealous of her half bros and sister so then she decided to make her Mother pay by hurting her all the time as she must have felt hurt herself at being rejected and the other two had not. I asked my friend in all honesty which children did she have the most love for and she said the two she had brought up. Anyway all ended in sadness and they do not keep contact now.
-
No,,I couldn't envisage Jeremy being able to estimate anything seeing that he had the brain of an amoeba.
Well maybe you could discuss this with Aunt Agatha and reach a compromise. In any case he had animal cunning when he told Julie he thought he knew why the Police were attempting to get him onside by being friends,only to trip him up in his statements.
Of course an innocent man would have nothing to hide,and there would be no need whatsoever for the incessant "don't knows" and "no comments".
-
Hi Susan
Yes it is! I can't understand Sheila with all this hugging and crying. Why would you want to hug and cry with a stranger? When I met my birth mother I was petrified she would get all emotional as I knew I wouldn't. Thankfully she didn't. We met outside Liberty, Regent St, London. Went to a pub for a drink and then had lunch in a restuarant down Regent Street. We were together for about 5/6 hours but we never met again.
I wasn't close to my adoptive mother but I certainly didn't feel I wanted another mother at 22 yoa. One was quite enough ;D
Bizarrely I did feel a connection with my birth father when we met many years later and we formed an on-going relationship and just seemed to hit it off as I did with other members of his family.
NaNu, I can understand it. It sounds as if you grew up feeling that most of your needs had been met. It sounds as if you felt valued and had been valued. Under such circumstances you may not have had the same feelings of emotion as did Sheila/would I. Perhaps you wouldn't have had the feeling of having at last found that which you'd been deprived of for so long. I do however, share the feeling of not wanting another mother. One was decidedly enough!!!!!
-
Well maybe you could discuss this with Aunt Agatha and reach a compromise. In any case he had animal cunning when he told Julie he thought he knew why the Police were attempting to get him onside by being friends,only to trip him up in his statements.
Of course an innocent man would have nothing to hide,and there would be no need whatsoever for the incessant "don't knows" and "no comments".
Jeremy had nothing to hide. He was probably brassed off with the " incessant " repetetive questions.
-
Well maybe you could discuss this with Aunt Agatha and reach a compromise. In any case he had animal cunning when he told Julie he thought he knew why the Police were attempting to get him onside by being friends,only to trip him up in his statements.
Of course an innocent man would have nothing to hide,and there would be no need whatsoever for the incessant "don't knows" and "no comments".
Steve, that's simple psychology and how every one works, trained to obtain information without resorting to torture. They feign empathy and if they're not very good at it they're very likely to get responses like "don't know" and "no comment."
-
Steve, that's simple psychology and how every one works, trained to obtain information without resorting to torture. They feign empathy and if they're not very good at it they're very likely to get responses like "don't know" and "no comment."
Jeremy had no fall back position. He almost got away with his wicked crime during which time forensic evidence was destroyed. But once he was in the dock he had no defence,no story of any significance to tell. In this regard it was similar to the Wayne Williams case in America,criminals who think their case cannot be proved and therefore maintain innocence at all costs.
-
Jeremy had no fall back position. He almost got away with his wicked crime during which time forensic evidence was destroyed. But once he was in the dock he had no defence,no story of any significance to tell. In this regard it was similar to the Wayne Williams case in America,criminals who think their case cannot be proved and therefore maintain innocence at all costs.
We must of course remember the the same evidence which was destroyed could also have proved his innocence.
-
Jeremy had no fall back position. He almost got away with his wicked crime during which time forensic evidence was destroyed. But once he was in the dock he had no defence,no story of any significance to tell. In this regard it was similar to the Wayne Williams case in America,criminals who think their case cannot be proved and therefore maintain innocence at all costs.
Jeremy wasn't clever enough to think that his case could be proved.Especially as he hadn't done anything in the first place.
What story was he supposed to have told if he was innocent.? What is there to say.What can you say in your defence other than you didn't kill anyone.?
-
This is old ground which was gone over when June offered to buy Colin and Sheila an antiques shop in the country and was turned down flat by Sheila who wanted to remain in London.
Errr no it wasn't. The phone conversation took place after Sheila was discharged from hospital on 29th March '85 some 18 weeks prior to the murders.
-
Errr no it wasn't. The phone conversation took place after Sheila was discharged from hospital on 29th March '85 some 18 weeks prior to the murders.
NaNu!!! THANKYOU!!! That information lends even more weight to Dr Ferguson's assessment of Sheila being barely worth the paper it was written on. I had calculated, wrongly, that he had previously spoken with Sheila approx. 12 weeks prior to the murders and that much had changed for the worst for her in that time. That it had been 18 weeks since he'd last spoken with her, IMO, only makes his statement relevant to that occasion and no more yet one of our posters frequently touts out the good Dr's assessment of her as being the latest thing in psychiatric evaluation. It is only, IMO, but his evaluation tells us ONLY about her mental state 18 weeks prior to the murders and as such, little value can be attributed to it.
-
I was reading snippets from Blood relations last night. Wilkes describing what Julie said in court.
She advises Jeremy that the house is too beautiful to burn down and would be difficult to torch because it was too big. Jeremy agreed she said.
She later described an argument they had because Jeremy was dithering about booking an holiday. He had told her it would be difficult to get time off from the farm. I was annoyed she said. He eventually told her he could not take time off from the farm and said he would give her some money so she could go away with Liz.
The other bit I read was that when Sheila was having one of her episodes when Freddie was there. He called 3 doctors that night and only one them gave her medication....the other two, Sheila would not allow them to examine her. I never knew this, I thought only one doctor had visited her. Freddie was clearly concerned and according to Wilkes, Freddie's statem threw more weight to the police convincing them that it could have been a murder/suicide. :-\ :) :) :)
Pages 182 onwards.
-
I was reading snippets from Blood relations last night. Wilkes describing what Julie said in court.
She advises Jeremy that the house is too beautiful to burn down and would be difficult to torch because it was too big. Jeremy agreed she said.
She later described an argument they had because Jeremy was dithering about booking an holiday. He had told her it would be difficult to get time off from the farm. I was annoyed she said. He eventually told her he could not take time off from the farm and said he would give her some money so she could go away with Liz.
The other bit I read was that when Sheila was having one of her episodes when Freddie was there. He called 3 doctors that night and only one them gave her medication....the other two, Sheila would not allow them to examine her. I never knew this, I thought only one doctor had visited her. Freddie was clearly concerned and according to Wilkes, Freddie's statem threw more weight to the police convincing them that it could have been a murder/suicide. :-\ :) :) :)
Pages 182 onwards.
Hi Patti,,in the first line about " the house being too beautiful to burn down ",,,I take that more as a question from Julie,,rather than a statement,,,,as in her cunning way,she was waiting for a " negative " reaction from Jeremy,,,,and instead,," he'd agreed ". Would a criminal ever agree not to do something.?
Do you get my drift.? She was one cow.!
I knew that there were 3 doctors BTW,,,and that Freddie was traumatised/scared that night.
-
I didn't even know the woman,,,but can see right through her.! Her tactics stank.
-
Hi Patti,,in the first line about " the house being too beautiful to burn down ",,,I take that more as a question from Julie,,rather than a statement,,,,as in her cunning way,she was waiting for a " negative " reaction from Jeremy,,,,and instead,," he'd agreed ". Would a criminal ever agree not to do something.?
Do you get my drift.? She was one cow.!
I knew that there were 3 doctors BTW,,,and that Freddie was traumatised/scared that night.
Freddie must have been terrified to call out 3 different doctors that night Patti/lookout I had no idea either Patti. I would imagine he was traumatised it must have been a terrifying experience for him. He said he feared for his safety.
-
I was reading snippets from Blood relations last night. Wilkes describing what Julie said in court.
She advises Jeremy that the house is too beautiful to burn down and would be difficult to torch because it was too big. Jeremy agreed she said.
She later described an argument they had because Jeremy was dithering about booking an holiday. He had told her it would be difficult to get time off from the farm. I was annoyed she said. He eventually told her he could not take time off from the farm and said he would give her some money so she could go away with Liz.
The other bit I read was that when Sheila was having one of her episodes when Freddie was there. He called 3 doctors that night and only one them gave her medication....the other two, Sheila would not allow them to examine her. I never knew this, I thought only one doctor had visited her. Freddie was clearly concerned and according to Wilkes, Freddie's statem threw more weight to the police convincing them that it could have been a murder/suicide. :-\ :) :) :)
Pages 182 onwards.
Patti, Good Bank Holiday Monday :) Thankyou for reminding me. I think we all pull out different pieces from the book.
Do you not find it curious that this young man who supposedly hates his 'kin parents and supposedly would have no trouble killing them, can't book a holiday because it's a busy time at the farm, something he supposedly hates so much that he might use every possible excuse not to be there. Do I detect something of a budding control freak in Julie?
-
Something more than a control freak,April.I'd have said a " budding criminal " judging by her mind.
If there'd been anyone I'd have been wary of,,,it would have been her.
-
Hi Patti,,in the first line about " the house being too beautiful to burn down ",,,I take that more as a question from Julie,,rather than a statement,,,,as in her cunning way,she was waiting for a " negative " reaction from Jeremy,,,,and instead,," he'd agreed ". Would a criminal ever agree not to do something.?
Do you get my drift.? She was one cow.!
I knew that there were 3 doctors BTW,,,and that Freddie was traumatised/scared that night.
Hi Lookout :)
What strikes me is that she had discussed this with him, telling him that the house was too beautiful to burn down....the fact he agreed in the end suggests her involvement or was this a blatant lie...Its not the conversation you would have with your boyfriend is it? I think she wanted her own way and when she did not get it, she argued with him and she tells the court that when she asked him if he loved her...He said he didn't know and he asked her if she thought he was handling it all OK...To me this is a clear sign of Jeremy not knowing how to handle the situation at all and was still in a state of shock and in the middle of all this he had to cope with her demands of him booking a holiday, but he put the running of the farm first......
Remember this is only a book.... ;) :) :) :)
-
Hi Lookout :)
What strikes me is that she had discussed this with him, telling him that the house was too beautiful to burn down....the fact he agreed in the end suggests her involvement or was this a blatant lie...Its not the conversation you would have with your boyfriend is it? I think she wanted her own way and when she did not get it, she argued with him and she tells the court that when she asked him if he loved her...He said he didn't know and he asked her if she thought he was handling it all OK...To me this is a clear sign of Jeremy not knowing how to handle the situation at all and was still in a state of shock and in the middle of all this he had to cope with her demands of him booking a holiday, but he put the running of the farm first......
Remember this is only a book.... ;) :) :) :)
Patti,,,the evil woman was putting words into Jeremys' mouth. She was so manipulating and a bad lot.
No wonder Jeremy ended the relationship,,,her mind was sick.
-
Freddie must have been terrified to call out 3 different doctors that night Patti/lookout I had no idea either Patti. I would imagine he was traumatised it must have been a terrifying experience for him. He said he feared for his safety.
Hi Maggie :)
According to the book. Freddie was concerned and thought Sheila might be violent against him and others. When Freddie fetched the medication her mother in law was on her way out. Sheila had kicked her out. Freddie stayed the night and states that she would sit calm then go running round the house, thumping walls, herself and shouting that Freddie was the devil....He rang NB up and wanted him to come over, but NB said it was not possible and that he would come over first thing in the morning. He episode lasted all night long....I was amazed that 3 doctors had seen her during the night....I only though one had been to see her....I am not sure if there is any truth to that Maggie, I suspect there might be... :) :) :) :)
-
Patti,,,the evil woman was putting words into Jeremys' mouth. She was so manipulating and a bad lot.
No wonder Jeremy ended the relationship,,,her mind was sick.
I wouldn't have trusted this harridan as far as I could throw her. She lied her way through that courtroom,,,and couldn't have given a damn about Jeremy,,,,she never did.! Just his money.
-
Patti, Good Bank Holiday Monday :) Thankyou for reminding me. I think we all pull out different pieces from the book.
Do you not find it curious that this young man who supposedly hates his 'kin parents and supposedly would have no trouble killing them, can't book a holiday because it's a busy time at the farm, something he supposedly hates so much that he might use every possible excuse not to be there. Do I detect something of a budding control freak in Julie?
A good bank holiday to you too...lovely April.
I am in the same frame of mind, on that April. If she did not get her own way, then it was lip on the floor jobbo. Bar of soap in the gob...pillow over the face, music box thrown at the mirror....is there any wonder he went else where. Yes, he choose to work on the farm instead of going on holiday. Folkes said he was very interested in farming, yet we hear from those who want to believe that he wasn't..... ;) :) :) :)
-
Hi Maggie :)
According to the book. Freddie was concerned and thought Sheila might be violent against him and others. When Freddie fetched the medication her mother in law was on her way out. Sheila had kicked her out. Freddie stayed the night and states that she would sit calm then go running round the house, thumping walls, herself and shouting that Freddie was the devil....He rang NB up and wanted him to come over, but NB said it was not possible and that he would come over first thing in the morning. He episode lasted all night long....I was amazed that 3 doctors had seen her during the night....I only though one had been to see her....I am not sure if there is any
truth to that Maggie, I suspect there might be... :) :) :) :)
Yes I always found it a little strange Ralph left Sheila like that all night, if he usually
calmed her down I can only assume he didnt realise Sheila was in such a dangerous state. Maybe this explains why he thought he could control Sheila when she 'got hold of the gun' maybe hed never seen her at her worst. Should imagine Freddie would have run a mile if hed seen Sheila with a gun after his experiences that night in Maida Vale?
-
It wouldn't surprise me if JM hadn't fed poor Sheila some of her nastiness to inflame an already sick mind. Particularly about June and her religion. JM puts me in mind of having been a spiteful individual,,and I wouldn't have put anything past her.She had no option but to skoot to hell out of it.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if JM hadn't fed poor Sheila some of her nastiness to inflame an already sick mind. Particularly about June and her religion. JM puts me in mind of having been a spiteful individual,,and I wouldn't have put anything past her.She had no option but to skoot to hell out of it.
Lookout, hello :) Rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that Julie probably wasn't on close terms with any of Jeremy's family and as Jeremy seemed not to be closely connected either, therefore not spending time with them, I think it reasonable to assume that Julie didn't either. There would be no reason to think that she would have spent time or socialzed with Sheila apart from Jeremy. I think you may be correct in your assessment of Julie as spiteful.
-
Yes I always found it a little strange Ralph left Sheila like that all night, if he usually
calmed her down I can only assume he didnt realise Sheila was in such a dangerous state. Maybe this explains why he thought he could control Sheila when she 'got hold of the gun' maybe hed never seen her at her worst. Should imagine Freddie would have run a mile if hed seen Sheila with a gun after his experiences that night in Maida Vale?
Maggie Hello :) If we look at this from another angle, Sheila had not been long out of hospital so Nevill could be forgiven for taking a breather and thinking that for the time being at least, she would be well enough to free him from "those" phonecalls. If I recall, "that" call came in August and isn't August the start of Harvest time? The busiest time in the farming calender, late nights, early mornings, grabbing every available second of daylight and he gets a call asking him to drive to London to sort his daughter out AGAIN. Maybe he'd had one of those days when everything had gone wrong and Sheila's problem was one ask too many.
-
Lookout, hello :) Rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that Julie probably wasn't on close terms with any of Jeremy's family and as Jeremy seemed not to be closely connected either, therefore not spending time with them, I think it reasonable to assume that Julie didn't either. There would be no reason to think that she would have spent time or socialzed with Sheila apart from Jeremy. I think you may be correct in your assessment of Julie as spiteful.
Hi April,,,JM would certainly have picked up on Sheilas' illness,which would have given her another string to her bow in that because Jeremy wasn't as quick-thinking as she was,,that whatever was fed to Jeremy,it would sound convincing..Such as the fact that when charged,,it was said that Jeremy said that his sister was a " nutter ".Not his language,,but that which was fed to him. He was so brainwashed by JM,that he was beginning to speak her language and think her thoughts.
Her psyche would have been working overtime.
-
Yes I always found it a little strange Ralph left Sheila like that all night, if he usually
calmed her down I can only assume he didnt realise Sheila was in such a dangerous state. Maybe this explains why he thought he could control Sheila when she 'got hold of the gun' maybe hed never seen her at her worst. Should imagine Freddie would have run a mile if hed seen Sheila with a gun after his experiences that night in Maida Vale?
Freddie said that when NB turned up the next morning, Sheila became a different person...but this did lead to NB booking her into St Andrews.
This is also interesting. Sheila rang one of her friends and told her she was bored, so the friend invited her over, this is where Christine Heath (nurse from Notts) meets Sheila for the first time and she had been told what a stunning woman she was. In the book, Wilkes says Christine noted that when Sheila turned up she was amazed to find that her makeup was all over the place and her hair was greasy and she appeared vacant, only talking about herself when asked.
The following day her friend invited Sheila Colin and twins to a party. Christine was also present and described Sheila as being totally different from the previous time she had seen her. Her makeup was lovely, her hair was beautiful and she was immaculately dressed. Christine also observed that she never once played with the children like the other mothers did and that she stayed very close to Colin all the time she was there. Isn't it sad... :(
-
Freddie said that when NB turned up the next morning, Sheila became a different person...but this did lead to NB booking her into St Andrews.
This is also interesting. Sheila rang one of her friends and told her she was bored, so the friend invited her over, this is where Christine Heath (nurse from Notts) meets Sheila for the first time and she had been told what a stunning woman she was. In the book, Wilkes says Christine noted that when Sheila turned up she was amazed to find that her makeup was all over the place and her hair was greasy and she appeared vacant, only talking about herself when asked.
The following day her friend invited Sheila Colin and twins to a party. Christine was also present and described Sheila as being totally different from the previous time she had seen her. Her makeup was lovely, her hair was beautiful and she was immaculately dressed. Christine also observed that she never once played with the children like the other mothers did and that she stayed very close to Colin all the time she was there. Isn't it sad... :(
The description of Sheila is spot on Patti. I do know from present experience of someone sick.
-
The description of Sheila is spot on Patti. I do know from present experience of someone sick.
I wonder where NB's wallet was? Does anyone know what happened to that? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I wonder where NB's wallet was? Does anyone know what happened to that? :-\ :-\ :-\
Daft question,Patti. ;D
-
Daft question,Patti. ;D
It might be, but what happened to it? who found it or was it never recovered? Jeremy had asked where it was when he visited the farm after the tragedies...I'll see what I can dig up about it. If it went missing or not...You know what I am like dontcha....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It might be, but what happened to it? who found it or was it never recovered? Jeremy had asked where it was when he visited the farm after the tragedies...I'll see what I can dig up about it. If it went missing or not...You know what I am like dontcha....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is what I mean by it being a daft question,Patti.Not questioning your intelligence. :-*
I is being facetious.
-
This is what I mean by it being a daft question,Patti.Not questioning your intelligence. :-*
I is being facetious.
I know Lol...........I like to confuse hahahha ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I know Lol...........I like to confuse hahahha ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yeeeeeesssss,,I know you do. ;)
-
Yeeeeeesssss,,I know you do. ;)
I can't anything about NB's wallet....Only that RB checked it, according to AE for Basil Cock...so therefore it was not missing...So that puts my theory out of the WINDOW! lol ;D ;D ;D
-
I can't anything about NB's wallet....Only that RB checked it, according to AE for Basil Cock...so therefore it was not missing...So that puts my theory out of the WINDOW! lol ;D ;D ;D
Well not quite IMHO.But that's me. ;D
-
Jeremy alleges that there was around five hundred pounds in Neville's wallet and that RWB pocketed it. He said that when he brought up the subject with RWB,he looked embarrassed!
-
Jeremy alleges that there was around five hundred pounds in Neville's wallet and that RWB pocketed it. He said that when he brought up the subject with RWB,he looked embarrassed!
Same as I thought,tyler.
-
Maggie Hello :) If we look at this from another angle, Sheila had not been long out of hospital so Nevill could be forgiven for taking a breather and thinking that for the time being at least, she would be well enough to free him from "those" phonecalls. If I recall, "that" call came in August and isn't August the start of Harvest time? The busiest time in the farming calender, late nights, early mornings, grabbing every available second of daylight and he gets a call asking him to drive to London to sort his daughter out AGAIN. Maybe he'd had one of those days when everything had gone wrong and Sheila's problem was one ask too many.
It was early Summer(Blood Relations Chapter 24),so unlikely to have been August.
-
Jeremy alleges that there was around five hundred pounds in Neville's wallet and that RWB pocketed it. He said that when he brought up the subject with RWB,he looked embarrassed!
How would Bamber know how much was in there and what evidence have you that Bobby 'pocketed it'?
Why would the family put information into statements if there was anything underhanded and I respectfully suggest that Bamber was in full agreement of these early actions by the relatives to protect property.
-
How would Bamber know how much was in there and what evidence have you that Bobby 'pocketed it'?
Why would the family put information into statements if there was anything underhanded and I respectfully suggest that Bamber was in full agreement of these early actions by the relatives to protect property.
To be fair to Tyler she does prefix her post with "Jeremy alleges". She is not claiming it as true and of course there is no proof. It was Bambers words, not hers.
-
Thank you Lugg. The allegation comes from one of the books on the case. Unlike Vic's allegation that during the murders,Neville went to the kitchen to try to reach a panic alarm...that didn't even exist! He said the relatives believe that is what happened. So either vic lied or the relatives did!
-
Thank you Lugg. The allegation comes from one of the books on the case. Unlike Vic's allegation that during the murders,Neville went to the kitchen to try to reach a panic alarm...that didn't even exist! He said the relatives believe that is what happened. So either vic lied or the relatives did!
An apology not enough for you Tyler?
-
Thank you Lugg. The allegation comes from one of the books on the case. Unlike Vic's allegation that during the murders,Neville went to the kitchen to try to reach a panic alarm...that didn't even exist! He said the relatives believe that is what happened. So either vic lied or the relatives did!
Any chance of a full explanation regarding , your comment ' you got the wrong end of the stick ' regarding the ' panic alarm ' ? Vidvic
After claiming on here it is a ' fact ' that a panic alarm was fitted !!
-
Any chance of a full explanation regarding , your comment ' you got the wrong end of the stick ' regarding the ' panic alarm ' ? Vidvic
After claiming on here it is a ' fact ' that a panic alarm was fitted !!
I could do no more than apologise Jon. I'm not prepared to go further.
-
Any chance of a full explanation regarding , your comment ' you got the wrong end of the stick ' regarding the ' panic alarm ' ? Vidvic
After claiming on here it is a ' fact ' that a panic alarm was fitted !!
To be fair to Vic he has admitted his mistake elsewhere on the forum and has apologised for the confusion caused. I think he truly believed it was fitted and that the the word of the relatives was good enough for him. It does however show Vic to be an honest chap in my humble opinion.
-
The apology was honourable,but did not explain who the story came from,yourself or the relatives. It is important to know the answer to this in order to not affect the credibility of any future postings that you make regarding the relatives.
-
The apology was honourable,but did not explain who the story came from,yourself or the relatives. It is important to know the answer to this in order to not affect the credibility of any future postings that you make regarding the relatives.
The mistake was all mine Tyler. It was a relative that called me to say that it was wrong and I immediately put it right.
-
I could do no more than apologise Jon. I'm not prepared to go further.
I think you could , but it's up to you , you love jumping on other people's mistakes ,
Why did it take somebody so long to correct you ?
What was you told first time , when you had it explained to you ?
-
The apology was honourable,but did not explain who the story came from,yourself or the relatives. It is important to know the answer to this in order to not affect the credibility of any future postings that you make regarding the relatives.
That is a good point Tyler. Unfortunately Vic is at a disadvantage as he has only the relative's testimonies to go by as of course does Hartley.
-
I think you could , but it's up to you , you love jumping on other people's mistakes ,
Why did it take somebody so long to correct you ?
What was you told first time , when you had it explained to you ?
And this time I jumped in on my own mistake. Or would you prefer if I carried on arguing for something which I knew not to be true. How can I accuse others of lying if I'm prepared to do the same?
-
And this time I jumped in on my own mistake. Or would you prefer if I carried on arguing for something which I knew not to be true. How can I accuse others of lying if I'm prepared to do the same?
That's fair enough but can you explain , what you was told initially and how you got confused ? , seems a simple enough question .
-
That's fair enough but can you explain , what you was told initially and how you got confused ? , seems a simple enough question .
Because it has never been published then no, I'm not prepared to say what the Relatives believe Nevill was trying to achieve.
Unfortunately Tesko has a habit of incorporating elements of what I've published about the case to make further allegations fit into whatever theory he's pushing at the time and I'm not prepared to allow him this possibility.
-
That's fair enough but can you explain , what you was told initially and how you got confused ? , seems a simple enough question .
With respect Jon, it's a shame you don't question Tesko with the same vigour.
-
In all fairness,the truth of the alarms came first from Jeremy. He told my friend and I posted about it on the forum. It put the theory to bed regarding the allegation that Jeremy purposely set off a "panic alarm" to test police response PRIOR to the murders. It does make one wonder how much more has been manipulated with regards to the case,in order to paint Jeremy in a bad light! I feel that it is Jeremy himself that deserves the apology!
-
In all fairness,the truth of the alarms came first from Jeremy. He told my friend and I posted about it on the forum. It put the theory to bed regarding the allegation that Jeremy purposely set off a "panic alarm" to test police response PRIOR to the murders. It does make one wonder how much more has been manipulated with regards to the case,in order to paint Jeremy in a bad light! I feel that it is Jeremy himself that deserves the apology!
Maybe you can balance this piece of truth with, lets say, the lie that he called Ann to ask for some money back?...... Or that Ann had sold Oak Farm?.... If he apologises for these then I'll apologise for my mistake...
-
In all fairness,the truth of the alarms came first from Jeremy. He told my friend and I posted about it on the forum. It put the theory to bed regarding the allegation that Jeremy purposely set off a "panic alarm" to test police response PRIOR to the murders. It does make one wonder how much more has been manipulated with regards to the case,in order to paint Jeremy in a bad light! I feel that it is Jeremy himself that deserves the apology!
I thought it was Caroline that first argued against me? A few years ago I thought, only thought, not an allegation, that Bamber said there WAS a panic alarm in the GDS days.... GDS made a statement about it.
-
Vidvic,I know nothing about any telephone call that Jeremy did or did not make to AE,so really cannot comment. With regards to Oak Farm,whether Jeremy alleges that it has or hasn't been sold really has no relevance in this case whatsoever. Maybe somebody wrongly informed him that the farm was sold and he has simply repeated this.It wasn't exactly a malicious allegation and was damaging to no-one at all.
-
I thought it was Caroline that first argued against me? A few years ago I thought, only thought, not an allegation, that Bamber said there WAS a panic alarm in the GDS days.... GDS made a statement about it.
It was me who mentioned my thoughts re the panic button because I had doubts about it all along given that it isn't mentioned anywhere. I remember someone saying that Jeremy had tested response times a few weeks prior to the murders but I didn't accept it because more would most certainly have been made of it. During the big discussion you and I had (recently) Tyler backed me up after having spoken to her friend who asked Jeremy and that solidified my thoughts.
-
Because it has never been published then no, I'm not prepared to say what the Relatives believe Nevill was trying to achieve.
Unfortunately Tesko has a habit of incorporating elements of what I've published about the case to make further allegations fit into whatever theory he's pushing at the time and I'm not prepared to allow him this possibility.
So you were told by the family , what they believed NB was trying to do , and you have been mistaken into believing NB was going for a panic alarm , it would be interesting to hear what
words , you mistook for panic alarm .
I believe you have previously also stated on here that JB set this alarm off , where did you get this information from ?
-
So you were told by the family , what they believed NB was trying to do , and you have been mistaken into believing NB was going for a panic alarm , it would be interesting to hear what
words , you mistook for panic alarm .
I believe you have previously also stated on here that JB set this alarm off , where did you get this information from ?
Jon this has been into many times and we'll just all have to agree to disagree. Some contend the panic alarm was in the bedside cabinet in the master bedroom,others argue there was no panic alarm fitted until after the murders. The incident to which you allude I believe was told by farm secretary Barbara Wilson though I stand to be corrected on this.
-
Jon this has been into many times and we'll just all have to agree to disagree. Some contend the panic alarm was in the bedside cabinet in the master bedroom,others argue there was no panic alarm fitted until after the murders. The incident to which you allude I believe was told by farm secretary Barbara Wilson though I stand to be corrected on this.
And refers to the alarm that was fitted 'after' the tragedy. But Jon is asking a very different question.
-
Hey Patti blow me down with that feather found on the table at WHF I've just stumbled across another of egap1's post. He/she will have the top three threads on the discussion board 8) 8) 8)
Anyway I've come across a book entitled "Life Means Life" by Nick Appleyard. It contains a summary for each individual serving quite literally a life sentence:
"Jailed forever : true stories of Britain's most evil killers".
It obviously includes JB under the heading "Tonight's The Night". Normal rubbish including the following which I haven't previously picked up on:
"Later he treated a group of friends to a £6,000 holiday to Holland and flew one friend out to St Tropez for a five-star jaunt".
I'm just reading it again to check for anything else.
-
The only other thing not previously read about :
"At his family's funeral, nine days later, Jeremy Bamber was a mess. 'He was terribly distraught through the service and could barely walk behind the coffins,' recalled his cousin, David Boutflour. 'But when we were 100 yards down the road, out of sight of the [press] cameras and other people, Jeremy looked back at us and gave us the biggest grin. It was chilling. Peter, my brother-in-law, turned to me and said, "He did it, didn't he?".
-
The only other thing not previously read about :
"At his family's funeral, nine days later, Jeremy Bamber was a mess. 'He was terribly distraught through the service and could barely walk behind the coffins,' recalled his cousin, David Boutflour. 'But when we were 100 yards down the road, out of sight of the [press] cameras and other people, Jeremy looked back at us and gave us the biggest grin. It was chilling. Peter, my brother-in-law, turned to me and said, "He did it, didn't he?".
And also out of the way of any witnesses that didn't think he was guilty - kinda convenient?? ::) ::)
-
The holidays are not new news. The Holland trip included Jeremy,Julie and Brett. I believe this was the holiday on which Julie claims she was raped and blamed Jeremy because "he wasn't there"? The St Tropez trip was just Jeremy and Brett. Was it not this holiday that upon their return they were arrested at Dover?
-
The holidays are not new news. The Holland trip included Jeremy,Julie and Brett. I believe this was the holiday on which Julie claims she was raped and blamed Jeremy because "he wasn't there"? The St Tropez trip was just Jeremy and Brett. Was it not this holiday that upon their return they were arrested at Dover?
You are right tyler, they were arrested returning from St Tropez.
I have never heard about Julie being raped, that's a new one on me.
-
The holidays are not new news. The Holland trip included Jeremy,Julie and Brett. I believe this was the holiday on which Julie claims she was raped and blamed Jeremy because "he wasn't there"? The St Tropez trip was just Jeremy and Brett. Was it not this holiday that upon their return they were arrested at Dover?
Hi Tyler
Yes I was aware of the hols but not the monetary amounts and level of service ie 6k and first class. Yes my post is a bit garbled.
I thought when JM claims she was raped it was whilst in France/abroad unaccompanied by JB.
-
Did JM report the rape?
-
Did JM report the rape?
Probably not.
-
Probably not.
Morning Lookout
I think the forum has only briefly touched on the subject of JM's rape. I guess if it's true we should consider what effect this might have had on her. I've read she blamed JB for not being with her :-\
If for whatever reason she made it up then this IMO points to there being something not right with her mental state and is evidence of her ability to lie over serious matters and accuse (male) of a serious crime.
In JB's wit stat he refers to her step-father abusing her (not sure if he actually uses the word 'abuse' and can't be bothered to look but some sort of maltreatment - violent I think). There seems to be a bit of a pattern here where she's accusing men of serious offences:
Stepfather - maltreatment
Anonymous - rape
JB - 5 x murders
If all true she's incredibly unlucky and if not what's going on in her head to make up such things?
Despite the above she puts herself forward to identify the 5 victims of WHF tragedy?
-
Morning N/N how ya today. Perhaps JM was seeking attention especially from males, again identifying the bodies was maybe her seeking attention again. Some females do make up stories for some bizarre reason maybe to do with their childhood or something lacking in their childhood. She certainly got the attention she was craving when Jeremy was sent to prison for life. :'(
-
Morning Lookout
I think the forum has only briefly touched on the subject of JM's rape. I guess if it's true we should consider what effect this might have had on her. I've read she blamed JB for not being with her :-\
If for whatever reason she made it up then this IMO points to there being something not right with her mental state and is evidence of her ability to lie over serious matters and accuse (male) of a serious crime.
In JB's wit stat he refers to her step-father abusing her (not sure if he actually uses the word 'abuse' and can't be bothered to look but some sort of maltreatment - violent I think). There seems to be a bit of a pattern here where she's accusing men of serious offences:
Stepfather - maltreatment
Anonymous - rape
JB - 5 x murders
If all true she's incredibly unlucky and if not what's going on in her head to make up such things?
Despite the above she puts herself forward to identify the 5 victims of WHF tragedy?
Good morning,NN. I agree that JM was an attention seeker,,and now realise that whatever had gone on in her home life,,would have had a bearing on her behaviour,,which I would have thought was full of drama at times. Also a tendency to tell lies would have been her way of having " power " over whoever it might be. One thing for sure,,she was never true to herself,,and unless she has changed,that trait remains through life. In other words,living a life of pretence to impress others,,when in reality,that's not the " true you ".
I wouldn't have said that JM was a genuine person at all.Certainly not someone that you would trust,,as has been proved when you can convince the world that your ex was a murderer.
JM's actions at the trial must have knocked Jeremy sideways,,as he didn't appear to know what a " slanging match " was at the time,,or he wouldn't have remained as silent as he did. He certainly didn't expect their lives together to be played out in the way it was,just so that she could " get her own back " for being dumped. Though Jeremy wouldn't have realised that at the time,because JM was streets ahead where deceit and morals were concerned.
-
Good morning,NN. I agree that JM was an attention seeker,,and now realise that whatever had gone on in her home life,,would have had a bearing on her behaviour,,which I would have thought was full of drama at times. Also a tendency to tell lies would have been her way of having " power " over whoever it might be. One thing for sure,,she was never true to herself,,and unless she has changed,that trait remains through life. In other words,living a life of pretence to impress others,,when in reality,that's not the " true you ".
I wouldn't have said that JM was a genuine person at all.Certainly not someone that you would trust,,as has been proved when you can convince the world that your ex was a murderer.
JM's actions at the trial must have knocked Jeremy sideways,,as he didn't appear to know what a " slanging match " was at the time,,or he wouldn't have remained as silent as he did. He certainly didn't expect their lives together to be played out in the way it was,just so that she could " get her own back " for being dumped. Though Jeremy wouldn't have realised that at the time,because JM was streets ahead where deceit and morals were concerned.
Lookout, reading your words, I'm hearing "Drama Queen." Could there have been sooooo much drama in her early life, courtesy of parental rifts, abusive "steps" that it became her "normal" and if it wasn't there it had to be created? In none of the situations in which she has involvement does she seem content to remain in the background. She's at the forefront at all times. It COULD just be a "ME, ME, ME" thing OR it could be a need for danger and excitement, and if it's not forthcoming, there would be a need to invent it. This, of course, begs the question of how far would she be willing to go to coerce Jeremy into providing her with what she needed. I'm not saying that he wouldn't have been up for much of what was suggested/offered. After all, he'd had a taste of what life in the wider world could offer, but if he'd made the decision that it wasn't going to be too long before he'd be required to stay on the farm, he may have been pleased to think that some excitement had come into his life, rather than he having to go looking for it.................the problem is, it can become wearing, too much of a good thing. MIGHT this have contributed to the reasons for Jeremy dumping her. Did her tantrums start to pall? Did he object to waking up to find a pillow over his face? Was he embarrassed by rows in public? Did he start to see her differently after she told him that if she couldn't have him, no one else would? Maybe her neediness made her too clinging, too demanding.
-
Funny,I was thinking about all this last night! It occurred to me that JM didn't appear to show any emotion toward ANYTHING unless it was concerned directly with HER. No emotion expressed when JB allegedly told her he planned to do away with his family,neither when he allegedly told he he hired a hitman to carry it out,no emotion at the morgue or the funeral. It seemed to only appear when she realised she was losing Jeremy. Jealousy,tries to smother him,throwing things,temper tantrums...and finally revenge?
-
Funny,I was thinking about all this last night! It occurred to me that JM didn't appear to show any emotion toward ANYTHING unless it was concerned directly with HER. No emotion expressed when JB allegedly told her he planned to do away with his family,neither when he allegedly told he he hired a hitman to carry it out,no emotion at the morgue or the funeral. It seemed to only appear when she realised she was losing Jeremy. Jealousy,tries to smother him,throwing things,temper tantrums...and finally revenge?
Yet you only know of these things because of Julie;it comes from the mouth of a frightened girl whose character was not perfect like us all but who did not bargain for murder and told a warts and all tale with the unpromising likelihood that she would be believed.
-
Yet you only know of these things because of Julie;it comes from the mouth of a frightened girl whose character was not perfect like us all but who did not bargain for murder and told a warts and all tale with the unpromising likelihood that she would be believed.
As you appear to have intimate knowledge of JM are you able and willing to shed any light on her rape and/or violence suffered at the hands of her step-father?
-
Yet you only know of these things because of Julie;it comes from the mouth of a frightened girl whose character was not perfect like us all but who did not bargain for murder and told a warts and all tale with the unpromising likelihood that she would be believed.
Steve, why is it that you are the only one here who sees Julie as a "frightened girl"?
-
It's funny you're all quick to talk about courtesy but this hangs on a thread whilst discussing Colin and Julie. I'm all for free speech but can we put at least Julie's ordeal to one side as any sane person would whilst discussing this case,and tread carefully with Colin who has lost two sons which I personally doubt if I could make a recovery from.
-
I know one thing,,everyone was selfish.There was poor Sheila struggling with her health,no support,,a husband who cast her aside because he couldn't " hack it " instead of singularly seeking help ( it was his wife afterall ) then rubs her nose into it by flaunting another woman on his arm.Where was his sensitivity when he knew that Sheila was ill.?
The Bambers themselves kept the illness to themselves.Julie and Jeremy were too full of themselves to even notice that all wasn't well. The relatives didn't know the half of it.
What a shower.!
-
It's funny you're all quick to talk about courtesy but this hangs on a thread whilst discussing Colin and Julie. I'm all for free speech but can we put at least Julie's ordeal to one side as any sane person would whilst discussing this case,and tread carefully with Colin who has lost two sons which I personally doubt if I could make a recovery from.
Steve, you're very quick to throw onto others any responsibility you may own. Might this be because you find it dificult to apologize?
Nobody here would deny the magnitude of Colin's loss. Some of us may understand just how much guilt is tied in with that. IMO, one NEVER recovers from grief but it very slowly retreats to a place where, for the most part, it doesn't fully overwhelm us as it had previously.
As for what you see as Julie's ordeal, I saw on her face, expressions NO different from Jeremy's. I can accept that Jeremy, not previously having lost his whole family, had no idea of how to be, but I find her lack of emotion inexplicable. When my beloved partners young son was killed, he shed tears only in my presence because that's where he felt safe. At the funeral, I wept copiously the tears he couldn't. I cried for his son. I cried for him because I couldn't cope with HIS loss. Julie remained fixed throughout. If nit wasn't in her to cry for those little boys, for the loss of his sister and parents. Surely she could have found it in her to cry for the man she supposedly loved so much that if she couldn't have him, no one else would.
-
Steve, you're very quick to throw onto others any responsibility you may own. Might this be because you find it dificult to apologize?
Nobody here would deny the magnitude of Colin's loss. Some of us may understand just how much guilt is tied in with that. IMO, one NEVER recovers from grief but it very slowly retreats to a place where, for the most part, it doesn't fully overwhelm us as it had previously.
As for what you see as Julie's ordeal, I saw on her face, expressions NO different from Jeremy's. I can accept that Jeremy, not previously having lost his whole family, had no idea of how to be, but I find her lack of emotion inexplicable. When my beloved partners young son was killed, he shed tears only in my presence because that's where he felt safe. At the funeral, I wept copiously the tears he couldn't. I cried for his son. I cried for him because I couldn't cope with HIS loss. Julie remained fixed throughout. If nit wasn't in her to cry for those little boys, for the loss of his sister and parents. Surely she could have found it in her to cry for the man she supposedly loved so much that if she couldn't have him, no one else would.
Jeremy was blubbering enough for both of them. Starnge that her emotion in the witness box suddenly becomes crocodile tears.
-
Steve,,sorry and sad to say that the woman was as hard as nails. No tears at the thought of Jeremy serving life. JMs' tears flowed when it suited.
-
Jeremy was blubbering enough for both of them. Starnge that her emotion in the witness box suddenly becomes crocodile tears.
Even stranger that she seemed able to turn them on and off at will. You know Steve, it's really quite easy to admit to being wrong. If you practise saying "I'm sorry" in a mirror you'll soon get the hang of it.
-
Even stranger that she seemed able to turn them on and off at will. You know Steve, it's really quite easy to admit to being wrong. If you practise saying "I'm sorry" in a mirror you'll soon get the hang of it.
I realize that the David Bain release has given Jeremy and his legal team a smidgen of hope,and to this end you have to knock not only Julie but all the relatives and Basil Cock,Charles Marsden,James Richards and Doris Foakes,but you won't succeed because the relatives have children who would live in fear were Jeremy ever to be released,let alone Julie and her family in Winnipeg.
-
Steve,,what do you suppose Jeremy would do on release,,that those who put him there would be afraid of.?
-
Steve,,what do you suppose Jeremy would do on release,,that those who put him there would be afraid of.?
And by what means would he, penniless, get to Winnipeg?
-
And by what means would he, penniless, get to Winnipeg?
Oh there's the matter of compensation for wrongful incarceration but I'm glad you've slanted your argument in favour of there not being a payout should Jeremy wangle a release on some technicality or other.
-
Oh there's the matter of compensation for wrongful incarceration but I'm glad you've slanted your argument in favour of there not being a payout should Jeremy wangle a release on some technicality or other.
What argument are you imagining that to be, Steve. I was merely enquiring how a penniless man would make his way to Winnipeg, thats presuming that he would wish to, when there might well be the more pressing needs of food and shelter. Frankly I see no reason for him ever to wish setting eyes on Julie again.
-
Or indeed any of the extended family. It's Jeremy who'd need protecting on release,,nobody else.
-
Morning N/N how ya today. Perhaps JM was seeking attention especially from males, again identifying the bodies was maybe her seeking attention again. Some females do make up stories for some bizarre reason maybe to do with their childhood or something lacking in their childhood. She certainly got the attention she was craving when Jeremy was sent to prison for life. :'(
Hi Susan
I hope you're well.
I get the feeling there's something not right with JM. I ask myself what the statistical chances are of one female encountering all 3 of the following:
1. Physical abuse at the hands of step-father
2. Rape by unidentified male
3. Boyfriend of <2 yrs murdering 5 members of his adoptive family.
Steve_uk appears to have intimate knowledge of JM and in an earlier post I asked him if he was able and willing to shed any further light on 1 and 2 = no response.
-
Hi Susan
I hope you're well.
I get the feeling there's something not right with JM. I ask myself what the statistical chances are of one female encountering all 3 of the following:
1. Physical abuse at the hands of step-father
2. Rape by unidentified male
3. Boyfriend of <2 yrs murdering 5 members of his adoptive family.
Steve_uk appears to have intimate knowledge of JM and in an earlier post I asked him if he was able and willing to shed any further light on 1 and 2 = no response.
NaNu HI :) I suggested "Drama Queen" So used to it within the family for the reasons you outline that life with out it isn't normal She then has to seek it, ie excitement/danger, cause it to be where she is AND be in the centre of it.
-
NaNu HI :) I suggested "Drama Queen" So used to it within the family for the reasons you outline that life with out it isn't normal She then has to seek it, ie excitement/danger, cause it to be where she is AND be in the centre of it.
Hi April
I think you're probably right. I just struggle to understand how she sleeps at night knowing her 'evidence' was partly responsible for convicting a young innocent man to prison for life for the heinous crime of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family.
-
Hi April
I think you're probably right. I just struggle to understand how she sleeps at night knowing her 'evidence' was partly responsible for convicting a young innocent man to prison for life for the heinous crime of murdering his entire immediate adoptive family.
NaNu, I'm certain you understand that for certain personality types, histrionic is the one which comes to mind immediately, for whom only one person exists, THEM. Life for them is not about how they impact on others' lives but how others impact on theirs. So in this case it will be about if Jeremy had done what she wanted, whatever it may have been, and, I had no choice, I had to do it because I could have lost my career and it's not my fault if they found him guilty. This type of person is totally self oriented and the only person in their world who matters. They tell lies, they need drama, they become over familier, they are usually in debt, they create backgrounds for themselves which don't exist, they have grandiose ideas. I'm not saying thatn this particular type IS Julie, but it's very hot and I'm waffling. ;D
-
What argument are you imagining that to be, Steve. I was merely enquiring how a penniless man would make his way to Winnipeg, thats presuming that he would wish to, when there might well be the more pressing needs of food and shelter. Frankly I see no reason for him ever to wish setting eyes on Julie again.
I shouldn't think that's a face he would ever want to look into again!!
-
I shouldn't think that's a face he would ever want to look into again!!
Probably it's one that the poor sod sees in his nightmares.
-
Dear NaNu, Some of the people in Steve UK list of persons on whom JB may wish to extract revenge are no longer with us. One may be presumptious of his unlikelihood to elaborate on this.
In deference to the apparent character assassinations of JM, may I refer you to an analogy with the 'Queen Mum'.there is a newspaper article by Michael Thornton under the headline :- "the Queen Mother, That Spiteful Old Soak". (Daily Mail 19/9/2009).
What revelations, if correct, and why would they not be so!
-
Hi Susan
I hope you're well.
I get the feeling there's something not right with JM. I ask myself what the statistical chances are of one female encountering all 3 of the following:
1. Physical abuse at the hands of step-father
2. Rape by unidentified male
3. Boyfriend of <2 yrs murdering 5 members of his adoptive family.
Steve_uk appears to have intimate knowledge of JM and in an earlier post I asked him if he was able and willing to shed any further light on 1 and 2 = no response.
I don't have any knowledge of it and the thread you have started is in thoroughly bad taste.
-
I don't have any knowledge of it and the thread you have started is in thoroughly bad taste.
Like it or not Steve,,it's all written down in the 1996 copy of " Justice for All " document.
-
I don't have any knowledge of it and the thread you have started is in thoroughly bad taste.
Morning Steve_uk
May I suggest the reason you find the thread entitled "Julie Mugford's claims of violence, rape and murder" in poor taste is that you find the truth unpalatable. The truth being she was a fantasist, liar and a schemer.
-
I've just finished reading Roger Wilkes book and I must say I found it well written, yet arguable. There were sections within the book I found fascinating and little bits I was not aware of.
It appears that Aldridge the was not that good during the trial of 1986 and that Rivlin showed tremendous skills.. and it was said within circles that had the jury been left with Adridge and Rivlin closing speech alone, the jury would have acquitted Jeremy...The fact that Drake mislead the jury in his final speech become new grounds for Jeremy's defence in the COA.
Wilkes also leads you to believe that all was OK between Colin and Jeremy and that Colin after going to America found a more relaxed way of understanding his brother in law.
Wilkes also makes reference to Mcdonnell and states quite clearly that Mcdonnell did not address all the photo's and documents that were sent to him....I found the book swayed towards Jeremy being innocent rather that guilty. Wilkes closes his book on a note from Jeremy...It goes like this:
I've tried to understand why Sheila murdered my family, he writes. At times I hate her for it because of the injustice I have suffered because of it. I feel that more that more than the loss of Mum and Dad, and the tragedy of their lives being cut short, especially so for Dan and Nick. But then I am still living that injustices from day to day so its more acute. But, I do miss them all. Especially Dad. I really miss him a lot because I know he's have remained my closet friend forever.
But, the when I read my books on law and medicine, I understand that Sheila wasn't responsible for her actions in murdering our family. She would have spent time at Broadmoor had she not taken her own life, and to an extent I feel guilty not helping her more and supporting her more while she was ill. If I;d done so, maybe she wouldn't have had that brainstorm. Maybe everyone would still be alive. But, itsa happened, and I've had to bear a heavy burden of injustice for being accused and convicted of murdering them all. I know I didn't. And I know the truth will be told in a court of law soon enough. But, I want that for Mum, Dad and Sheila, Dan and Nick as well as for me. Because when I'm cleared, so their memory can finally rest in peace..........
-
Claire Powells book borders on Jeremys' guilt,as her closing line was.I quote " These five people were proven innocent ",unquote.
-
Claire Powells book borders on Jeremys' guilt,as her closing line was.I quote " These five people were proven innocent ",unquote.
I haven't read that book yet....Its the next one I shall get. I've lost my Scott Lomax book, goodness knows what I have done with that.
Have you read R. Wilkes book? :) :) :) :)
-
I haven't read that book yet....Its the next one I shall get. I've lost my Scott Lomax book, goodness knows what I have done with that.
Have you read R. Wilkes book? :) :) :) :)
Bin.? ;D
-
Bin.? ;D
Yeah along with the phone ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Claire Powells book borders on Jeremys' guilt,as her closing line was.I quote " These five people were proven innocent ",unquote.
Don't think I could do with that book lookout. Think she would aggravate the hell out of me. ;D ;D ;D
-
Bin.? ;D
Very probably lookout. ;D ;D ;D NUTTA!!! ;D ;D
-
Very probably lookout. ;D ;D ;D NUTTA!!! ;D ;D
Maggie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Claire Powells book borders on Jeremys' guilt,as her closing line was.I quote " These five people were proven innocent ",unquote.
The evidence collected on Sheila has never been released but apparently it ALL pointed to Sheila's guilt in the early stages so they must have had some. If the premiss was that it was either Jeremy or Sheila then both sets of evidence should have been presented at the trial. Sheila has never been 'proven' innocent or we wouldn't be arguing the toss now!! Crazy woman!!
-
Agreed,Caroline.
-
The evidence collected on Sheila has never been released but apparently it ALL pointed to Sheila's guilt in the early stages so they must have had some. If the premiss was that it was either Jeremy or Sheila then both sets of evidence should have been presented at the trial. Sheila has never been 'proven' innocent or we wouldn't be arguing the toss now!! Crazy woman!!
Exactly. :) :)
-
Oh the Claire Powell book goes all in to bury Jeremy ive got Blood Relations for £2 off ebay ive not started yet .
-
Oh the Claire Powell book goes all in to bury Jeremy ive got Blood Relations for £2 off ebay ive not started yet .
Well done,Mertol,,a bargain. :) Yes,Claire spares no punches towards Jeremy being the culprit. She must think I'm daft altogether to believe some of what she's written.Obviously a friend of the rellies.
-
Oh the Claire Powell book goes all in to bury Jeremy ive got Blood Relations for £2 off ebay ive not started yet .
I got mine for a quid!! Ye gotta love ebay!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I got mine for a quid!! Ye gotta love ebay!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I wished I'd have thought of e-bay.Top notch from Amazon. :-[ Diddled again. ;D People see me coming ,I'm sure.!
-
Caroline I have not bought or read any of the books tried to get them at the library but was unsuccessful ( I am as bad as steve) I will be buying Mason Doyle's book though as soon as it is on the shelf think it will give a true account of the events at WHF as it will be based on facts.
-
lookout at least you don't do a skim read like our friend steve ;D
-
lookout at least you don't do a skim read like our friend steve ;D
Lurking behind pillars in bookshops :D It rather conjours up visions of dirty macs doesn't it. Well, I suppose it can be considered to be detective work ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha april cannot see steve in a dirty mac and a hat can you and a pair of shades to complete the outfit ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh dear,,our Steve will have a fit of the sulks now. ;D ;D ;D Dirty mac brigade. ;D ;D ;D
Super sleuther Steve. Try saying that with an impediment. ;D ;D
Steve,,I hope for your sake that you haven't got a bet on this case. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :( :( :( :(
-
lookout after that post he will never Haste Ye Back ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha april cannot see steve in a dirty mac and a hat can you and a pair of shades to complete the outfit ;D ;D ;D
Oh dear,,our Steve will have a fit of the sulks now. ;D ;D ;D Dirty mac brigade. ;D ;D ;D
Super sleuther Steve. Try saying that with an impediment. ;D ;D
Steve,,I hope for your sake that you haven't got a bet on this case. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :( :( :( :(
Susan/Lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Lookout, would that be a new sulk OR a carry over from the last one?
-
Susan/Lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Lookout, would that be a new sulk OR a carry over from the last one?
Oh,a continuation I should think,April. ::)
-
Hi Girlies you are not trying to tell me steve sulks I don't believe it. Does he do it quite often sulk I mean ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh,a continuation I should think,April. ::)
I rather thought the same, Lookout, especially after last night when instead of Steve there appeared to be a stroppy little boy having something close to a temper tantrum. Thankfully he didn't hang around very long. I hope Steve comes back soon.
-
Hi Girlies your wish has come true he is back and think we may have to do a runner ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Girlies you are not trying to tell me steve sulks I don't believe it. Does he do it quite often sulk I mean ;D ;D ;D
It was Jeremy who sulked all the way though Stan Jones' questioning answering in monosyllables when the interrogation got tough,whilst picking threads from a white Arran sweater. Had the Defence seen tapes of his behaviour on a capital charge they might well have been swayed to convict unanimously.
-
Hi Girlies your wish has come true he is back and think we may have to do a runner ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's wonderful Susan, it's a joy to welcome him back :)
-
That's wonderful Susan, it's a joy to welcome him back :)
Hmmm. On second thoughts ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello april I know steve is the light of your life and you enjoy his company on the forum you seem to gel ;D ;D ;D
-
april please stop playing hard to get as you will upset the poor lad ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello april I know steve is the light of your life and you enjoy his company on the forum you seem to gel ;D ;D ;D
Heheheheheheheeeeeeee!!!!! Susan dear, a more UNgelled union, I've yet to see ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :o :o :o
-
It was Jeremy who sulked all the way though Stan Jones' questioning answering in monosyllables when the interrogation got tough,whilst picking threads from a white Arran sweater. Had the Defence seen tapes of his behaviour on a capital charge they might well have been swayed to convict unanimously.
Tough? Would that be when he asked about the tractor canopy? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Tough? Would that be when he asked about the tractor canopy? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes indeed,because that was the last time he saw those two little boys alive when Sheila came unsuspectingly towards him in the fields bringing his nephews,little knowing that within a matter of hours her brother would shoot them coldly and deliberately through the head..
-
Yes indeed,because that was the last time he saw those two little boys alive when Sheila came unsuspectingly towards him in the fields bringing his nephews,little knowing that within a matter of hours her brother would shoot them coldly and deliberately through the head..
Hi Steve :)
Have you ever thought that could be incorrect? :) :) :) :)
-
Yes indeed,because that was the last time he saw those two little boys alive when Sheila came unsuspectingly towards him in the fields bringing his nephews,little knowing that within a matter of hours her brother would shoot them coldly and deliberately through the head..
Coz you would know that's true coz you were there, right?
-
Yes indeed,because that was the last time he saw those two little boys alive when Sheila came unsuspectingly towards him in the fields bringing his nephews,little knowing that within a matter of hours her brother would shoot them coldly and deliberately through the head..
Looking at it from another aspect would be that Sheila was " doing the rounds ",knowing what would befall everyone,,so she was giving the boys a lasting glance of their uncle,his tractor,and the fields before they settled for their Last Supper.
-
Looking at it from another aspect would be that Sheila was " doing the rounds ",knowing what would befall everyone,,so she was giving the boys a lasting glance of their uncle,his tractor,and the fields before they settled for their Last Supper.
NAUGHTY Lookout...................still, it makes equally as much sense as what Steve has to say about it. :)
-
Yes indeed,because that was the last time he saw those two little boys alive when Sheila came unsuspectingly towards him in the fields bringing his nephews,little knowing that within a matter of hours her brother would shoot them coldly and deliberately through the head..
I'm more interested in why you think the tractor canopy was significant JUST because he answered 'no comment' when Jones asked him if it had a canopy?
-
I'm more interested in why you think the tractor canopy was significant JUST because he answered 'no comment' when Jones asked him if it had a canopy?
Thinking about it Caroline, maybe if there hadn't been a canopy Jeremy would not have needed false tan to camouflage him in the dark???? ;D
-
I'm more interested in why you think the tractor canopy was significant JUST because he answered 'no comment' when Jones asked him if it had a canopy?
Because it was part of a conversation he had had previously with Julie and anything Julie had to contribute to the Police Jeremy recognized as dynamite as it could lead onto other topics which could entrap him.
-
Looking at it from another aspect would be that Sheila was " doing the rounds ",knowing what would befall everyone,,so she was giving the boys a lasting glance of their uncle,his tractor,and the fields before they settled for their Last Supper.
I don't accept that Sheila was playing a part that last week and it goes against the Defence notion that the killings were committed by a woman in psychosis.
-
Thinking about it Caroline, maybe if there hadn't been a canopy Jeremy would not have needed false tan to camouflage him in the dark???? ;D
Ha, ha!!
The reason why Steve thinks its relevant is that Julie told Jones the tractor had a canopy - how he thinks that makes her story credible is beyond me. It was a NEW tractor so he must have mentioned it in passing and he could hardly lie about it to Jones because the tractor was at the farm!! He began to say no comment after hours of being questioned and being asked the same questions over and over again.
-
I don't accept that Sheila was playing a part that last week and it goes against the Defence notion that the killings were committed by a woman in psychosis.
Whatever makes you think that lookout does?
-
Ha, ha!!
The reason why Steve thinks its relevant is that Julie told Jones the tractor had a canopy - how he thinks that makes her story credible is beyond me. It was a NEW tractor so he must have mentioned it in passing and he could hardly lie about it to Jones because the tractor was at the farm!! He began to say no comment after hours of being questioned and being asked the same questions over and over again.
There's no reason whatsoever to answer "no comment" in a murder investigation unless you've something to hide.
-
Because it was part of a conversation he had had previously with Julie and anything Julie had to contribute to the Police Jeremy recognized as dynamite as it could lead onto other topics which could entrap him.
That wasn't the word I was thinking but it does rhyme with it.
They should have pushed him on that canopy question - he'd have folded in the end and confessed all ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. No, Steve, he was simply sick of being asked the same questions and after nine hours, I'd have felt the same.
-
There's no reason whatsoever to answer "no comment" in a murder investigation unless you've something to hide.
There most certainly IS when someone is trying to FIT YOU UP!!!!!
-
Is this not the book review thread????? Please, come on. :-\
-
There most certainly IS when someone is trying to FIT YOU UP!!!!!
AND when you've been asked the same inane question in 15 different ways.
-
Is this not the book review thread????? Please, come on. :-\
Patti to my mind the very title of the book is tongue-in-cheek because they were not blood relations at all:intimate strangers at best tolerated by Jeremy as long as June signed her name at the bottom of a cheque. I must say reading the books saves time on ploughing though the documents,not that I'm averse to doing so.
-
Patti to my mind the very title of the book is tongue-in-cheek because they were not blood relations at all:intimate strangers at best tolerated by Jeremy as long as June signed her name at the bottom of a cheque. I must say reading the books saves time on ploughing though the documents,not that I'm averse to doing so.
Do you STILL not comprehend that adults hold the power? You use the expression "intimate strangers AT BEST tolerated by Jeremy"!!!!!!! Jeremy entered THER lives as a tiny boy. I feel more inclined that they AT BEST tolerated him for the sake of june and Nevill but would have preferred that he hadn't been bought into THEIR family.
-
Dr.Rossmanith has just written a book entitled, "Are Women Better Murderers "?
She says that because women aren't as physically strong as men,they are 10 times less likely to kill someone.
So they then must compensate for their lack of physical strength by rendering their victims defenceless in order to carry out the act of murder. This they do by frequently using a tool such as a knife,a distincly European trait compared with the States where firearms are used.
Dr.Rossmanith said that the victims women select to kill they often have a relationship with.
Women rarely kill strangers.Most conflicts take place in ones' own 4 walls,and they can escalate.
It often happens that victims,in a reversal of roles,become perpetrators.
Dr Rossmanith says that " no-one is immune to committing acts of insanity " and that feminism is often the reason that society doesn't talk about the capacity for women to become killers.
One already assumes that men have the potential to be violent,brutal and egocentric.
"They don't have to cover up that side of themselves.But we women are supposed to act as though it doesn't exist in us. In my life,she says,I have often witnessed how incredibly hard women can be. How scheming they can be with each other. I am personally more afraid of the vengeance of women than that of men."
-
Dr.Rossmanith has just written a book entitled, "Are Women Better Murderers "?
She says that because women aren't as physically strong as men,they are 10 times less likely to kill someone.
So they then must compensate for their lack of physical strength by rendering their victims defenceless in order to carry out the act of murder. This they do by frequently using a tool such as a knife,a distincly European trait compared with the States where firearms are used.
Dr.Rossmanith said that the victims women select to kill they often have a relationship with.
Women rarely kill strangers.Most conflicts take place in ones' own 4 walls,and they can escalate.
It often happens that victims,in a reversal of roles,become perpetrators.
Dr Rossmanith says that " no-one is immune to committing acts of insanity " and that feminism is often the reason that society doesn't talk about the capacity for women to become killers.
One already assumes that men have the potential to be violent,brutal and egocentric.
"They don't have to cover up that side of themselves.But we women are supposed to act as though it doesn't exist in us. In my life,she says,I have often witnessed how incredibly hard women can be. How scheming they can be with each other. I am personally more afraid of the vengeance of women than that of men."
There's something in this lookout and maybe woman have had to adapt to having a career outside the home in the last fifty years or so whether they want one or not just as men have had to cope with sharing childcare and household chores when they would much prefer to be the main breadwinner. Looking back to those times when it seemed there was the Queen,Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana in different roles of prominence in the country it may have been hard for the average female who felt pressurized at having to achieve.
The problem is I just don't see this manifesting itself in Sheila,who for all her problems seemed to cope in whatever situation she was put in,even if her mental illness held her back from pursuing her dream career which I assume was modelling. Her father was her rock who always managed to comfort her and I don't see her as a vindictive person harbouring grudges or badmouthing friends and acquaintances behind their backs. Watching the Jane Andrews case during the week made me think of the Tracie Andrews case:neither suffered from schizophrenia yet undoubtedly they both had issues trying to mimic strong women in the media,and I just thought how different Sheila was to both of them.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307801/Tracie-Andrews-stabbed-fiance-death-Now-shes-shopping.html
-
There's something in this lookout and maybe woman have had to adapt to having a career outside the home in the last fifty years or so whether they want one or not just as men have had to cope with sharing childcare and household chores when they would much prefer to be the main breadwinner. Looking back to those times when it seemed there was the Queen,Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana in different roles of prominence in the country it may have been hard for the average female who felt pressurized at having to achieve.
The problem is I just don't see this manifesting itself in Sheila,who for all her problems seemed to cope in whatever situation she was put in,even if her mental illness held her back from pursuing her dream career which I assume was modelling. Her father was her rock who always managed to comfort her and I don't see her as a vindictive person harbouring grudges or badmouthing friends and acquaintances behind their backs. Watching the Jane Andrews case during the week made me think of the Tracie Andrews case:neither suffered from schizophrenia yet undoubtedly they both had issues trying to mimic strong women in the media,and I just thought how different Sheila was to both of them.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307801/Tracie-Andrews-stabbed-fiance-death-Now-shes-shopping.html
Steve, I wonder if you noticed that in the last 10 minutes of the programme on Jane Andrews, a commebnt was made that when she was in the witness box she exhibited not ONE shred of concern for what she'd done. It was all about how it had impacted on her. This is a hallmark of personality disorder. It isn't something which she could think about/plan how to say. It was as natural to her as breathing and I feel perfectly convinced that those with personaliity disorders at at peace with their personalities. It's the rest of the world that is wrong.
-
There's something in this lookout and maybe woman have had to adapt to having a career outside the home in the last fifty years or so whether they want one or not just as men have had to cope with sharing childcare and household chores when they would much prefer to be the main breadwinner. Looking back to those times when it seemed there was the Queen,Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana in different roles of prominence in the country it may have been hard for the average female who felt pressurized at having to achieve.
The problem is I just don't see this manifesting itself in Sheila,who for all her problems seemed to cope in whatever situation she was put in,even if her mental illness held her back from pursuing her dream career which I assume was modelling. Her father was her rock who always managed to comfort her and I don't see her as a vindictive person harbouring grudges or badmouthing friends and acquaintances behind their backs. Watching the Jane Andrews case during the week made me think of the Tracie Andrews case:neither suffered from schizophrenia yet undoubtedly they both had issues trying to mimic strong women in the media,and I just thought how different Sheila was to both of them.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307801/Tracie-Andrews-stabbed-fiance-death-Now-shes-shopping.html
Steve,,who knows that Sheilas' vast amount of problems didn't just manifest itself into one big time-bomb.? It wasn't impossible under the circumstances. She'd have been like a simmering pot and just needed one more issue to tip her over the edge. I can see it. She couldn't settle to do a proper job,her mind wasn't settled for a start,thinking about earning to keep her and the twins,,Collins' new girlfriend,the thought in Sheilas' mind that they could all get back as a family,,her illness of course.
Steve,,there were a thousand and one things in that girls mind which were more than enough to tip her over the edge. Above all,,there wasn't a soul who understood her or her illness and inner suffering.She was on her own while everyone else selfishly got on with their business.
-
Steve, I wonder if you noticed that in the last 10 minutes of the programme on Jane Andrews, a commebnt was made that when she was in the witness box she exhibited not ONE shred of concern for what she'd done. It was all about how it had impacted on her. This is a hallmark of personality disorder. It isn't something which she could think about/plan how to say. It was as natural to her as breathing and I feel perfectly convinced that those with personaliity disorders at at peace with their personalities. It's the rest of the world that is wrong.
I watched that programme too.What an odious character she is. Remorseless for killing that lovely man.
The same as that other thing,Andrews. Though she's now had her face altered. ( I could have done that for her ) Women again,,isn't it.? Vicious swines.!
-
Hello april
I watched the programme on Jane Andrews and was quite taken aback at the vicious way she killed him all he did was tell her the relationship was over. It is amazing what a woman scorned will do :'( and I think they convince themselves they were the victim.
-
Hello april
I watched the programme on Jane Andrews and was quite taken aback at the vicious way she killed him all he did was tell her the relationship was over. It is amazing what a woman scorned will do :'( and I think they convince themselves they were the victim.
Susan, are you talking about Jane or Julie ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
april ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Steve does not seem to think clearly , anyone is capable of murder given a situation hopefully I will add something later to infuse debate.
-
Steve does not seem to think clearly , anyone is capable of murder given a situation hopefully I will add something later to infuse debate.
Oh yes please, Mertol. Can't wait :)
-
Amazing that we now have potentially three authors launching books:
Mason Doyle - Title unknown
Andrew Hunter - Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Carol Ann Lee - Blood Guilt
Why now? Is it a combination of the availability of information from the internet and growing support for JB as a result of this and general skepticism about wrongdoing/incompetence in public office due to all the recent scandals: mp's expenses, financial crisis, phone hacking, church sex abuse, Jimmy Savile, Hillsborough etc?
-
Amazing that we now have potentially three authors launching books:
Mason Doyle - Title unknown
Andrew Hunter - Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Carol Ann Lee - Blood Guilt
Why now? Is it a combination of the availability of information from the internet and growing support for JB as a result of this and general skepticism about wrongdoing/incompetence in public office due to all the recent scandals: mp's expenses, financial crisis, phone hacking, church sex abuse, Jimmy Savile, Hillsborough etc?
You can bet your life there's a large amount of spondulex resting on Jeremys' head.
-
You can bet your life there's a large amount of spondulex resting on Jeremys' head.
For sure :) but that has always been the case so why now?
-
There's also a significant book out called " Bad Mother " by Isabelle ? ( forgotten ) but instead of the girl being disappointed about her birth family,,it's a boy whose life is changed.
There are similar rings to it after skimming the preface.
-
Hello N/N think the book by Andrew Hunter was ongoing and was delayed due to his bad health. Mason Doyle's I guess has been in the frame for years and Carol Ann Lee maybe thought it a good idea as she knows Jeremy has tremendous coverage on the internet and is very well known ;D
-
Hello N/N think the book by Andrew Hunter was ongoing and was delayed due to his bad health. Mason Doyle's I guess has been in the frame for years and Carol Ann Lee maybe thought it a good idea as she knows Jeremy has tremendous coverage on the internet and is very well known ;D
Hi susie, yes, Andrew Hunter had a stroke but good for him continuing his support for Jeremy.
I agree with NN its unusual to see a right wing tory supporting an MOJ.
Mason Doyle's book sounds so interesting and very different from the others that have been
written, seems a long wait til the spring.
-
Maggie Mason Doyle's book will be well worth the wait ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Susan/Maggie
I wonder if Andrew Hunter's background sort of lends itself somewhat to JB and his case:
Andrew Hunter's father was a squadron leader in the RAF. AH studied theology at Durham and he taught at Harrow. Lol am I making sense? ;D. I tend to see connections others don't :-\ :-\ :-\
JB and AH's both had fathers in RAF
AH attended private school so too JB. AH subsequently taught in private school - Harrow
AH studied theology at Durham. JB's case has themes of misguided religion running through it.
-
I have just finished The Strange Death of David Kelly by Norman Baker MP. The great thing about MP's is they know how much corruption is within 'the powers that be'!
-
Hello N/N Good thinking I would suspect Andrew Hunter felt he had so much in common with Jeremy and was drawn to him then when he studied the case he would see what had happened. I seem to remember one of our posters from the forum went to visit him was it Grahame or Mike but it was when Andrew was ill and only half way through the book tyler will know come in tyler you are needed. ;D
-
Susan...tyler doesn't remember,sorry hunni! It was indeed Mike,but can't remember the full story. Btw,isn't Carol Ann Lee a pretty girl,just had a nosy at her pic.
-
Hello N/N Good thinking I would suspect Andrew Hunter felt he had so much in common with Jeremy and was drawn to him then when he studied the case he would see what had happened. I seem to remember one of our posters from the forum went to visit him was it Grahame or Mike but it was when Andrew was ill and only half way through the book tyler will know come in tyler you are needed. ;D
Aww,,he'll be similar to a father figure to Jeremy,,and on his own level too,so to speak. That'll wipe everybodys' eye.!
-
Hello tyler we are all pretty girls from Yorkshire must be something in the water ;D ;D ;D hope she was not covered in smut and grime ;D
-
tyler my friend hope if Mike is reading the forum he will tell us part of the book was put on the forum (before my time) and at the time he never expected to get it finished due to his bad health. Well done to Andrew I say :-*
-
Susan,is AH's book draft no longer on the forum? I will have a search on my laptop later x
-
tyler was just part of the book I think and we never thought it would be finished I will try and find it but don't hold your breath ;D ;D ;D
-
Susan,I already read it a long time ago and thought it brilliant. Very easy to read too!
-
tyler was it finished or part written and I guess you read it on here.
-
Susan,I wouldn't have said it was a whole book,and yes I read it on here x
-
Hello N/N Good thinking I would suspect Andrew Hunter felt he had so much in common with Jeremy and was drawn to him then when he studied the case he would see what had happened. I seem to remember one of our posters from the forum went to visit him was it Grahame or Mike but it was when Andrew was ill and only half way through the book tyler will know come in tyler you are needed. ;D
Hi Susan
Yes Mike visited AH at his home and said that despite their different backgrounds they got on well. I think Mike said JB asked him to defer any further contact due to AH's ill health.
I do recall emailing AH myself about 3/4 years ago re my adoption theories etc. Lol not sure what he made of it all but he did thank me ;D
-
Are we all ready for the news books?
Bump
-
Are we all ready for the news books?
Bump
I'm ready although only at page 10 of Wilkies book :'(
-
Are we all ready for the news books?
Bump
Not sure really,Patti. Will they be much different to what's already published ? How can the authors possibly know any more than the last publications ?
There are things going on behind the scenes as we speak,so I don't see any point in buying a book which isn't up to date,which won't include that which is being forwarded for submission.
-
I don´t read those books, they are almost always inaccurate. I read Colin´s (almost :P), but that is because he was directly involved with the family.
-
The Radish Diaries-------------repeats of previous publications.
-
Are we all ready for the news books?
Bump
After some thought, I shall read them. I will take them on holiday.
-
Are we all ready for the news books?
Bump
Unless the books contain evidence not revealed in the past I don't really have any interest. Most books cna at best summarize what we already know.
-
After some thought, I shall read them. I will take them on holiday.
I'll be thinking about you while you are in Bridlington ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
After some thought, I shall read them. I will take them on holiday.
Noooo - don't ruin your holiday :)
-
Not sure really,Patti. Will they be much different to what's already published ? How can the authors possibly know any more than the last publications ?
There are things going on behind the scenes as we speak,so I don't see any point in buying a book which isn't up to date,which won't include that which is being forwarded for submission.
I'm dying to know what Mason Doyle has written......It would be interesting to see what he has to say, especially as he went all the way to New Zealand and Canado, then changed his mind about Jeremy being guilty. :-\
-
I'm dying to know what Mason Doyle has written......It would be interesting to see what he has to say, especially as he went all the way to New Zealand and Canado, then changed his mind about Jeremy being guilty. :-\
Noting bad things he did in other countries and using that as a basis to say he is guilty would no be worth much from an evidentiary standpoint. More evidence he was greedy and thus stole or did other illicit things for money doesn't add much in my estimation.
-
Noting bad things he did in other countries and using that as a basis to say he is guilty would no be worth much from an evidentiary standpoint. More evidence he was greedy and thus stole or did other illicit things for money doesn't add much in my estimation.
For once we agree - but others no doubt will say it adds to the bigger picture to add to his character traits that led him to be a murderer -
-
I'll be thinking about you while you are in Bridlington ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh, I bet you will. ;)
Noooo - don't ruin your holiday :)
I am a quick reader, so will do them both in a day! ;D Not like Susan, reading it for weeks and weeks and still on page 10. :-\
-
Noting bad things he did in other countries and using that as a basis to say he is guilty would no be worth much from an evidentiary standpoint. More evidence he was greedy and thus stole or did other illicit things for money doesn't add much in my estimation.
Nor mine to be honest, nonetheless I do want to know what he has to say. It will be good to compare it with the book by Carol Ann Lee. ;D
-
Not sure if Mason Doyle book is going to be released its a bit odd....this is supposed to come out on the 18th July prior to Carol Ann Lee's book which is the 30th July.....
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deviant-Jeremy-Bamber-White-Murders/dp/190409192X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430779841&sr=1-1&keywords=deviant+by+paul+harrison
-
Nor mine to be honest, nonetheless I do want to know what he has to say. It will be good to compare it with the book by Carol Ann Lee. ;D
It'll be even better to compare it with my own thoughts on the case. I could rip him to pieces,who knows ? :P
-
It'll be even better to compare it with my own thoughts on the case. I could rip him to pieces,who knows ? :P
I don't think its going to be published, the 10 digit number is not available.... :-\
-
I don't think its going to be published, the 10 digit number is not available.... :-\
Mmmmm. I love these delays and hesitations,they spell good omens. ;D Possibly libellous too. ;D ;D
There should be another book " How to kick a man when he's down ".
-
Hello Patti
it is a shame if MD does not publish seems to have been so much swaping and changing going on it is obvious all is not well :'(
-
I don't think its going to be published, the 10 digit number is not available.... :-\
http://www.foyles.co.uk/witem/biography/deviant-jeremy-bamber-and-the-white,paul-harrison-9781904091929
ISBN-13: 9781904091929
-
Noting bad things he did in other countries and using that as a basis to say he is guilty would no be worth much from an evidentiary standpoint. More evidence he was greedy and thus stole or did other illicit things for money doesn't add much in my estimation.
That wasn't the purpose of going to other countries, some of the people he interviewed live in other countries - hence the travelling.
-
It'll be even better to compare it with my own thoughts on the case. I could rip him to pieces,who knows ? :P
Oh I'm sure he isn't worried Lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh I'm sure he isn't worried Lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D
I think he'd understand what I've written if he happens to look in.He knows my posts of old.
-
http://www.foyles.co.uk/witem/biography/deviant-jeremy-bamber-and-the-white,paul-harrison-9781904091929
ISBN-13: 9781904091929
Caroline thanks for that just been on google and Waterstones are advertising the book and it will be published in 74 days can order now. Amazon do quote it is not available and probably this confused Patti.
-
Caroline thanks for that just been on google and Waterstones are advertising the book and it will be published in 74 days can order now. Amazon do quote it is not available and probably this confused Patti.
Yes it did Susan for it was available and now its not....
Thanks Caroline for clearing this up.
-
Book cop---I'll show Bamber's innocent----------------Paul Harrison. ( former policeman )
A controversial new book claims that Jeremy Bamber was wrongly convicted for murdering his family.
This guy had been in touch with Jeremy almost on a weekly basis,as well as 8 years research interviewing relatives and friends,studying police files and court transcripts.
" Dead Bodies Don't Move ".
Though he says " It's not for him to say JB is innocent,but his conviction is unsound. There has been a Miscarriage of Justice of that I'm sure."
-
Book cop---I'll show Bamber's innocent----------------Paul Harrison. ( former policeman )
A controversial new book claims that Jeremy Bamber was wrongly convicted for murdering his family.
This guy had been in touch with Jeremy almost on a weekly basis,as well as 8 years research interviewing relatives and friends,studying police files and court transcripts.
" Dead Bodies Don't Move ".
Though he says " It's not for him to say JB is innocent,but his conviction is unsound. There has been a Miscarriage of Justice of that I'm sure."
I think things have changed since then Lookout! ;D ;D
-
I think things have changed since then Lookout! ;D ;D
I very much doubt the bottom bit has.
-
Isn't Paul Harrison the one who said he went into the thinking it was an MOJ. But soon realised the police got the right man.
-
Isn't Paul Harrison the one who said he went into the thinking it was an MOJ. But soon realised the police got the right man.
Adam the very same man he posted that on here.
-
Isn't Paul Harrison the one who said he went into the thinking it was an MOJ. But soon realised the police got the right man.
He's not going to give anything away now,is he ?
-
I very much doubt the bottom bit has.
Oh dear! ;D ;D
-
Oh dear! ;D ;D
Unless you've read the book,you don't know.
-
Unless you've read the book,you don't know.
For goodness sake Lookout everyone knows - it's now called 'Deviant' - guess who the deviant is?
-
I'm sure come the 18th July we will be wiser to what PH has to say or is his book coming out on the 30th...I keep forgetting who's come out first...PH and Carol A L......Its me age you know. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
For goodness sake Lookout everyone knows - it's now called 'Deviant' - guess who the deviant is?
SJ? :D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
For goodness sake Lookout everyone knows - it's now called 'Deviant' - guess who the deviant is?
Another cop who's got it wrong !! ::)
-
For goodness sake Lookout everyone knows - it's now called 'Deviant' - guess who the deviant is?
Got a good idea! ;D
-
Another cop who's got it wrong !! ::)
Yeah, lets add him to the list of 'everyone is telling lies except Jeremy' - is the Queen on it? ;D
-
Hello Patti
PH on the 18th July Carol Ann Lee on the 30th I am very interested to see where she stands she will be good as she is a Yorkshire Gal like we are ;D
-
Hello Patti
PH on the 18th July Carol Ann Lee on the 30th I am very interested to see where she stands she will be good as she is a Yorkshire Gal like we are ;D
She thinks he's guilty too Susan.
-
Shall we just wait and see ?
-
Hello Patti
PH on the 18th July Carol Ann Lee on the 30th I am very interested to see where she stands she will be good as she is a Yorkshire Gal like we are ;D
Awww I was not far off then? It will be interesting to see if both authors have the same balance and reasons...
CAL is very good at research....not sure if PH is? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Awww I was not far off then? It will be interesting to see if both authors have the same balance and reasons...
CAL is very good at research....not sure if PH is? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cal gets some excellent reviews and she has written some great books her partner is brother of the little Bennett boy murdered and his body never recovered on Saddleworth Moor. :(
-
Cal gets some excellent reviews and she has written some great books her partner is brother of the little Bennett boy murdered and his body never recovered on Saddleworth Moor. :(
Awww. I did not know that. Has she wrote about the Moors murders Susan? Poor Keith they never found him.... :'(
-
Cal gets some excellent reviews and she has written some great books her partner is brother of the little Bennett boy murdered and his body never recovered on Saddleworth Moor. :(
I must read up about her, am sure she's an interesting person wonder if she has something new to say?
-
She thinks he's guilty too Susan.
Caroline thanks for that we are all going to be busy reading then tearing each other to bits on here arguing about it ;D maybe keep us going for another 30 years. ;D
-
Awww. I did not know that. Has she wrote about the Moors murders Susan? Poor Keith they never found him.... :'(
Dreadful thing Patti, that poor little boy and his poor Mum. Very hard for his brother as well, this is the thing when someone takes a life they take the lives of those who love them as well.
-
I must read up about her, am sure she's an interesting person wonder if she has something new to say?
Maggie I think she reads the forum ;) but she has never shared her views with us so maybe she has some surprises in her book for us do hope so ;D
-
Caroline thanks for that we are all going to be busy reading then tearing each other to bits on here arguing about it ;D maybe keep us going for another 30 years. ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie I think she reads the forum ;) but she has never shared her views with us so maybe she has some surprises in her book for us do hope so ;D
So do I, we need some new stimulation and hopefully some new posters 8)
-
Dreadful thing Patti, that poor little boy and his poor Mum. Very hard for his brother as well, this is the thing when someone takes a life they take the lives of those who love them as well.
Hi Guys
yes she has written about the Moors murders and she is involved in a campaign with her partner about finding the wee boys body poor Mother died before her baby was found so sad.
-
Awww I was not far off then? It will be interesting to see if both authors have the same balance and reasons...
CAL is very good at research....not sure if PH is? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Really? The fact that she got his age wrong in the summery doesn't bode well. ;D ;D ;D
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Blood_Guilt.html?id=DUQVnwEACAAJ
-
Caroline thanks for that we are all going to be busy reading then tearing each other to bits on here arguing about it ;D maybe keep us going for another 30 years. ;D
Erm--------just a cotton-pickin' minute. Another 30 years ? I'd best get some monkey glands then to keep me going. ;D ;D ;D ;D.I refuse to snuff-it before this is done and dusted.
-
They shall be my holiday reading. I've been talked into reading PH! ;D
-
They shall be my holiday reading. I've been talked into reading PH! ;D
Yes, mine too! ;D ;D
-
Erm--------just a cotton-pickin' minute. Another 30 years ? I'd best get some monkey glands then to keep me going. ;D ;D ;D ;D.I refuse to snuff-it before this is done and dusted.
that is the spirit girl think positive hahahaha
-
Dreadful thing Patti, that poor little boy and his poor Mum. Very hard for his brother as well, this is the thing when someone takes a life they take the lives of those who love them as well.
I can't remember Keith's brothers name but I have seen him giving interviews in documentaries about the case. Poor Winnie went to the moors whenever she could and searched the rest of her life for him, bless her...So I agree Maggie, it ruins the lives left behind. How flippin sad. :(
-
Hi Guys
yes she has written about the Moors murders and she is involved in a campaign with her partner about finding the wee boys body poor Mother died before her baby was found so sad.
I thought the Welsh rescue team were searching for him? The team is under funded so they might have stopped. :(
-
I thought the Welsh rescue team were searching for him? The team is under funded so they might have stopped. :(
Patti not read much lately so I am not sure it is so sad Carol Ann wrote two books I think very in depth one of Myra Hindley. If her other books are anything to go on her Bamber book will be good.
-
Really? The fact that she got his age wrong in the summery doesn't bode well. ;D ;D ;D
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Blood_Guilt.html?id=DUQVnwEACAAJ
Oh yeah he was born 1961 and was 24 when it happened so would be 25 in 1986....Maybe she is a bit like and can't add up for monkey nuts. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti not read much lately so I am not sure it is so sad Carol Ann wrote two books I think very in depth one of Myra Hindley. If her other books are anything to go on her Bamber book will be good.
I've got a feeling her name will be shit on here this summer. ;D
-
I can't remember Keith's brothers name but I have seen him giving interviews in documentaries about the case. Poor Winnie went to the moors whenever she could and searched the rest of her life for him, bless her...So I agree Maggie, it ruins the lives left behind. How flippin sad. :(
Patti Alan is his name
-
Patti not read much lately so I am not sure it is so sad Carol Ann wrote two books I think very in depth one of Myra Hindley. If her other books are anything to go on her Bamber book will be good.
I hope so Susan. I'm looking forward to reading it and comparing it with PH's book. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti Alan is his name
That's it Susan...Thanks. ;)
-
For goodness sake Lookout everyone knows - it's now called 'Deviant' - guess who the deviant is?
PH? 8)
-
Nice one,Alias. ;D
-
Nice one,Alias. ;D
;D
-
PH seems out of fashion here now, there was a time everyone was throwing themselves at him and saying what a good poster he was... what happened?
He swapped sides. ;D
-
PH seems out of fashion here now, there was a time everyone was throwing themselves at him and saying what a good poster he was... what happened?
He swapped sides. ;D
Count me out, please. Don´t think I ever exchanged one single word with him.
-
If I'm right,he totally ignored me. His loss ;D ;D
-
I've got a feeling her name will be shit on here this summer. ;D
why would it be.
-
PH seems out of fashion here now, there was a time everyone was throwing themselves at him and saying what a good poster he was... what happened?
He swapped sides. ;D
No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason.
the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why.
-
No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason.
the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why.
Jan I totally agree with you on this point.
-
No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason.
the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why.
I think you are right on this, jan.
-
No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason.
the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why.
i dont know whats in the book s i cant critise it but i think hes cliam that hes done 10 years reasarch isnt true.
-
No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason.
the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why.
The tide had turned on him before that, Jan. He had already been banned by that point I think & he wasn't popular before his ban.
Jan I totally agree with you on this point.
Which point are you agreeing with, Susan?
The first.
"No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason. "
Or the Second
"the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why. "
I agree with the second, shame that supporters didn't think of that at the time. It was suggested on here he had changed his mind because it would make a better book - and that had probably had never held supporter feelings and had been disguising himself as a supporter when he'd been a guilter all along ;D ;D ::)
-
The tide had turned on him before that, Jan. He had already been banned by that point I think & he wasn't popular before his ban.
Which point are you agreeing with, Susan?
The first.
"No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason. "
Or the Second
"the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why. "
I agree with the second, shame that supporters didn't think of that at the time. It was suggested on here he had changed his mind because it would make a better book - and that had probably had never held supporter feelings and had been disguising himself as a supporter when he'd been a guilter all along ;D ;D ::)
Mat hello
I think when PH came on the forum he was convinced that Jeremy was a MOJ he was happy to talk to all of us in a nice friendly manner then things seem to change as if he had uncovered something new and he then was convinced Jeremy was guilty he did say EP had the right man not sure what happened but he was not banned from the forum for nothing :'(
-
Mat hello
I think when PH came on the forum he was convinced that Jeremy was a MOJ he was happy to talk to all of us in a nice friendly manner then things seem to change as if he had uncovered something new and he then was convinced Jeremy was guilty he did say EP had the right man not sure what happened but he was not banned from the forum for nothing :'(
Wasn´t he also banned from red forum?
-
i dont belive he resarched a book for years thinking the suspect was innocent and then in the last few months changed his stance to guilty ethere he had allready changed his mind a long while before or he hasnt been working on it for as long a he cliams.
-
The tide had turned on him before that, Jan. He had already been banned by that point I think & he wasn't popular before his ban.
Which point are you agreeing with, Susan?
The first.
"No he threw wild allegations accusations about criminal acts against him implicating people without proof.
I think that is more the reason. "
Or the Second
"the judgement for him changing his mind should be reserved until we see the reason why. "
I agree with the second, shame that supporters didn't think of that at the time. It was suggested on here he had changed his mind because it would make a better book - and that had probably had never held supporter feelings and had been disguising himself as a supporter when he'd been a guilter all along ;D ;D ::)
I think we are all aware that you have to do something really really bad to be banned from here ;D
Threatening people is one of them.
I have changed my mind in that I am willing to read the book - I just hope at then end of it his surmising is not based on a hunch or gut feeling or something obscure . Because if it is something concrete he could obviously use it to stop any future attempts at appeals.
Who has persuaded you to read it I wonder??????
-
I rather think he was rude to John.
-
I think we are all aware that you have to do something really really bad to be banned from here ;D
Threatening people is one of them.
I have changed my mind in that I am willing to read the book - I just hope at then end of it his surmising is not based on a hunch or gut feeling or something obscure . Because if it is something concrete he could obviously use it to stop any future attempts at appeals.
Who has persuaded you to read it I wonder??????
-
I rather think he was rude to John.
Yes, and ngb. Banned from both forums, so it seems it has nothing to do with his stance or change of stance a mat claims.
-
Hello Susan talking to yourself again kidding sorry Jan pressed post before I had written anything. I am really looking forward to PH's book to see what made him change his mind about Jeremy but he never once told me he thought Jeremy was innocent. According to Caroline the book coming out on the 30th July by Carol Ann Lee is Jeremy guilty so is this their opinions or have they found something different.
-
Yes, and ngb. Banned from both forums, so it seems it has nothing to do with his stance or change of stance a mat claims.
Alias you are right NGB would never ban somebody for life for changing their stance to guilty I did and I'm still here ;D
-
I think we are all aware that you have to do something really really bad to be banned from here ;D
Threatening people is one of them.
I have changed my mind in that I am willing to read the book - I just hope at then end of it his surmising is not based on a hunch or gut feeling or something obscure . Because if it is something concrete he could obviously use it to stop any future attempts at appeals.
Who has persuaded you to read it I wonder??????
All too often people care about what an author will be asserting regarding guilt or innocence. I only care about what evidence a book mentions and then make up my own mind about the truth. The main value his book would serve would be if he discusses things not publicly released to date such as court testimony or documents or claims from witnesses not previously made public. If the book simply uses the materials already released it adds nothing significant.
-
Hello Susan talking to yourself again kidding sorry Jan pressed post before I had written anything. I am really looking forward to PH's book to see what made him change his mind about Jeremy but he never once told me he thought Jeremy was innocent. According to Caroline the book coming out on the 30th July by Carol Ann Lee is Jeremy guilty so is this their opinions or have they found something different.
Well I still hope they have discovered something new to come to the conclusions because otherwise why write the book in the first place.
-
All too often people care about what an author will be asserting regarding guilt or innocence. I only care about what evidence a book mentions and then make up my own mind about the truth. The main value his book would serve would be if he discusses things not publicly released to date such as court testimony or documents or claims from witnesses not previously made public. If the book simply uses the materials already released it adds nothing significant.
From what I know, it is not a regurgitation of previous info.
-
All too often people care about what an author will be asserting regarding guilt or innocence. I only care about what evidence a book mentions and then make up my own mind about the truth. The main value his book would serve would be if he discusses things not publicly released to date such as court testimony or documents or claims from witnesses not previously made public. If the book simply uses the materials already released it adds nothing significant.
Yes, because you are so fantastic - unlike other people. You should write a book about yourself.
-
Thank goodness for that.
-
Yes, because you are so fantastic - unlike other people. You should write a book about yourself.
Alias you are naughty but I like you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias you are naughty but I like you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Likewise!!! You too should write a book about yourself, I am sure it will be worth a read or two! ;D
-
All too often people care about what an author will be asserting regarding guilt or innocence. I only care about what evidence a book mentions and then make up my own mind about the truth. The main value his book would serve would be if he discusses things not publicly released to date such as court testimony or documents or claims from witnesses not previously made public. If the book simply uses the materials already released it adds nothing significant.
For once we agree - it would be no more that regurgitated opinions.
-
Yes, because you are so fantastic - unlike other people. You should write a book about yourself.
I still think he is Spock :)
-
Yes, because you are so fantastic - unlike other people. You should write a book about yourself.
Sheep act like you do. You have a pack mentality and need people to tell you how great you are because you are an insecure mess. I don't need any ratification from others. Nor do I need others to think for me. I evaluate evidence on my own I don't need others to evaluate things for me.
Objective rational people should always strive to evaluate things for themselves instead of simply accepting views of others which could be tainted by bias, ignorance, ineptitude and so forth.
I just read an article by a journalist that claimed the battle of Midway was more important than the invasion of Normandy because if the Japanese won then they could have taken over Hawaii and then form there could have potentially invaded the continental US. Japan lacked the logistical ability to take over Hawaii let alone to invade the continental US. The US built 30 large carriers during WWII while Japan built a handful. The outcome of the war would not have changed a bit if the US lost the Battle simply it would have taken a little longer to defeat Japan.
Authors can claim anything they want it doesn't mean their opinions are even remotely of value. Unless they can back up their opinions with solid evidence their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Sheep act like you do. You have a pack mentality and need people to tell you how great you are because you are an insecure mess. I don't need any ratification from others. Nor do I need others to think for me. I evaluate evidence on my own I don't need others to evaluate things for me.
Objective rational people should always strive to evaluate things for themselves instead of simply accepting views of others which could be tainted by bias, ignorance, ineptitude and so forth.
I just read an article by a journalist that claimed the battle of Midway was more important than the invasion of Normandy because if the Japanese won then they could have taken over Hawaii and then form there could have potentially invaded the continental US. Japan lacked the logistical ability to take over Hawaii let alone to invade the continental US. The US built 30 large carriers during WWII while Japan built a handful. The outcome of the war would not have changed a bit if the US lost the Battle simply it would have taken a little longer to defeat Japan.
Authors can claim anything they want it doesn't mean their opinions are even remotely of value. Unless they can back up their opinions with solid evidence their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
She seems to have her spoon out tonight and doesn't like the pot being stirred the other way. Well people reap what they sow!
-
Sheep act like you do. You have a pack mentality and need people to tell you how great you are because you are an insecure mess. I don't need any ratification from others. Nor do I need others to think for me. I evaluate evidence on my own I don't need others to evaluate things for me.
Objective rational people should always strive to evaluate things for themselves instead of simply accepting views of others which could be tainted by bias, ignorance, ineptitude and so forth.
I just read an article by a journalist that claimed the battle of Midway was more important than the invasion of Normandy because if the Japanese won then they could have taken over Hawaii and then form there could have potentially invaded the continental US. Japan lacked the logistical ability to take over Hawaii let alone to invade the continental US. The US built 30 large carriers during WWII while Japan built a handful. The outcome of the war would not have changed a bit if the US lost the Battle simply it would have taken a little longer to defeat Japan.
Authors can claim anything they want it doesn't mean their opinions are even remotely of value. Unless they can back up their opinions with solid evidence their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
:o :o :o
-
Yes, and ngb. Banned from both forums, so it seems it has nothing to do with his stance or change of stance a mat claims.
I am not claiming that at all! You're such a stirrer, Alias! :o I said that he was popular on here, with some people and that changed BEFORE he was banned.
Am sure NGB is smart enough to read what I actually said - never did I say anything about his change of opinion having anything to do with his ban from NGB or John.
She seems to have her spoon out tonight and doesn't like the pot being stirred the other way. Well people reap what they sow!
She certainly isn't getting away with it with me. Alias moans about people telling her what she thinks but is more than happy to put words into other peoples mouths to cause trouble.
-
I am not claiming that at all! You're such a stirrer, Alias! :o I said that he was popular on here, with some people and that changed BEFORE he was banned.
Am sure NGB is smart enough to read what I actually said - never did I say anything about his change of opinion having anything to do with his ban from NGB or John.
She certainly isn't getting away with it with me. Alias moans about people telling her what she thinks but is more than happy to put words into other peoples mouths to cause trouble.
Yep, have to agree with that!
-
PH seems out of fashion here now, there was a time everyone was throwing themselves at him and saying what a good poster he was... what happened?
He swapped sides. ;D
I think the stirring started right here.
Now, bye.
-
I think the stirring started right here.
Now, bye.
Yes Alias, that's what I said. That's my opinion, I stick to that. You can agree or disagree with it, praise it or attack it. You have every right. But the problem starts when you start adding things to peoples post and bringing NGB and the ban to Mason Doyle up - which I wasn't talking about, hadn't commented on.
If you would think before you posted, or actually remembered things properly I am no fan of MD - I have NO issue with him being banned. ;D
-
I still think he is Spock :)
It doesn't take a Spock like discipline to face what matters is what can be proved by evidence and the "record".
The record is composed of the documentary exhibits and testimony. We hear a lot of claims of things being int he record that are not. Establishing such things are actually in the record is important if one is going to use it to try to revise things. his is why footnotes are so important. Some documents are so important as to be included in an appendix but for the most part footnotes quote from evidence and detail what the evidence is in specifics. That is why many don't even read full books but instead "rape the footnotes". If works have few footnotes they usually are not worth much. When there are footnotes you can go check the source listed to see if it actually stands for the proposition asserted.
-
Yes Alias, that's what I said. That's my opinion, I stick to that. You can agree or disagree with it, praise it or attack it. You have every right. But the problem starts when you start adding things to peoples post and bringing NGB and the ban to Mason Doyle up - which I wasn't talking about, hadn't commented on.
If you would think before you posted, or actually remembered things properly I am no fan of MD - I have NO issue with him being banned. ;D
Mat I thought MD threatened to sue you ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mat I thought MD threatened to sue you ;D ;D ;D ;D
Exactly! ;D
We weren't close. He threatened to sue a lot of people on the red forum & some here I believe. My opinion of him remained the same and didn't change dependent on his stance.
-
Exactly! ;D
We weren't close. He threatened to sue a lot of people on the red forum & some here I believe. My opinion of him remained the same and didn't change dependent on his stance.
Mat I always got the impression you and him were not close ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Exactly! ;D
We weren't close. He threatened to sue a lot of people on the red forum & some here I believe. My opinion of him remained the same and didn't change dependent on his stance.
I didn't really see him post much and when he did I didn't see him really discuss evidence much. It would have been nice to ask him what resources he had as far as the case testimony, etc that he had access to beyond that publicly posted.
-
Wasn´t he also banned from red forum?
Yes, he issued threats to the forum owner.
-
authers are like that theres a film maker called tim tate who is allways threatin to sue me and other posters on a blog
-
I hope you're not losing sleep over it nugs. :o
-
funnly enugh im not.
-
https://www.waterstones.com/book/deviant/paul-harrison/9781904091929
-
According to Waterstones, Harrison offers "startling evidence never before seen" and "for the first time in print, is the real story of what happened the night three adults and two children were bludgeoned and shot to death at White House Farm."
A pity Waterstones couldn't even get the intro right as only Nevile was bludgeoned.
In hardback for £13.99
-
According to Waterstones, Harrison offers "startling evidence never before seen" and "for the first time in print, is the real story of what happened the night three adults and two children were bludgeoned and shot to death at White House Farm."
A pity Waterstones couldn't even get the intro right as only Nevile was bludgeoned.
Yes, I think it just means Neville but it doesn't read right.
-
Startling new evidence ? xxx xx xxxxxxx
-
I will be curious to see if Harrison dares to name Jerry's co conspirator. :)
-
Maggie. Was it not a bit ott, removing the Crispy comment that Adam posted?
-
Maggie. Was it not a bit ott, removing the Crispy comment that Adam posted?
No it's not funny, it's sick. |Don't you agree?
-
I will be curious to see if Harrison dares to name Jerry's co conspirator. :)
How do you know he mentions a co conspirator?
-
No it's not funny, it's sick. |Don't you agree?
I'm sure you or someone else will tell me how many times someone or other has been offensive from the innocent side and got away with it so I may as well add that we cannot always see everything and unacceptable posts will always slip through the net. I saw this so I edited it.
-
According to Waterstones, Harrison offers "startling evidence never before seen" and "for the first time in print, is the real story of what happened the night three adults and two children were bludgeoned and shot to death at White House Farm."
A pity Waterstones couldn't even get the intro right as only Nevile was bludgeoned.
In hardback for £13.99
PH was only at the trial--------------not the actual scene.? So how is this going be different from other publishings ? This book will purely be the personal views of PH,the same as it was with the jury,or rather the two who thought he was innocent,whatever their views were.
Unless there happens to have been access to the original case of when it was murder/suicide,there'll be nothing new. Therefore,we'll be made to believe someone else's version ::)
-
PH was only at the trial--------------not the actual scene.? So how is this going be different from other publishings ? This book will purely be the personal views of PH,the same as it was with the jury,or rather the two who thought he was innocent,whatever their views were.
Unless there happens to have been access to the original case of when it was murder/suicide,there'll be nothing new. Therefore,we'll be made to believe someone else's version ::)
Before telling everyone what is in a book you haven't even seen, never mind read, why don't you wait and see what it contains? You're trying to discredit far too early! But anything negative about Jeremt has to be stamped on - good thing the book isn't just distributed around this forum!
-
Before telling everyone what is in a book you haven't even seen, never mind read, why don't you wait and see what it contains? You're trying to discredit far too early! But anything negative about Jeremt has to be stamped on - good thing the book isn't just distributed around this forum!
It makes a change me jumping in with MY thoughts,does it not ??
-
There are one or two other books with the same title--------different authors.Not very imaginative.
-
I have to be wary of usurpers.
-
It makes a change me jumping in with MY thoughts,does it not ??
No. ;D
You love the books about the case though, Lookout. Your sources are often books - so I don't see why you are trying to discredit this one before it comes out.
-
Maggie. Was it not a bit ott, removing the Crispy comment that Adam posted?
Humour alert, humour alert. Apologies Maggie.
I think it's sick supporting someone with a warped and callous mind. Who is evil beyond belief. Judges words.
I am in Maggies bad books for not discussing Hillsborough on a Jeremy Bamber forum.
-
Before telling everyone what is in a book you haven't even seen, never mind read, why don't you wait and see what it contains? You're trying to discredit far too early! But anything negative about Jeremt has to be stamped on - good thing the book isn't just distributed around this forum!
It said PH was at the trial. Why has he waited 30 to write a book.
It has also previously said he went into the book thinking it was a MOJ but changed his mind. How an earth could he believe it was a MOJ.
-
It said PH was at the trial. Why has he waited 30 to write a book.
It has also previously said he went into the book thinking it was a MOJ but changed his mind. How an earth could he believe it was a MOJ.
Adam I guess PH was working as a full time Cop and did not have time to spare to write a book which needed so much research as the Bamber one. Maybe half way through writing the book something new came up and this is why he changed his mind we shall have to be patient and wait and see.
-
No. ;D
You love the books about the case though, Lookout. Your sources are often books - so I don't see why you are trying to discredit this one before it comes out.
Enough dirt has been dished out about Lomax's book hasn't it ? Just because he happens to be more pro-Bamber.
-
It said PH was at the trial. Why has he waited 30 to write a book.
It has also previously said he went into the book thinking it was a MOJ but changed his mind. How an earth could he believe it was a MOJ.
Because MOST people with an ounce of sense admit it was an unfair trial.
-
It makes a change me jumping in with MY thoughts,does it not ??
Huh? Err no! ;D ;D ;D
-
There are one or two other books with the same title--------different authors.Not very imaginative.
But VERY apt!
-
It said PH was at the trial. Why has he waited 30 to write a book.
It has also previously said he went into the book thinking it was a MOJ but changed his mind. How an earth could he believe it was a MOJ.
Because he hasn't been an author for 30 years!!
-
Adam I guess PH was working as a full time Cop and did not have time to spare to write a book which needed so much research as the Bamber one. Maybe half way through writing the book something new came up and this is why he changed his mind we shall have to be patient and wait and see.
You are going to be quite the expert, reading CC's book, Wilkes's book and now PH's.
-
Humour alert, humour alert. Apologies Maggie.
I think it's sick supporting someone with a warped and callous mind. Who is evil beyond belief. Judges words.
I am in Maggies bad books for not discussing Hillsborough on a Jeremy Bamber forum.
It's more the lack of knowledge, lack of understanding and lack of respect you display when you post with regards Hillsborough to be honest.
If you want to discuss jb and not comment on the Hillsborough disaster that's absolutely fine. If you do bring up Hillsborough tho, please do not make crass, insensitive posts as you have done in the past.
JFT96
-
It's more the lack of knowledge, lack of understanding and lack of respect you display when you post with regards Hillsborough to be honest.
If you want to discuss jb and not comment on the Hillsborough disaster that's absolutely fine. If you do bring up Hillsborough tho, please do not make crass, insensitive posts as you have done in the past.
JFT96
I don't recall any of those posts from me. Although you are entitled to you're opinion.
Obviously Grahame was the worst abuser on here, but has now left. Amazingly the moderators refused to ban him.
I don't recall any posts from you, so to say yours are crass and insensitive would be a lie. But forgettable, certainly.
-
You are going to be quite the expert, reading CC's book, Wilkes's book and now PH's.
Adam
have not read Wilkies book found it quite boring. What makes you think I will be buying the book written by PH I will wait let you read it then read your threads and save myself £13 or whatever it costs ;D
-
Adam
have not read Wilkies book found it quite boring. What makes you think I will be buying the book written by PH I will wait let you read it then read your threads and save myself £13 or whatever it costs ;D
Boring if you are not interested in the case. I thought you were. What were you expecting Jilly Cooper esq sex romps ?
I may get the book, will read the reviews first.
-
I don't recall any of those posts from me. Although you are entitled to you're opinion.
Obviously Grahame was the worst abuser on here, but has now left. Amazingly the moderators refused to ban him.
I don't recall any posts from you, so to say yours are crass and insensitive would be a lie. But forgettable, certainly.
Grahame was not the worst abuser on here.
-
I don't recall any of those posts from me. Although you are entitled to you're opinion.
Obviously Grahame was the worst abuser on here, but has now left. Amazingly the moderators refused to ban him.
I don't recall any posts from you, so to say yours are crass and insensitive would be a lie. But forgettable, certainly.
The more posts you read, perhaps the better you would educate yourself as to the facts of the case.
-
Grahame was not the worst abuser on here.
Are you serious ?
-
Boring if you are not interested in the case. I thought you were. What were you expecting Jilly Cooper esq sex romps ?
I may get the book, will read the reviews first.
Adam the reason I found the book boring is because you have posted most of it on the forum. With regard to Jilly Cooper you seem to know more about her books than I do I was not aware of sex romps thought her books were something similar to Tatler or Country Life.
-
Are you serious ?
By a distance there have been far far worse posters
-
By a distance there have been far far worse posters
petey
I agree with you Grahame had his moments when he was ill but on the whole he was very mannerly and polite and we miss him so much and want him back.
-
I miss Grahame dreadfully.I hope he's doing okay.
-
I miss Grahame dreadfully.I hope he's doing okay.
Hi lookout
Grahame is doing fine he is on my F/B think he will come back when he is ready I really really miss him he was so funny.
-
Hi lookout
Grahame is doing fine he is on my F/B think he will come back when he is ready I really really miss him he was so funny.
Hi Susan,that's good to know that he's alright. Perhaps when and if anything of interest crops up he might just consider returning. He is a witty man,and that's what I miss.
-
I miss Grahame dreadfully.I hope he's doing okay.
Yes, you've lost (another) supporter.
-
By a distance there have been far far worse posters
;D
-
Grahame was very very abusive to me and Scipio. And then for a short period to Caroline when she became a guilter.
Scipio would respond. I reported Grahame dozens of times. And sent PM's to the moderators. The best I got was that the post had been modified, after the thread had moved on about five pages.
My last PM was after he said 'f--k off bitch' to Caroline. Maggie didn't respond, to be fair NGB did.
But the last few weeks we got on fine.
Adam I judge people on how they treat me.
-
By a distance there have been far far worse posters
You're telling me.!!
-
Penned by crime writer and former police officer Paul Harrison, Deviant is the only book on the subject written by someone in attendance at the 1986 trial of Jeremy Bamber, accused of murdering five members of his family in the dead of night at White House Farm in Essex.A culmination of three decades of research, in the course of this work the author has interviewed all the key investigative police officers and lawyers, and communicated with the convicted murderer and a number of his associates.The investigation has taken the author around the globe arousing a great deal of publicity and, in the process, antagonised the small band of fanatical supporters of the killer resulting in a number of death threats. The author has also incurred the displeasure of Essex Police, highlighting incompetence and internal subterfuge, issues which clearly hampered the prosecution of the crime.With startling evidence never before seen and a dramatic conclusion this, for the first time in print, is the real story of what happened the night three adults and two children were bludgeoned and shot to death at White House Farm.
About the Author
A police officer covering three decades, Paul Harrison operated in a number of investigative roles and was for a time an undercover officer. He was one of the first in the UK to work closely with the FBI on psychological profiling and, as a result of further research, he has interviewed many serial killers and mass murderers across the globe, collating crime profiles on each one. Since retiring from the police he has become a crime writer and historian, a field in which he is highly regarded and through which he has become a popular speaker at police and crime writing conferences. He also acts as a media crime consultant working with authors and writers in creating police and crime storylines and is credited with creating professional personalities of some of the best known detectives on television.He has a number of books to his name including Dancing with the Devil, the story of Glasgow serial killer Bible John, and is currently working on a book covering the lives and psychology of killers he has interviewed and another featuring some of the worst inmates of Wakefield's notorious prison.Away from a life of police and crime, he is an ardent football supporter and suffers the travails of his hometown club, Leeds United.
EAN: 9781904091929
ISBN: 190409192X
-
a had a read of the reviews of one of paul harrision other books they all pretty good.
-
It'll be interesting to see if David Wilson's had a hand in Paul Harrison's new book,as past books have both names added. David Wilson ( prof ) says that the JB case is a MOJ.
-
It'll be interesting to see if David Wilson's had a hand in Paul Harrison's new book,as past books have both names added. David Wilson ( prof ) says that the JB case is a MOJ.
David Wilson doesn't think JB is a MOJ. I also don't think he has had any hand in PH's book.
-
David Wilson doesn't think JB is a MOJ. I also don't think he has had any hand in PH's book.
Recently on his twitter page,he said that he was,as does Dr.Sandra Lean.
-
Recently on his twitter page,he said that he was,as does Dr.Sandra Lean.
Hi lookout
who is David Wilson ???
-
Hi lookout
who is David Wilson ???
A top criminologist who was also a prison governer.
-
A top criminologist who was also a prison governer.
He worked a lot alongside PH studying various criminals and also bookwritings. The prof. has been on telly a lot,clever man and not one to be messed with. He lives in Scotland too but not sure where.
-
He worked a lot alongside PH studying various criminals and also bookwritings. The prof. has been on telly a lot,clever man and not one to be messed with. He lives in Scotland too but not sure where.
Hi lookout
thanks for that. They all live up here i.e. PH Ian Rankin now this guy will find out where he is might be my neighbour ;D ;D ;D ;D if he is I shall ask him ;D
-
Hi lookout
thanks for that. They all live up here i.e. PH Ian Rankin now this guy will find out where he is might be my neighbour ;D ;D ;D ;D if he is I shall ask him ;D
The prof.is a no-nonsense man.Yes,find out if he's your neighbour. Straight talking guy. ;D ;D ;D" Scotty
-
Recently on his twitter page,he said that he was,as does Dr.Sandra Lean.
Just searched his tweets for the past month and can't find anything about Bamber.
-
Just searched his tweets for the past month and can't find anything about Bamber.
It's definitely there. Besides,why are you bothering if you already know that " he doesn't support Jeremy ?" DW is in agreeance that it's a MOJ.
-
It's definitely there. Besides,why are you bothering if you already know that " he doesn't support Jeremy ?" DW is in agreeance that it's a MOJ.
Because I like to check things out for myself, you have to here because people post any old rubbish as fact. When did he tweet this? I even did a word search on his tweets and there is nothing about Bamber!
-
Because I like to check things out for myself, you have to here because people post any old rubbish as fact. When did he tweet this? I even did a word search on his tweets and there is nothing about Bamber!
What's his twitter?
-
What's his twitter?
https://twitter.com/ProfDavidWilson
Searched right back to early March with a word search - nothing!
Just Googled 'Jeremy Bamber, Professor David Wilson' - nothing!
-
https://twitter.com/ProfDavidWilson
Searched right back to early March with a word search - nothing!
Just Googled 'Jeremy Bamber, Professor David Wilson' - nothing!
Prof David Wilson ?@ProfDavidWilson Jan 25
Delighted nurse Pauline Cafferkey has recovered from Ebola - as the son, brother and father of nurses I know the extraordinary job they do.
^^ I Went to Jan 25 and nothing. ;D ;D I think we know why.
-
Because I like to check things out for myself, you have to here because people post any old rubbish as fact. When did he tweet this? I even did a word search on his tweets and there is nothing about Bamber!
I searched yesterday and could not find anything, thought it was just me?
-
It was on someone else's twitter which DW was answering to.
-
It could have been one of Mark Williams-Thomas twitters,but I definitely saw it.
-
It could have been one of Mark Williams-Thomas twitters,but I definitely saw it.
such a shame you don't put up links Lookout, it's easy to do and will stop people accusing you o f lying. I don't for one minute believe you are lying but it allows some to claim you are. I am sure you are an honest person.
-
such a shame you don't put up links Lookout, it's easy to do and will stop people accusing you o f lying. I don't for one minute believe you are lying but it allows some to claim you are. I am sure you are an honest person.
Maggie I'm as honest as the day's long and I know that what I read was also authentic and written by honest people. The link was about MOJ's and DW chipped in with his sixpenn'orth when talking about Bamber.
I'm even trying to remember how he described the MOJ.
-
It was on someone else's twitter which DW was answering to.
It would be still on his page and there is nothing. I think you're mistaken Lookout.
-
Maggie I'm as honest as the day's long and I know that what I read was also authentic and written by honest people. The link was about MOJ's and DW chipped in with his sixpenn'orth when talking about Bamber.
I'm even trying to remember how he described the MOJ.
This is the only mention of Jeremy by MWT
Mark Williams-Thomas ?@mwilliamsthomas Jul 2
Jeremy Bamber (54) recently moved to HMP Wakefield for operational reasons. He is one of the country longest serving prisoners
-
This is the only mention of Jeremy by MWT
Mark Williams-Thomas ?@mwilliamsthomas Jul 2
Jeremy Bamber (54) recently moved to HMP Wakefield for operational reasons. He is one of the country longest serving prisoners
I went back to April when I saw DW's remark. I think he said that it was an" appalling MOJ ".
-
I wonder why he was moved.
-
I do know that MWT supports Jeremy. I think he's also in tune with info. for the next submission.
-
I went back to April when I saw DW's remark. I think he said that it was an" appalling MOJ ".
I did a word search on Jeremy and Bamber and there is nothing there. Unless we can see the tweet, it is another unsubstantiated claim.
-
Maggie I'm as honest as the day's long and I know that what I read was also authentic and written by honest people. The link was about MOJ's and DW chipped in with his sixpenn'orth when talking about Bamber.
I'm even trying to remember how he described the MOJ.
Trouble is, Lookout, you haven't managed to produce an authentic source for the majority of what you say others have said. You have, and do, constantly demand that we present you with proof of Jeremy's guilt -that's despite a jury finding him so- so you can't hold it against anyone for wanting proof of what you say.
-
Trouble is, Lookout, you haven't managed to produce an authentic source for the majority of what you say others have said. You have, and do, constantly demand that we present you with proof of Jeremy's guilt -that's despite a jury finding him so- so you can't hold it against anyone for wanting proof of what you say.
April I've gone past caring about what anyone thinks. The only proof I've asked of the guilters is to produce some forensic evidence,of which I've had no reply from as yet,so I'm not on my own here.
Sooner or later we'll all know our fate as regards him being innocent/guilty,but until then I'll just grin and bear it.It's all you can do when there's a blanket-ban on this new information. None of us would be here if there weren't questions to be answered anyway. It doesn't happen to all " lifers ".
-
April I've gone past caring about what anyone thinks. The only proof I've asked of the guilters is to produce some forensic evidence,of which I've had no reply from as yet,so I'm not on my own here.
Sooner or later we'll all know our fate as regards him being innocent/guilty,but until then I'll just grin and bear it.It's all you can do when there's a blanket-ban on this new information. None of us would be here if there weren't questions to be answered anyway. It doesn't happen to all " lifers ".
I fail to see how it's any different from you being asked to produce proof that SAY has been said is actually so. Thus far, you have been offered those things which helped to convict Jeremy -it's no one's fault if you refuse to accept it- but the most you've offered is that you read it somewhere/so and so said it but you can't remember where. Dismissing it by saying that you're past caring what others think COULD imply a bit of creativity.
-
I fail to see how it's any different from you being asked to produce proof that SAY has been said is actually so. Thus far, you have been offered those things which helped to convict Jeremy -it's no one's fault if you refuse to accept it- but the most you've offered is that you read it somewhere/so and so said it but you can't remember where. Dismissing it by saying that you're past caring what others think COULD imply a bit of creativity.
If the proof can't be posted or found, you have to ask yourself why? It's no good posting bold claims if you can't back it up.
-
If the proof can't be posted or found, you have to ask yourself why? It's no good posting bold claims if you can't back it up.
Well I didn't make it up that's for sure. Like I don't make anything else up. Why would I ? That benefits nobody,least of all myself.
-
Well I didn't make it up that's for sure. Like I don't make anything else up. Why would I ? That benefits nobody,least of all myself.
I didn't say you made it up, I said you were 'mistaken'. I have no idea why you don't post links?
-
If Prof David Wilson supported Bamber, he would be following him on Twitter - he's not!
-
If Prof David Wilson supported Bamber, he would be following him on Twitter - he's not!
And he would tweet about it, at least ONCE.
-
And he would tweet about it, at least ONCE.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Whilst not discussing Jeremy Bamber directly this video does discuss the category of the disgruntled employee. https://youtu.be/eO1B8SJFfyk
-
Good God,the spite on here is sickening.
Is your pastime spent skitting those who are not as brainy as yourselves ? I'm SICK of it !!
-
Good God,the spite on here is sickening.
Is your pastime spent skitting those who are not as brainy as yourselves ? I'm SICK of it !!
If you posted links no one could question your claims, but you just announce something as a fact and expect everyone to go with it. I have searched DW's Twitter page, also MWT and the ONLY thing I have found is MWT commenting on the prison move. There is a random mention of DW on Bamber Tweets where he is linked into a message that thanks MWT for his support. DW isn't even following Bamber Tweets.
-
Good God,the spite on here is sickening.
Is your pastime spent skitting those who are not as brainy as yourselves ? I'm SICK of it !!
You are attacking people for actually looking at the evidence in this case and following it where it leads instead of your preferred action which is to refuse to learn the evidence, reject the evidence anytime the evidence is posted for your edification and to instead just insist Jeremy is innocent no matter what because you don't want to face his guilt.
It has nothing to do with braininess it has to do with facing the evidence objectively and honestly instead of hiding from it.
-
Scorpio states his version of things as fact. He is obviously entitled to his opinion, but thats all it is,opinion , like everyone else's.
-
Scorpio states his version of things as fact. He is obviously entitled to his opinion, but thats all it is,opinion , like everyone else's.
Scipio backs up his argument with evidence - that's the difference!!
-
Scipio backs up his argument with evidence - that's the difference!!
Depending on what you believe
-
Depending on what you believe
Evidence if evidence no matter what you believe. Some people pretend it doesn't exist or they change the facts to suit their own agenda.
-
Adam, your last post has already been removed once by a moderator. This shows you just like to wind folks up - if anyone here is an attention seeker, it's YOU!!
-
Adam, you have had a private warning already but you are going too far I have removed your offensive post 3 times if you post it again I shall ban you.
-
Adam, you have had a private warning already but you are going too far I have removed your offensive lost 3 times if you post it again I shall ban you.
Why don't you remove posts that call me racist, or sexist. And say 'good post' yesterday when Jan accuses me of having no brain cells.
I was just agreeing with Scipio.And saying why Lookout posts incorrect facts without sources, asks for evidence and then ignores the evidence when it is posted
-
Adam, you have had a private warning already but you are going too far I have removed your offensive lost 3 times if you post it again I shall ban you.
I don't know what Adam wrote, but I have seen people call other people xxxxxx,xxxxxxx xxxxxxx and such like, oh, but that's ok cause there posts are edited for the thousandth time.
Unless your gonna treat everyone the same the forums a nonsense.
-
I don't know what Adam wrote, but I have seen people call other people xxxxxx,xxxxxxx xxxxxxx and such like, oh, but that's ok cause there posts are edited for the thousandth time.
Unless your gonna treat everyone the same the forums a nonsense.
Is that so?
-
Why don't you remove posts that call me racist, or sexist. And say 'good post' yesterday when Jan accuses me of having no brain cells.
I was just agreeing with Scipio.And saying why Lookout posts incorrect facts without sources, asks for evidence and then ignores the evidence when it is posted
Nope, you were using it as ANOTHER excuse to be vile and foul. If ALL you said was that which was in the above post, the offending post would have remained. I imagine Scipio can manage very well without you corroborating his posts.
-
I don't know what Adam wrote, but I have seen people call other people xxxxxx,xxxxxxx xxxxxxx and such like, oh, but that's ok cause there posts are edited for the thousandth time.
Unless your gonna treat everyone the same the forums a nonsense.
There is only one poster who uses such language and he owns the forum - his posts are edited for that reason.
-
Why don't you remove posts that call me racist, or sexist. And say 'good post' yesterday when Jan accuses me of having no brain cells.
I was just agreeing with Scipio.And saying why Lookout posts incorrect facts without sources, asks for evidence and then ignores the evidence when it is posted
I was asking Lookout to provide links to her claims and you jumped on the bandwagon to try and antagonise - making some stupid comments about nightclubs. You know what you're doing Adam and you do it on purpose.
-
Obviously Grahame was the worst offender. Calling me and Scipio names and thick on a regular basis.
I did email the moderators who said it would be wrong to ban him as he was not very well.
I PM'd two moderators after he said 'f--- off bitch' to another poster. One did not respond. The other said saying this did not warrant a ban.
He said that to me but apologised soon after. No one was calling anyone names tonight so why have a go at Lookout's age? Because that's what you were trying to do!
-
Is that so?
Hahaha,quality, do I have a thousand obscenities left before I'm banned as well.
-
I am sure everyone agrees why Lookout refuses to accept the evidence.
So don't see why the reason should not be posted.
-
I don't know what Adam wrote, but I have seen people call other people xxxxxx,xxxxxxx xxxxxxx and such like, oh, but that's ok cause there posts are edited for the thousandth time.
Unless your gonna treat everyone the same the forums a nonsense.
Mike blows gaskets when he loses his cool. Adam fires poisonous darts for his own amusement and probably giggles whist he's doing it. Neither is acceptable.
-
He said that to me but apologised soon after. No one was calling anyone names tonight so why have a go at Lookout's age? Because that's what you were trying to do!
Not having a go at anyone's age.
Obviously in Lookouts case it relates to seeking attention. The easiest way to do it is to refuse to change stance and ignore the evidence.
-
Why don't you remove posts that call me racist, or sexist. And say 'good post' yesterday when Jan accuses me of having no brain cells.
I was just agreeing with Scipio.And saying why Lookout posts incorrect facts without sources, asks for evidence and then ignores the evidence when it is posted
I wasn't agreeing about your brain cells or lack of them I was speakingabout the point lookout made. You are often sexist and ageist I am aware you are stirring and attention seeking.
I have given you lots of leeway, but youre asking be banned and I'm getting bored so just pack it in.
-
He said that to me but apologised soon after. No one was calling anyone names tonight so why have a go at Lookout's age? Because that's what you were trying to do!
MY God!!! Caroline it has to be the third or forth time Adam has used that particular post to excuse his most recent offence.
-
Not having a go at anyone's age.
Obviously in Lookouts case it relates to seeking attention. The easiest way to do it is to refuse to change stance and ignore the evidence.
Yes you were Adam, hence the 'Nightclub' comment. No one seeks attention more than you. If yo feel as though you're being ignored, you start getting personal. Also starting posts with 'you must change your stance' is frankly getting old and is clearly goading.
-
I wasn't agreeing about your brain cells or lack of them I was speakingabout the point lookout made. You are often sexist and ageist I am aware you are stirring and attention seeking.
I have given you lots of leeway, but youre asking be banned and I'm getting bored so just pack it in.
Can you give examples of how I am sexist or ageist please. This is a crime forum.
Otherwise I will have to make a complaint to NGB.
Thank you.
-
Can you give examples of how I am sexist or ageist please. This is a crime forum.
Otherwise I will have to make a complaint to NGB.
Thank you.
You constantly have a go at Lookout about her age, denying that will be futile because we have ALL read it!
-
Yes you were Adam, hence the 'Nightclub' comment. No one seeks attention more than you. If yo feel as though you're being ignored, you start getting personal. Also starting posts with 'you must change your stance' is frankly getting old and is clearly goading.
Well why does Lookout ask for evidence, then when it is supplied there is no response. Then she asks for the same evidence again. Then say things which no one is aware of, but refuses to provide a source.
It must be to seek attention.
-
Can you give examples of how I am sexist or ageist please. This is a crime forum.
Otherwise I will have to make a complaint to NGB.
Thank you.
I said you were ageist, occasionally you have been sexist about the women jurers but no I cannot go searching for examples. I hope you are not racist.
Please feel free to complain to ngb, your behaviour just now has justified a ban, you're lucky you're still here.
-
You constantly have a go at Lookout about her age, denying that will be futile because we have ALL read it!
I just said denying everything on here is the easiest way for her to get attention in life.
But apologies, maybe that is wrong.
-
Well why does Lookout ask for evidence, then when it is supplied there is no response. Then she asks for the same evidence again. Then say things which no one is aware of, but refuses to provide a source.
It must be to seek attention.
Are you begrudging of anything which draws attention away from your main focus?
-
I just said denying everything on here is the easiest way for her to get attention in life.
But apologies, maybe that is wrong.
And you HAD to repeat it didn't you?
-
I said you were ageist, occasionally you have been sexist about the women jurers but no I cannot go searching for examples. I hope you are not racist.
Please feel free to complain to ngb, your behaviour just now has justified a ban, you're lucky you're still here.
I posted this week about the John Tanner case. Two jurors amazingly voted 'not guilty'.
It is a fact that two female jurors voted 'not guilty' in the Bamber case. It was Stan Jones who suggested they may have been swayed by his charm and good looks. I don't agree with him to be honest.
-
Well why does Lookout ask for evidence, then when it is supplied there is no response. Then she asks for the same evidence again. Then say things which no one is aware of, but refuses to provide a source.
It must be to seek attention.
I don't think she says anything to 'seek attention' - she made continually dismiss the evidence but I don't think she does so to seek attention. I think it's fair enough to ask where she gets her info from - it's a reasonable question but getting personal isn't. The nightclub comment was a step too far because of the underlying meaning.
-
I posted this week about the John Tanner case. Two jurors amazingly voted 'not guilty'.
It is a fact that two female jurors voted 'not guilty' in the Bamber case. It was Stan Jones who suggested they may have been swayed by his charm and good looks. I don't agree with him to be honest.
Ok but don't imply you do. Think this has been done to death, let's move on but try not to be personal and hurtful, stick to the subject.
-
I don't think she says anything to 'seek attention' - she made continually dismiss the evidence but I don't think she does so to seek attention. I think it's fair enough to ask where she gets her info from - it's a reasonable question but getting personal isn't. The nightclub comment was a step too far because of the underlying meaning.
Caroline as you have rightly said lookout is NOT an attention seeker and does have more in her life than her cats I have never been able to understand why Adam would say this. Missed the nightclub comment.
-
Caroline as you have rightly said lookout is NOT an attention seeker and does have more in her life than her cats I have never been able to understand why Adam would say this. Missed the nightclub comment.
I certainly don't see her as seeking attention - just very forthright!! (I do wish she would include sources though!! ;D ;D ;D ;D)
-
I certainly don't see her as seeking attention - just very forthright!! (I do wish she would include sources though!! ;D ;D ;D ;D)
Often she can't, because what she says isn't true. Her claims about scratches on June and Neville, aren't true. So no link in the world would back that up - in fact a link would prove that the claims aren't true.
I don't think it is attention seeking though, it's reading something and either
1. Putting her on spin on it.
2. Taking it as the gospel truth aslong as it makes Bamber sound innocent and not fact checking.
-
I certainly don't see her as seeking attention - just very forthright!! (I do wish she would include sources though!! ;D ;D ;D ;D)
Caroline lookout is so consumed and passionate about this case she genuinely forgets where her source is ;D ;D ;D she always reads the points she makes but cannot remember where ;D
-
Often she can't, because what she says isn't true. Her claims about scratches on June and Neville, aren't true. So no link in the world would back that up - in fact a link would prove that the claims aren't true.
I don't think it is attention seeking though, it's reading something and either
1. Putting her on spin on it.
2. Taking it as the gospel truth aslong as it makes Bamber sound innocent and not fact checking.
I'd say it was the latter, that's why links or stating where you saw the info is important, if it's wrong, you were simply repeating what someone else said, but if you people can't check the info for themselves, you just leave yourself open to criticism. It was cause Lookout far less grief if she posted links.
-
I'd say it was the latter, that's why links or stating where you saw the info is important, if it's wrong, you were simply repeating what someone else said, but if you people can't check the info for themselves, you just leave yourself open to criticism. It was cause Lookout far less grief if she posted links.
She hasn't got links for what she says. Which is why she says 'find it yourself'.
She asked me for the evidence of why Sheila didn't commit the massacre. I posted 15 points.
She then asked the same question to you a few days later.
Forgetfulness ?
Scipio says she ignores the evidence. Why ?
-
She hasn't got links for what she says. Which is why she says 'find it yourself'.
She asked me for the evidence of why Sheila didn't commit the massacre. I posted 15 points.
She then asked the same question to you a few days later.
Forgetfulness ?
Scipio says she ignores the evidence. Why ?
Actually Adam lookout is a free agent she can post anyway she likes..... thought you were moving on from all this, Lookout isn't on the forum to defend herself so can you stop discussing her and get back to the subject please.
-
Actually Adam lookout is a free agent she can post anyway she likes..... thought you were moving on from all this, Lookout isn't on the forum to defend herself so can you stop discussing her and get back to the subject please.
My apologies.
It's just that other people were continuing to discuss it.
-
She hasn't got links for what she says. Which is why she says 'find it yourself'.
She asked me for the evidence of why Sheila didn't commit the massacre. I posted 15 points.
She then asked the same question to you a few days later.
Forgetfulness ?
Scipio says she ignores the evidence. Why ?
Adam
lookout does not ignore evidence she is so adamant Jeremy is innocent she just cannot see past it. When I joined the forum at first I thought every word written on the Official Site must be true I did not question it at all and I think lookout is just the same. I notice you believe what you read without a concrete sauce i.e. stuff out of books really is just how the Author sees it no evidence to confirm it. One of my main problems with who committed the murders is just how clean Sheila was and her body appeared staged but this is how I see it lookout could see it differently that does not make her right and me wrong. This case is so complex people are always going to perceive things and I doubt very much if we will ever know the whole truth just snippets and then the stuff we add.
-
Adam
lookout does not ignore evidence she is so adamant Jeremy is innocent she just cannot see past it. When I joined the forum at first I thought every word written on the Official Site must be true I did not question it at all and I think lookout is just the same. I notice you believe what you read without a concrete sauce i.e. stuff out of books really is just how the Author sees it no evidence to confirm it. One of my main problems with who committed the murders is just how clean Sheila was and her body appeared staged but this is how I see it lookout could see it differently that does not make her right and me wrong. This case is so complex people are always going to perceive things and I doubt very much if we will ever know the whole truth just snippets and then the stuff we add.
No I quote from Witness statements, internet articles, Youtube videos, books, police interviews, diaries, links other people post.
You know this as you said the information I gave you changed you're mind.
-
Adam
lookout does not ignore evidence she is so adamant Jeremy is innocent she just cannot see past it. When I joined the forum at first I thought every word written on the Official Site must be true I did not question it at all and I think lookout is just the same. I notice you believe what you read without a concrete sauce i.e. stuff out of books really is just how the Author sees it no evidence to confirm it. One of my main problems with who committed the murders is just how clean Sheila was and her body appeared staged but this is how I see it lookout could see it differently that does not make her right and me wrong. This case is so complex people are always going to perceive things and I doubt very much if we will ever know the whole truth just snippets and then the stuff we add.
I think we have made it complicated by seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. People have added things or taken them out of context to a point where many of the myths have been taken as fact. If you strip everything back and ignore what is said on the OS - the picture is much clearer.
-
I think we have made it complicated by seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. People have added things or taken them out of context to a point where many of the myths have been taken as fact. If you strip everything back and ignore what is said on the OS - the picture is much clearer.
Caroline good point I believe nothing now I read on the OS at one time I thought every word was true.
-
Caroline good point I believe nothing now I read on the OS at one time I thought every word was true.
That is the wrong approach.
Most of what is posted as fact is true. Backed up by sources by posters.
Everything on my 'new video' thread created yesterday is true. It discusses what is said in the video. People are allowed to say what was said on the video is wrong. Although most of it is 'primary' sources.
People's opinions are never wrong.
-
That is the wrong approach.
Most of what is posted as fact is true. Backed up by sources by posters.
Everything on my 'new video' thread created yesterday is true. It discusses what is said in the video. People are allowed to say what was said on the video is wrong. Although most of it is 'primary' sources.
People's opinions are never wrong.
Eh? ???
-
Eh? ???
Caroline
Eh? ???
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No I quote from Witness statements, internet articles, Youtube videos, books, police interviews, diaries, links other people post.
You know this as you said the information I gave you changed you're mind.
Adam you are so right you had a big influence on me changing my stance. Thank you for that.
-
That is the wrong approach.
People's opinions are never wrong.
Well my opinion is that Jeremy is innocent and Julie did not tell the whole truth in court.
There that was simple wasn't it ? ;D
-
Well my opinion is that Jeremy is innocent and Julie did not tell the whole truth in court.
There that was simple wasn't it ? ;D
Hahaha Jan I thought Adam was leaving himself wide open on this one unless it is a trick question ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well my opinion is that Jeremy is innocent and Julie did not tell the whole truth in court.
There that was simple wasn't it ? ;D
Jan you must PM me if you are worried about changing stance.
I know you and Alias want to post, but know Scipio is about. But you can still post after changing stance, just as others have done.
-
Jan you must PM me if you are worried about changing stance.
I know you and Alias want to post, but know Scipio is about. But you can still post after changing stance, just as others have done.
You should start holding your breath now!
-
You should start holding your breath now!
I should have given you the opportunity to PM me. My apologies.
The only other poster who I gave the opportunity to PM me was Lookout. But she errr believes Jeremy is innocent.
-
Jan you must PM me if you are worried about changing stance.
I know you and Alias want to post, but know Scipio is about. But you can still post after changing stance, just as others have done.
You must watch that goading Adam - you have been warned. Several times .
-
You must watch that goading Adam - you have been warned. Several times .
Julie didn't tell 'the whole truth' in court ? All of it had to be lies in order for Bamber to be innocent.
-
I should have given you the opportunity to PM me. My apologies.
The only other poster who I gave the opportunity to PM me was Lookout. But she errr believes Jeremy is innocent.
Hope you're still holding your breath - I'll PM you now! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hope you're still holding your breath - I'll PM you now! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Caroline he may need to be brought round with mouth to mouth ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline he may need to be brought round with mouth to mouth ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I've got a better idea ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline he may need to be brought round with mouth to mouth ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Any volunteers? ;D ;D
-
Any volunteers? ;D ;D
Don't all rush at once....................you can only get out the door one at a time :D :D
-
Don't all rush at once....................you can only get out the door one at a time :D :D
April suppose I'll have to do it he has taught me so much of late ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Don't all rush at once....................you can only get out the door one at a time :D :D
Sorry, I can't do it, I'm washing my hair. ;)
-
April suppose I'll have to do it he has taught me so much of late ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Opps, sorry Susan, I seen to have tripped you over! :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Sorry, I can't do it, I'm washing my hair. ;)
I have to ensure my paint dries properly ;)
-
I have to ensure my paint dries properly ;)
First things first!! ;D ;D
-
Julie didn't tell 'the whole truth' in court ? All of it had to be lies in order for Bamber to be innocent.
No I think she got her name right.
-
Opps, sorry Susan, I seen to have tripped you over! :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;)
Caroline I am always second best got use to it now ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No I think she got her name right.
Jan ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No I think she got her name right.
That's certain, is it?
-
That's certain, is it?
She couldn't tell the truth if she wasn't told the truth!! ;)
-
She couldn't tell the truth if she wasn't told the truth!! ;)
or as Adam himself said - it just had a ring of truth.
-
or as Adam himself said - it just had a ring of truth.
Hmm. More like ONLY just ;)
-
Jeremy didn't tell Julie the truth - not the whole story, so she could only tell what she knew, if that wasn't the truth, then that's down to Jeremy.
-
Jeremy didn't tell Julie the truth - not the whole story, so she could only tell what she knew, if that wasn't the truth, then that's down to Jeremy.
Exactly. Her story wasn't what happened at WHF. It was was JEREMY told her happened.
-
Or - what the police wanted her to say and fed to her in the "noble cause"
Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.
-
Or - what the police wanted her to say and fed to her in the "noble cause"
Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.
Why would they bother to invent a hit man? Why wouldn't they just get her to say that Jeremy told her he killed them?
-
Or - what the police wanted her to say and fed to her in the "noble cause"
Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it.
That's it, the police told Julie what to say.
This was around the same time they told the lab technicians to contaminate the silencer and get the experts to give false evidence on Sheila's condition.
Poor Jeremy didn't know what had hit him after returning from St Tropez.
-
That's it, the police told Julie what to say.
This was around the same time they told the lab technicians to contaminate the silencer and get the experts to give false evidence on Sheila's condition.
Poor Jeremy didn't know what had hit him after returning from St Tropez.
the second part is your words not mine.
-
Why would they bother to invent a hit man? Why wouldn't they just get her to say that Jeremy told her he killed them?
because I think at one stage they thought he had an accomplice who had made the call from the house. I am not sure why . But I think they were under pressure for answers and at that point they had little evidence .
-
because I think at one stage they thought he had an accomplice who had made the call from the house. I am not sure why . But I think they were under pressure for answers and at that point they had little evidence .
Making up a hitman is absurd. Fingering someone as that made up hitman is even more absurd. If you are going to make one up you say Jeremy never revealed the name. You don't ID someone so that such person can provide an alibi and demolish the entire lie in short order.
-
Making up a hitman is absurd. Fingering someone as that made up hitman is even more absurd. If you are going to make one up you say Jeremy never revealed the name. You don't ID someone so that such person can provide an alibi and demolish the entire lie in short order.
That's a good point.
If the police told Julie what to say, why would they tell her to mention MM ?
-
because I think at one stage they thought he had an accomplice who had made the call from the house. I am not sure why . But I think they were under pressure for answers and at that point they had little evidence .
So they dragged MM out of nowhere?
-
is pauls book out yet.
-
I don't think so nugs.
-
Carol Ann Lee's is out next week-------£11.99@WHSmiths.
-
With all the criminologists involved,you'd think one of them would be right.
-
is pauls book out yet.
Hello nugnug
I believe his book is out on the 18th July according to Amazon and Carol Ann's on the 30th July,
-
With all the criminologists involved,you'd think one of them would be right.
They are right, they think he's guilty.
-
Carol Ann Lee's is out next week-------£11.99@WHSmiths.
Says 30th July on website Lookout? Have you seen it somewhere else?
-
Says 30th July on website Lookout? Have you seen it somewhere else?
I know one of the books is out next week. Obviously PH's.
-
10 days until PH's book is released, although if you have Amazon Prime you'll get it the night before.