Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Sparkle on May 31, 2012, 02:44:PM
-
I'm kind of new to all this so please forgive me if I'm writing this in the wrong place or anything.
From what I've read about this case, there seems to be nothing but circumstantial evidence to support both guilty and non guilty theories, however I'm struggling to see how the opinion that JB could be guilty can be formed.
I feel that there is no forensic evidence, and even guesswork would lead me to think that Jeremy did not commit these murders. Can anyone give me a believable, convincing argument or evidence to the contrary? I've had a look round the Internet and pretty much all I've seen from the guilty camp goes along the lines of "HE IS AN EVIL CHILD KILLER, LET HIM ROT!" with nothing to back up these wild statements!
I had a really snotty tweet the other week telling me to "check your facts, he is guilty" if anyone c
-
Oops sorry my phone posted for me before I finished!
If anyone could direct me to these so called facts then it would be appreciated!
-
Hi sparkle I have asked this question many times on this forum and as yet I have not been convinced that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of these horrific murders. I am quite new to the case so my knowledge is limited but I have read and read different documents and it would appear evidence is being held back and if Jeremy was guilty why would this action be necessary. So I am sorry I cannot convince you one way or another. lookout and Patti have done much research and they could tell you more than I. I suppose the argument is how could Sheila have carried out these murders she had no marks on her as Ralph had been severly beaten one would expect some marks but then again neither did Jeremy have any marks on him. I suppose you will have to do what I do read the for and against and you will make up your own mind up but everyhting appears to be supposition.
-
Hi Sparkle Patti or lookout will beable to help you I am still finding my own feet on the facts of this case.
-
Hi Susan and Sparkle. It's easier for me because I've actually followed this pretty well from when the horrendous " crime " took place.
As Susan knows,,,I'm of the strong belief that Jeremy is innocent as besides there being nothing to incriminate him,,it's his poor sister who had the " motive " more than anyone else.
The girl was sick,with big psychological problems and back in the late 70's early 80's her illness wasn't recognised as it is today.
I fully understood Sheila's illness having worked in an " asylum " as it was known in the 50's and for patients such as Sheila,they used to be " knocked out " via an injection known as Paraldehyde,a noxious and distressingly instant " hit " to those who proved to be beyond assistance during a psychotic bout.
During the 80's,medication had moved on,but knowledge of schizophrenic behaviour was still in its early days and was very misunderstood,so therefore it was always hit and miss as regards the treatment and the actual understanding of the patient.
Dr Ferguson who was treating Sheila " didn't think " that Sheila was suicidal. A lot of schizophrenics are suicidal and even today,,their lives aren't as long as those who aren't mentally disturbed.
I would have stated immediately that it had been Sheila because of past experiences with people like her. I'd also like to add about their strength, capabilities and deviousness. They are quite lucid one minute and the next,they can kill you if you're not careful . While working at a hospital/asylum, I nearly discovered how dangerous a young 18 year old could be,,,when I was making her bed one morning. She picked me up like a rag doll and threw me onto the iron frame of the bed. I was winded and bruised,,but made sure she was out of her room the next time. Unpredictable,is the operative word for all schizophrenics.
So there you are. I would leave Jeremy out of the equation altogether because it's not about him murdering anyone. It was about his very ill sister.
-
Yes, I can't see money as a motive. If his parents were pretty much financing his lifestyle then he would have already benefited from their money, why kill them? Maybe if they had threatened to cut him off I'd be more inclined to believe it was him! My mum pays my rent, upkeep on my car, buys my kids and me clothes (I'm poor and she's a soft touch lol). I know she has money to leave me should the worst happen but I wouldn't bump her off for it - even if I was the murdering type, as she already puts so much money into my children, my business and myself!
Plus, having a bit of an understanding of mental illness, this kind of crime surely had to be undertaken by someone very, very poorly. As I understand Jeremy has no such mental illness?
-
Hi lookout many thanks for that I am sure it will help Sparkle to understand Sheila,s illness and as I said she will make her own mind up as she goes.Not really sure what set Sheila off think it was more than fostering episode but we will never know. :(
-
Hi Sparkle,,,no Jeremy isn't mentally ill,just a mug who " took the wrap " for this.
A case of,if all else fails when the others are dead,,,blame the one left behind.It's easy.
Jeremy had no motive whatsoever.There's not a scrap of evidence to prove it was him who did it.
His relatives appeared to have done all the groundwork,,instead of the police.
Fair trial.? No. I don't think so.
-
By his phone call he made it him or Sheila, and there's no evidence it was her.
-
It terrifies me that someone can have their whole life ripped away from them pretty much on the say so of their ex, and some dodgy evidence "found" by people who stand to gain financially from a conviction!
I can fully understand a conversation regarding fostering (or something similar, I don't believe that the subject of actual foster care would have been brought up, due to their father) could have set Sheila off...
-
By his phone call he made it him or Sheila, and there's no evidence it was her.
Hi Bridget, which phone call do you mean?
-
Hi Bridget, which phone call do you mean?
The one Jeremy made to the police and in which he said that his father had told him Sheila has a gun and is going crazy (or similar).
-
The fostering episode wouldn't have just sparked Sheila off,,but for whatever other reason that was going on in her mind,,it certainly did help to exacerbate an already volatile situation.
-
Hello Sparkle, like lookout, I've followed this case from the beginning. Like Jeremy and Sheila, I'm adopted, and for that reason perhaps, back then, I believed Jeremy was guilty, which probably said more about me, than him, but I didn't commit murder, EITHER!!!!! Mind you, in 1985, Jeremy did himself no favours and his arrogant, supercilious and contemptuous attitude was probably responsible for many feeling he had been given his just desserts.........but none of the afore mentioned made him a murderer. I'm now inclined to think that a scapegoat was needed and Jeremy was available. Hope you enjoy your time here.
-
Hello Sparkle, like lookout, I've followed this case from the beginning. Like Jeremy and Sheila, I'm adopted, and for that reason perhaps, back then, I believed Jeremy was guilty, which probably said more about me, than him, but I didn't commit murder, EITHER!!!!! Mind you, in 1985, Jeremy did himself no favours and his arrogant, supercilious and contemptuous attitude was probably responsible for many feeling he had been given his just desserts.........but none of the afore mentioned made him a murderer. I'm now inclined to think that a scapegoat was needed and Jeremy was available. Hope you enjoy your time here.
Speaking as someone in their 20s (just about lol), I have to say that I know plenty of lads around this age. Most of them are arrogant, obnoxious little twerps - particularly the pretty ones - but I don't think any of them have shot their families!! That kind of attitude is just part and parcel of being a young man in my experience x
-
Hi Sparkle I think you are right about good looking young men they are often arrogant and full of themselves especially when they have had such an upbringing as Jeremy private school own house at a young age car all provided by his Father I think they are brought up thinking they are special as his Father did not like him mixing with local lads that he may have to employ one day I know a situation exactly the same not a 2 miles from where I live.
-
Hi Sparkle I think you are right about good looking young men they are often arrogant and full of themselves especially when they have had such an upbringing as Jeremy private school own house at a young age car all provided by his Father I think they are brought up thinking they are special as his Father did not like him mixing with local lads that he may have to employ one day I know a situation exactly the same not a 2 miles from where I live.
For the time jeremy reminds me of a Aramis man.
-
Hi Sparkle,,,,you can't convict someone because of their attitude though. Yes,,he was like all 24 year olds with a few bob in their pockets,showing off,,,an untouchable,,all the usual traits of a cocky young man,,,but it doesn't make them murderers,,even disregarding some of the things he got up to,,,such as growing " weed " in his garden,,which he actually confessed to the police about.
Doesn't this tell you something about his openness.? He had nothing to hide.
-
I'm sorry if I offend anyone by my anti June stance but I can't help it. I know I never met the woman, thank goodness, but everything I know leads me to conclude she had few, if any, redeeming qualities in my eyes. And no she's nothing like my adoptive mother. When I first joined the forum I think I soon got the measure of her. I'm pleased other posters have recently read Colin's book and that Colin's view aligns with my own re June. After all he should know shouldn't he? However, she didn't deserve the end she met.
I think it unlikely she was involved in the murders. With these high profile cases eg Kennedy, Marilyn M, Princess Di, 9/11 etc bizarre conspiracy theories emerge. When the victims are attractive and/or affluent etc, people seem to find it difficult that their lives can be cut short instead wanting to see them as invincible. At the end of the day we're all just mere mortals.
egap1, you most certainly won't offend me over your stance on June, I've been at the epicentre of a similar situation!!!! As to whether she was involved in the murders, whilst I don't think it impossible that there may have been an altercation of some kind between her and Nevill, perhaps he defended Sheila against one of her mothers' tirades, I can't see her causing a fatality.
-
Hi egap1 Mike stated on this forum that Jeremy was still arrogant and selfish but did have some good points. During his Trial some of his remarks to the Prosecution were rather silly and arrogant i.e. he was asked Mr Bamber are you telling lies and his reply was that is for you to prove this is not a verbatim account of events just trying to get the gist of it over. People with Jeremy,s upbringing don,t need impressive jobs to make them feel superior he could do that working in a chippy he had so much confidence he could never feel belittled. Other incidences have been written about and I am sure of the other members will enlighten you. I have never never thought Jeremy to be a bad person I am sure he had some nice qualities and could be very kind I think is upbringing made him how he was.
-
I should have added engaged in low-paid work whilst employed at Little Chef and Sloppy Joes.
but he never spent every night getting sloshed at home like many do he did work .
-
Both June and Nevill had " fingernail marks in their arms,so it would have appeared that Sheila had a go at both of them. Nails,5mm/6mm would suffice for the types of marks that were made.
When you're faced with the barrel of a gun,,nobody's going to fight back,,hence the fact that Sheila didn't have any marks on her body,,apart from the shots.
Neither did Jeremy have any marks on his body,,as that was something Julie Mugford actually told the truth about.
Apparently,there wasn't a struggle going on with Nevill,he was simply being beaten,burnt and shot.
-
I'm kind of new to all this so please forgive me if I'm writing this in the wrong place or anything.
From what I've read about this case, there seems to be nothing but circumstantial evidence to support both guilty and non guilty theories, however I'm struggling to see how the opinion that JB could be guilty can be formed.
I feel that there is no forensic evidence, and even guesswork would lead me to think that Jeremy did not commit these murders. Can anyone give me a believable, convincing argument or evidence to the contrary? I've had a look round the Internet and pretty much all I've seen from the guilty camp goes along the lines of "HE IS AN EVIL CHILD KILLER, LET HIM ROT!" with nothing to back up these wild statements!
I had a really snotty tweet the other week telling me to "check your facts, he is guilty" if anyone c
In my opinion there is not sufficient evidence to say JB committed any crime.....One has to prove he got in and out of the house first and that was never proved.
I also feel there is not enough evidence to say Sheila committed any crime either.....but, if one can't prove someone got in and out of the house, then it would have to have been someone from the inside.... :) :) :)
-
Hi Sparkle,,,,you can't convict someone because of their attitude though. Yes,,he was like all 24 year olds with a few bob in their pockets,showing off,,,an untouchable,,all the usual traits of a cocky young man,,,but it doesn't make them murderers,,even disregarding some of the things he got up to,,,such as growing " weed " in his garden,,which he actually confessed to the police about.
Doesn't this tell you something about his openness.? He had nothing to hide.
Lookout, that is exactly what I am saying. You can't "prove" someone guilty of murder just because you don't like their attitude!
This guy needs a fair trial, this case alone makes me thank god that we don't have the death penalty in this country.
-
Both June and Nevill had " fingernail marks in their arms,so it would have appeared that Sheila had a go at both of them. Nails,5mm/6mm would suffice for the types of marks that were made.
When you're faced with the barrel of a gun,,nobody's going to fight back,,hence the fact that Sheila didn't have any marks on her body,,apart from the shots.
Neither did Jeremy have any marks on his body,,as that was something Julie Mugford actually told the truth about.
Apparently,there wasn't a struggle going on with Nevill,he was simply being beaten,burnt and shot.
Hello Lookout, Where is it documented that June and Nevill had fingernail marks on their arms?
-
To carry out these crimes a high burden of error would have been at stake, when jeremy said his father had called him , upon storming the house for anyone to still be alive and said different jeremy would be guilty end of, the shooting could not have been comitted on that risk knowing one error is all thats needed or forgetting something on leaving or a minor injury .
-
Patti,,there's no evidence at all to incriminate Jeremy. Even all the needless debate on the phone calls.
After a trauma like that,,who would remember anything.? If Jeremy had taken any part at all,,he'd have made sure that calls,and everything that was said,,matched up. In this case it didn't and that's how you know he was telling the truth.
Sorry to Jeremy for saying it,,,but he wasn't clever enough to be a murderer.
-
Hi Sparkle,,,,you can't convict someone because of their attitude though. Yes,,he was like all 24 year olds with a few bob in their pockets,showing off,,,an untouchable,,all the usual traits of a cocky young man,,,but it doesn't make them murderers,,even disregarding some of the things he got up to,,,such as growing " weed " in his garden,,which he actually confessed to the police about.
Doesn't this tell you something about his openness.? He had nothing to hide.
He wasn't very open about burgling the caravan site though was he?;)
-
By his phone call he made it him or Sheila, and there's no evidence it was her.
It we take the case down to this simple equation (overly simple in my opinion), it begs the question as to why he would leave her with 'no evidence' of being culpable for the incident? I suspect given the original stance of the police, the pathologist and the reviewing detective Keneally, it's not that there was no evidence, it's more likely that police managed to later present a case that there was no evidence. This is probably one of the main reasons for the use of PII.
-
It we take the case down to this simple equation (overly simple in my opinion), it begs the question as to why he would leave her with 'no evidence' of being culpable for the incident? I suspect given the original stance of the police, the pathologist and the reviewing detective Keneally, it's not that there was no evidence, it's more likely that police managed to later present a case that there was no evidence. This is probably one of the main reasons for the use of PII.
Are you honestly suggesting that the police have hidden the clothing Sheila was wearing when she shot everyone?
-
He wasn't very open about burgling the caravan site though was he?;)
It was hardly the crime of the century and there's someone on the other forum who has a member of her family with a string of convictions talk about pot kettle
The cheque fraud was far better planned and more serious and Jeremy wasn't involved
Let's have a guess who thought it was easy to rob the family caravan park
Probably the same person who found it easy to go from shop to shop in Oxford street using stolen cheque books
-
Hi Sparkle I think you are right about good looking young men they are often arrogant and full of themselves especially when they have had such an upbringing as Jeremy private school own house at a young age car all provided by his Father I think they are brought up thinking they are special as his Father did not like him mixing with local lads that he may have to employ one day I know a situation exactly the same not a 2 miles from where I live.
egap1, Susan outlines here very clearly why Jeremy gained his reputation. After an expensive education he did little of any consequence and at 24 was still doing the kind of work often done by students. Maybe at the time he had no interest in academia. Maybe he had no need to earn, other than to top up his allowance from time to time. Nothing he did seems to have lasted for long. I wonder just how easy it was for him to make friends without feeling the need to impress. I imagine most young men of his age (and social set) would have been chasing those careers that you mentioned as being suitable, and as those careers took off it could have left him feeling very humiliated and needing to "big" himself up.
-
Are you honestly suggesting that the police have hidden the clothing Sheila was wearing when she shot everyone?
No, though I wouldn't put it past them. What I'm suggesting is that they presented a false case in order to secure conviction. The case they presented should therefore be regarded with the utmost caution and rigour, such as you often apply to defence arguments. I wish you would test your own methods on the prosecution case.
-
Hi lookout I agree Jeremy was not clever enough to have planned the murders of his family his Father called him a nancy boy because he did not like shooting rabbits this is what has been reported anyway had he planned the murders he would have planned a much better alibi for himself and hung onto the keys to the farmhouse I know I would. I think he liked to impress talking big to his girl friend but he was a silly harmless nice young man who craved attention perhaps he felt he had missed out on that as a child. Very sad indeed.
-
Hi April I always thought it was an accepted thing that Jeremy would settle down and end up on the farm. I seem to remember that Ralph said that the extra land he bought would do for Jeremy to work it for himself (don,t quote me on this) Maybe he was sowing his wild oats hopping from one thing to another. Sheila was privately educated but she did not make much of a career for herself either but maybe her illness played a part in that who knows. :(
-
I think his life was pretty normal like most other people today, he went traveling , had a few low paid jobs which he enjoyed and probably had a laugh, ended up the farm and was probably looking to settle down with someone nice, he liked to have a girlfriend
A couple more years and he might have been married with a baby
All quite normal
-
It was hardly the crime of the century and there's someone on the other forum who has a member of her family with a string of convictions talk about pot kettle
The cheque fraud was far better planned and more serious and Jeremy wasn't involved
Let's have a guess who thought it was easy to rob the family caravan park
Probably the same person who found it easy to go from shop to shop in Oxford street using stolen cheque books
Neither is weed growing but his confession to that was being used as an example of his openness.
What on earth do other forum member's families have to do with this?
-
egap1, Susan outlines here very clearly why Jeremy gained his reputation. After an expensive education he did little of any consequence and at 24 was still doing the kind of work often done by students. Maybe at the time he had no interest in academia. Maybe he had no need to earn, other than to top up his allowance from time to time. Nothing he did seems to have lasted for long. I wonder just how easy it was for him to make friends without feeling the need to impress. I imagine most young men of his age (and social set) would have been chasing those careers that you mentioned as being suitable, and as those careers took off it could have left him feeling very humiliated and needing to "big" himself up.
-
No, though I wouldn't put it past them. What I'm suggesting is that they presented a false case in order to secure conviction. The case they presented should therefore be regarded with the utmost caution and rigour, such as you often apply to defence arguments. I wish you would test your own methods on the prosecution case.
So the forensic scientists who tested the blood on the nightie are in on it too?
-
Hi egap I agree I cannot be sure at all that Jeremy was arrogant it is just bits I have read on here. I know how difficult it was for him no family nobody to offer support it must have been hellish and it will have been for the past 27 years as his birth parents rejected for a second time.
It is strange I have lived in the north all my life and have never heard of the North/South divide and certainly never thought people from the South were "up themselves" maybe that is because I have quite alot of family living in the South but I must admit some of them are "up themselves"but they are from the North and living in the South.
I certainly don,t think you are being contrary at all because it is just bits I have read how true are they who knows.
-
Hi April I always thought it was an accepted thing that Jeremy would settle down and end up on the farm. I seem to remember that Ralph said that the extra land he bought would do for Jeremy to work it for himself (don,t quote me on this) Maybe he was sowing his wild oats hopping from one thing to another. Sheila was privately educated but she did not make much of a career for herself either but maybe her illness played a part in that who knows. :(
Susan, that extra piece of land could, at best, have been wishful thinking on Nevills' part(did it NEVER occur to him that Jeremy may have wanted to do something other than farm?) or, at worst, another piece of emotional rope with which to tie him to the farm.
-
So the forensic scientists who tested the blood on the nightie are in on it too?
How many people in the Simon Hall case , do you believe are ' in on it ' ?
-
Hi April I don,t think the land was bought purely for Jeremy it was something to do with family matters Ralph thought it was going to be sold for development so he felt he had to buy it. vidvic knows the full story he will explain when he is on.
-
How many people in the Simon Hall case , do you believe are ' in on it ' ?
In on falsifying evidence? None.
-
In on falsifying evidence? None.
So you believe the CPS showed the court trying SH , a true version of events without falsifying anything ?
-
So you believe the CPS showed the court trying SH , a true version of events without falsifying anything ?
I think the crown based their case on flawed and incomplete evidence, not falsified, no.
-
So the forensic scientists who tested the blood on the nightie are in on it too?
No I'm not saying that. I'm just very sceptical regarding some prosecution claims. For example, I do not believe a true representation has been made in respect of the hand swabs. Yes, I know it has been dismissed already. But I'm also mindful that just because ritual washing was dismissed, doesn't mean it did not occur.
-
No I'm not saying that. I'm just very sceptical regarding some prosecution claims. For example, I do not believe a true representation has been made in respect of the hand swabs. Yes, I know it has been dismissed already. But I'm also mindful that just because ritual washing was dismissed, doesn't mean it did not occur.
Well the hand swabs were what they were - clean. If that can be explained by ritual washing before she killed herself, fine. But what about residue from the two shots she made to herself, where is that?
-
Well the hand swabs were what they were - clean. If that can be explained by ritual washing before she killed herself, fine. But what about residue from the two shots she made to herself, where is that?
I've just been kicking my self because I realised that was how you would interpret my post. What I was trying to convey is...
Clean hand swabs = too clean to be true (?)
Ritual washing (?) = changed clothes (?)
-
I would like to know why there is no residue since her hand was on the gun. Why does it have to be 'ritual' washing... why not just a wash.
-
I think the crown based their case on flawed and incomplete evidence, not falsified, no.
So every person called by the prosecution told the truth as they knew it at the time ? Was anything withheld ? Did i read Stephanie once make a claim about something being withheld ? My memory maybe playing tricks here !!
-
So every person called by the prosecution told the truth as they knew it at the time ? Was anything withheld ? Did i read Stephanie once make a claim about something being withheld ? My memory maybe playing tricks here !!
They've had some trouble getting hold of some evidence, the CCTV footage from his route home springs to mind, and some witness statements, there's probably more. Remember that the only evidence that pointed towards Simon was the fibres, and that evidence is the subject of a difference of opinion between experts.
-
I've just been kicking my self because I realised that was how you would interpret my post. What I was trying to convey is...
Clean hand swabs = too clean to be true (?)
Ritual washing (?) = changed clothes (?)
So... The hand swab evidence was falsified, is that what you're saying? And where are the clothes she changed out of?
-
So... The hand swab evidence was falsified, is that what you're saying? And where are the clothes she changed out of?
Yes re the swabs. Falsified for the purpose of arguing the case that it was not Sheila. Just as I suspect that police came up with the idea that the silencer could be used as a 'prop' to also argue the same?
Re any items taken from the scene, perhaps the original handwritten SOC register might come in handy?
-
Hello Lookout, Where is it documented that June and Nevill had fingernail marks on their arms?
Hi Si...:)
Scott Lomax had first hand knowledge of many documents etc that was not handed over to the defence. Scott says he has seen many photographs too...this is what he said about the scratch marks...
Some of the most persuasive arguments for Jeremy’s defence, which were never presented to the jury because the police hid the evidence until recent years, are: the fact that the police were in conversation with someone who, if Jeremy was guilty, must have been dead; that hidden photographs show Jeremy’s parents both had their arms viciously scratched by someone with long nails at around the time of their death;
:) :) :) :)
-
Yes re the swabs. Falsified for the purpose of arguing the case that it was not Sheila. Just as I suspect that police came up with the idea that the silencer could be used as a 'prop' to also argue the same?
Re any items taken from the scene, perhaps the original handwritten SOC register might come in handy?
Well I'm guessing that will have been falsified too... ::)
Why on earth would they go to all of that effort and risk to frame JB when they had the perfect suspect - Sheila, laying there with a gun in her hands and not able to deny that she had done it?
-
Well I'm guessing that will have been falsified too... ::)
Why on earth would they go to all of that effort and risk to frame JB when they had the perfect suspect - Sheila, laying there with a gun in her hands and not able to deny that she had done it?
I would imagine pressure Bridget. 40 unsolved crimes in Essex...plus pressure from the family too....
I don't think they wanted to frame him, it was a case of not understanding what to do with such a high profile case...It was an easy pin. :P :P :P
-
I would imagine pressure Bridget. 40 unsolved crimes in Essex...plus pressure from the family too....
I don't think they wanted to frame him, it was a case of not understanding what to do with such a high profile case...It was an easy pin. :P :P :P
But it was 'solved' - Sheila dunnit..
-
But it was 'solved' - Sheila dunnit..
Bridget, you know that is not true....either way....this is why he deserves a retrial. ;D :P
-
Bridget, you know that is not true....either way....this is why he deserves a retrial. ;D :P
Aha! So you agree that Sheila didn't do it then.
I don't think there's any chance of a retrial after 27 years.
-
Aha! So you agree that Sheila didn't do it then.
I don't think there's any chance of a retrial after 27 years.
I knew you would say that :o! I would like you to provide me with factual forensic evidence on how JB got in and out of WHF? ::) :D
-
Well I'm guessing that will have been falsified too...
Why on earth would they go to all of that effort and risk to frame JB when they had the perfect suspect - Sheila, laying there with a gun in her hands and not able to deny that she had done it?
By original handwritten SOC register, I meant the unsullied document.
That's the million dollar question Bridget... I wish I had the answer.
-
I knew you would say that :o! I would like you to provide me with factual forensic evidence on how JB got in and out of WHF? ::) :D
As you know, there would have been forensic evidence of JB all over the house, and all completely useless seeing as he worked there. He got caught later climbing in through the window didn't he? Do you reckon that was the first time he'd done it?
-
By original handwritten SOC register, I meant the unsullied document.
That's the million dollar question Bridget... I wish I had the answer.
That's a bit cryptic, is the suggestion that the police shot her in the kitchen?
-
That's a bit cryptic, is the suggestion that the police shot her in the kitchen?
And under the chin?
-
But it was 'solved' - Sheila dunnit..
And that's where their problems began, IMO. With property and land in the hands of someone not entirely interested in the same way as them, their future could have been less secure than it previously was. Not for one moment am I suggesting that in one blinding flash they all colluded in framing, but I think that when putting Jeremy in the frame presented itself as a possibility, they "nudged" it a little.
-
That's a bit cryptic, is the suggestion that the police shot her in the kitchen?
And under the chin?
No, merely that not all is as EP would have you or me believe. I don't have the answer.
-
And that's where their problems began, IMO. With property and land in the hands of someone not entirely interested in the same way as them, their future could have been less secure than it previously was. Not for one moment am I suggesting that in one blinding flash they all colluded in framing, but I think that when putting Jeremy in the frame presented itself as a possibility, they "nudged" it a little.
Yes, saw your other post about that and you made a good point, but what was in it for the police and forensic scientists who put their careers on the line?
-
As you know, there would have been forensic evidence of JB all over the house, and all completely useless seeing as he worked there. He got caught later climbing in through the window didn't he? Do you reckon that was the first time he'd done it?
He worked there yes....but where is the forensic evidence showing he got in and out from a window? lol
There is none...because he didn't do it. :P :P
-
He worked there yes....but where is the forensic evidence showing he got in and out from a window? lol
There is none...because he didn't do it. :P :P
Did he leave forensic evidence when he got in through the window on the later date?
-
He worked there yes....but where is the forensic evidence showing he got in and out from a window? lol
There is none...because he didn't do it. :P :P
;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, saw your other post about that and you made a good point, but what was in it for the police and forensic scientists who put their careers on the line?
Bridget, I'm not certain it was a question of "what was in it.......," rather, that at some point, the whole thing gained a life of its' own and became subject to the law of unintended consequences. I guess all it took was one error of judgement or a mistake which was neither admitted to or rectified, coupled with the desire to cover anothers back. I was told as a child, that when a lie was told, a second would have to be told to cover the first. I believe they "knew" everything there was to know before they went into the farmhouse and may have inadvertantly overlooked, or swept aside as unimportant,anything which didn't fit, ultimately resulting in the need for a conspiracy of silence.
-
Yes re the swabs. Falsified for the purpose of arguing the case that it was not Sheila. Just as I suspect that police came up with the idea that the silencer could be used as a 'prop' to also argue the same?
Re any items taken from the scene, perhaps the original handwritten SOC register might come in handy?
I have forgotten who took the hand swabs,but he admitted that he had never done it before and was not familiar with the procedure.
Regarding Sheilas clothes......Junes day clothes are clearly visible on a stool? in her bedroom.In the crimescene photo of Sheilas bedroom,there doesnt appear to be any day clothes lying around.
-
Bridget, I'm not certain it was a question of "what was in it.......," rather, that at some point, the whole thing gained a life of its' own and became subject to the law of unintended consequences. I guess all it took was one error of judgement or a mistake which was neither admitted to or rectified, coupled with the desire to cover anothers back. I was told as a child, that when a lie was told, a second would have to be told to cover the first. I believe they "knew" everything there was to know before they went into the farmhouse and may have inadvertantly overlooked, or swept aside as unimportant,anything which didn't fit, ultimately resulting in the need for a conspiracy of silence.
But what they knew (or believed) was that Sheila had shot everyone, why would they change tack at the whim of the relatives, and at risk of their careers?
-
I have forgotten who took the hand swabs,but he admitted that he had never done it before and was not familiar with the procedure.
Regarding Sheilas clothes......Junes day clothes are clearly visible on a stool? in her bedroom.In the crimescene photo of Sheilas bedroom,there doesnt appear to be any day clothes lying around.
That's a very good point Tyler....Where were Sheila's clothes. :) :) :) :)
-
But what they knew (or believed) was that Sheila had shot everyone, why would they change tack at the whim of the relatives, and at risk of their careers?
But my lovely Bridget, that is exactly what they did do, change tack. Because of the relatives, otherwise it would have stayed 4 murders and a suicide. :P
-
But my lovely Bridget, that is exactly what they did do, change tack. Because of the relatives, otherwise it would have stayed 4 murders and a suicide. :P
Yes. Why?
-
I have forgotten who took the hand swabs,but he admitted that he had never done it before and was not familiar with the procedure.
Regarding Sheilas clothes......Junes day clothes are clearly visible on a stool? in her bedroom.In the crimescene photo of Sheilas bedroom,there doesnt appear to be any day clothes lying around.
There is clearly an item of clothing on the bed next to the one Sheila was sleeping in, I can't tell what cos the pictures here are not good quality and I'm on a phone. Plus, in the photos here less than half of Sheila's bedroom is visible.
-
There is clearly an item of clothing on the bed next to the one Sheila was sleeping in, I can't tell what cos the pictures here are not good quality and I'm on a phone. Plus, in the photos here less than half of Sheila's bedroom is visible.
Not sure if these are any clearer...
-
Hi Si...:)
Scott Lomax had first hand knowledge of many documents etc that was not handed over to the defence. Scott says he has seen many photographs too...this is what he said about the scratch marks...
Some of the most persuasive arguments for Jeremy’s defence, which were never presented to the jury because the police hid the evidence until recent years, are: the fact that the police were in conversation with someone who, if Jeremy was guilty, must have been dead; that hidden photographs show Jeremy’s parents both had their arms viciously scratched by someone with long nails at around the time of their death;
:) :) :) :)
Hey Patti, Hope you are well. Vanezis makes absolutely no mention of any scratch marks, especially any vicious ones. I do tend to side with Vanezis, having actually seen the body in situ. Vicious scratch marks would surely have been seen and noted.
-
Yes. Why?
Morning Bridget :) Well why? ;)
-
Hey Patti, Hope you are well. Vanezis makes absolutely no mention of any scratch marks, especially any vicious ones. I do tend to side with Vanezis, having actually seen the body in situ. Vicious scratch marks would surely have been seen and noted.
Hi Simon, I'm fine thank you. No he doesn't, but Lomax does, saying that he had seen them on photographs. Venezis stated that the marks on Nevill's arm could have been made by the end of the rifle...To me the marks could look like scratch marks or the barrel end of the gun. He also doesn't mention the scar on Sheila's hand, which she got from putting her hand through the window. He does mention a V shape mark on June's breast.... :) :) :)
-
The Scar on Sheilas hand was old scar and unconnected to the murders, maybe thats why he didnt mention it?
-
But what they knew (or believed) was that Sheila had shot everyone, why would they change tack at the whim of the relatives, and at risk of their careers?
Hi Bridget, didn't mean to ignore you but bed was calling. Will reply to this later.
-
The Scar on Sheilas hand was old scar and unconnected to the murders, maybe thats why he didnt mention it?
Hi sagar, maybe you are right, but he did mention the scar on one of the twins face, plus a scar on June's tummy....Sheila's hands were important, I would have thought he would have given it a mention... :) :) :)
-
Not sure if these are any clearer...
Much, thank you. There is at least 3 items of clothing there.
-
Morning Bridget Dare I ask if you have a thread for the clothing on the bed :) ;) ;)
-
Morning Susan :)
Dare I guess that you can't see the pictures? ;)
-
Bridget you got it in one ;) ;) ;)
-
Ok, in a little while I'll try to find you direct links to those pics (they're on the 'official' website), I can't do it at the moment cos that website doesn't display them on my phone.
-
Wow Bridget you are a pal and I bet you are wishing I would clear off (kidding) :) Thanks for your patience and effort :)
-
The pictures of Sheila's bedroom are on this page:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it
If you click on the actual pictures it will bring up large versions, but that may blow up your computer!
-
Hi Bridget many thanks for that if you don,t hear from me again you know I clicked the button and I went up with the computer :) :) :)
-
Hi Bridget got the photo and enlarged it and here I am. It is the first time I noticed the bedcover was turned down but if Sheila had gone to bed did she get up again what makes me think she did was the clothing across the bed is it a dressing gown I see on the bed. What are your views Bridget. ???
-
Hi Bridget got the photo and enlarged it and here I am. It is the first time I noticed the bedcover was turned down but if Sheila had gone to bed did she get up again what makes me think she did was the clothing across the bed is it a dressing gown I see on the bed. What are your views Bridget. ???
I think she went to bed (you can see an indentation on the pillow) and perhaps was awoken by the disturbance, got up and went into the main bedroom to see what was going on. There seems to be rather a lot of bed coverings on both Neville and June's bed and Sheila's, which suggests that it wasn't a particularly warm night (Jeremy also felt the need to put an extra jumper on as he was driving over for some reason) and so I think had she have done anything other than just hop out of bed she would have been wearing more clothing - perhaps that dressing gown, if that is what it is.
-
The pictures of Sheila's bedroom are on this page:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it
If you click on the actual pictures it will bring up large versions, but that may blow up your computer!
I put the bed pics on this thread, one page back.
-
Bridget you got it in one ;) ;) ;)
Susan read you messages
-
Hi Bridget logic says if it was a cold night she would have put clothes on if getting up not take them off it is such a mystery I will think deeply about it and see what some of the others think. Thanks anyway :-\
-
I put the bed pics on this thread, one page back.
Susan doesn't seem to be able to see images on the forum, but she can if you provide links to them hosted elsewhere.
-
Hi Bridget logic says if it was a cold night she would have put clothes on if getting up not take them off it is such a mystery I will think deeply about it and see what some of the others think. Thanks anyway :-\
She was in bed, so she would have been just in her nightie, and she just hopped out of bed to see what the fuss was. IMO.
-
Hi Bridget why the clothing across where she would have got out of bed you would expect it to be off the bed or further down.
-
Hi Grahame Susan has no messages maybe they are off with all the pictures :)
-
Hi Bridget why the clothing across where she would have got out of bed you would expect it to be off the bed or further down.
She slept in the bed without the clothing on it, the far one, but left her clothing on the spare bed, the near one.
-
Hi Bridget told you I should have gone to spec savers I thought the bedcover turned down was an item of clothing silly old me :) :) :)
-
Hi Bridget told you I should have gone to spec savers I thought the bedcover turned down was an item of clothing silly old me :) :) :)
Have you looked at both pictures? You need to look at the one with two beds in it to see what I mean.
-
Forget that, I see what you mean. The red thing is an eiderdown, not an item of clothing.
-
Hi Bridget just had another look and you are right as usual I think I should be "put down" :) :) :)
-
She slept in the bed without the clothing on it, the far one, but left her clothing on the spare bed, the near one.
I wonder if the silencer was used, why weren't they all shot whilst they slept? Or wasn't the silencer any use at all?
-
I wonder if the silencer was used, why weren't they all shot whilst they slept? Or wasn't the silencer any use at all?
Unfortunately for them death wasn't instant, was it, so someone will probably have cried out, even if the the attacker wasn't otherwise heard.
-
Unfortunately for them death wasn't instant, was it, so someone will probably have cried out, even if the the attacker wasn't otherwise heard.
So why use the silencer?
-
So why use the silencer?
Because the attacker didn't know that death wouldn't be instant perhaps?
-
Because the attacker didn't know that death wouldn't be instant perhaps?
If they were asleep then surely they had all the time in the world to aim at their heads? After all isn't it often said by some that every shot found its mark? Sorry if I sound as if I'm cross examining you. Sound a bit pompous I know. ::) ;D
-
Because the attacker didn't know that death wouldn't be instant perhaps?
Hi everyone, but if the attacker wa expecting to quietly kill all the family without rousing them, why were the twins killed in their sleep with a hail of bullets and why was sheila the only person who appeared to have been killed 'cleanly'?
-
Hi everyone, but if the attacker wa expecting to quietly kill all the family without rousing them, why were the twins killed in their sleep with a hail of bullets and why was sheila the only person who appeared to have been killed 'cleanly'?
Good questions Maggie. Like every other theory on this case, my answers are only guesswork. Sheila was killed cleanly because she was killed first. The twins were killed with a hail of bullets because the situation was under control and they were killed last.
-
If they were asleep then surely they had all the time in the world to aim at their heads? After all isn't it often said by some that every shot found its mark? Sorry if I sound as if I'm cross examining you. Sound a bit pompous I know. ::) ;D
No worries. It was a creeky old house, maybe they heard the attacker creeping around, maybe the attacker struggled a bit with the darkness, who knows?
-
No worries. It was a creeky old house, maybe they heard the attacker creeping around, maybe the attacker struggled a bit with the darkness, who knows?
So Bridget, Jeremy would certainly know it was a creaky old house and would have taken that into account, also he knew there was a dog which should have barked. I can understand that June and Ralph could have been disturbed hence the mayhem but why all those bullets into the sleeping boys and then the connundrum of Sheila's death. :-\
-
So Bridget, Jeremy would certainly know it was a creaky old house and would have taken that into account, also he knew there was a dog which should have barked. I can understand that June and Ralph could have been disturbed hence the mayhem but why all those bullets into the sleeping boys and then the connundrum of Sheila's death. :-\
I don't know, with the boys panic and revulsion at what he was doing maybe? Who knows what goes through the mind of a person doing that.
-
I don't know, with the boys panic and revulsion at what he was doing maybe? Who knows what goes through the mind of a person doing that.
Absolutely and who knows who would be capable of something like that? Not a rational person, thats for sure. 'Panic and revulsion' ...do you think he would only realise that when in the throes of it? To my mind only a psychopath without feeling could seriously contemplate such a crime.
-
I don't know, with the boys panic and revulsion at what he was doing maybe? Who knows what goes through the mind of a person doing that.
It's beyond me how anyone can rationally believe an otherwise sane person could possibly carryout such a crime. It's a crime almost beyond comprehension to the ordinary person. Somehow people can blithely say, Jeremy must have done it because they believe Sheila couldn't have done... that's a very poor argument. The only way anyone could believe Jeremy had done it has to be with some concrete proof, he also has to be proven to have the capability.
-
Good morning all.
If the " intruder " had been familiar with guns and wanted an instant hit on all the family,,then a shotgun would have been the more appropriate weapon seeing as there were a few to choose from.
Other than that I would have said that more than one rifle was used to save re-loading and the avoidance of the residue that went with it.
Is there an inventory anywhere on the amount of ammunition used when the armed raid took place. ?
I understand it has to be checked by the armory,before and after a raid.
-
I don't know, with the boys panic and revulsion at what he was doing maybe? Who knows what goes through the mind of a person doing that.
One thing is for sure that Jeremy had never shown any kind of violence to anybody before and its ludicrous to think he would even think of doing anything like this
He had the most charmed life ever and knew it, he told me enough times
-
One thing is for sure that Jeremy had never shown any kind of violence to anybody before and its ludicrous to think he would even think of doing anything like this
He had the most charmed life ever and knew it, he told me enough times
He does not present with any of the kinds of traits linked with such a crime. Dr. Vincent Egan has expressed so. He has passed a lie detector. DB didn't think he had the gumption to do it. The pathologist didn't think he had done it. Non material witnesses expressed concern to police that he wouldn't have done it. basically, he didn't do it.
-
Whatever the reason it still doesn't explain why the killer would use a silencer and then carefully put it back in the gun cupboard? A shotgun would wake everyone with the first shot. The use of a silencer reveals the intention of a killer to kill silently.
-
Grahame my belief is that a silencer wasn't used at all. The " noise " from one of those rifles is minimal,like a cracker out of a Christmas cracker, so coupled with commotion that was going on,it wouldn't have been heard,,only initially before the family died.
-
Jeremys nature shines through, a Nancy boy, didn't like shooting, no history of violence and I bet they searched high and low, as you said Rochy, passing a lie detector test.
It's a joke watching people on here who want to try and match Jeremy fit the crime
He just doesnt
-
A shotgun wasn't used because it wasn't a " planned killing ",,,but instead,,a very frenzied one which describes the mind of the person who was doing the killing.
-
He does not present with any of the kinds of traits linked with such a crime. Dr. Vincent Egan has expressed so. He has passed a lie detector. DB didn't think he had the gumption to do it. The pathologist didn't think he had done it. Non material witnesses expressed concern to police that he wouldn't have done it. basically, he didn't do it.
Forgot to add, Taff Jones refused to prosecute him. Kineally backed Taff Jones. Has anyone ever considered that Taff was right? The NDI result 22 years later, does not contradict Taff's decision.
-
Grahame my belief is that a silencer wasn't used at all. The " noise " from one of those rifles is minimal,like a cracker out of a Christmas cracker, so coupled with commotion that was going on,it wouldn't have been heard,,only initially before the family died.
I think the silencer was red herring?
-
I think the silencer was red herring?
Exactly, a red herring which enables various people to try and link Jeremy in, I still think it was most likely, a sucide and a domestic...personally, and everything else is either coincidental or manipulated. imho
-
Exactly, a red herring which enables various people to try and link Jeremy in, I still think it was most likely, a sucide and a domestic...personally, and everything else is either coincidental or manipulated. imho
So, indesputably, if anyone entered in the middle of the night through a window, Crispy would have heard them and alerted the house. It was a big house but dogs hear a pin drop, he would certainly have heard someone creeping up squeaky stairs. Even if he didn't it would be too big a risk to take. So if Jeremy planned a silent killing he would have made sure crispy was out of the way.......... surely.
-
So, indesputably, if anyone entered in the middle of the night through a window, Crispy would have heard them and alerted the house. It was a big house but dogs hear a pin drop, he would certainly have heard someone creeping up squeaky stairs. Even if he didn't it would be too big a risk to take. So if Jeremy planned a silent killing he would have made sure crispy was out of the way.......... surely.
Then again perhaps that is what happened? He alerted the whole house and foiled the killers plans? Just trying to see things from the other side.
-
Maggie,,,Crispy would have known Jeremy,,so therefore wouldn't have barked. That was always supposing it had been Jeremy of course.
-
Maggie,,,Crispy would have known Jeremy,,so therefore wouldn't have barked. That was always supposing it had been Jeremy of course.
But lookout if crispy was upstairs he wouldn't have known it was jeremy, also he didn't like Jeremy.......apparently.
-
Maggie,,,Crispy would have known Jeremy,,so therefore wouldn't have barked. That was always supposing it had been Jeremy of course.
A good dog would know by your footsteps who you were.
-
A good dog would know by your footsteps who you were.
Or your smell. Crispy probably wasn't that bright though.
-
Maggie,,,Crispy would have known Jeremy,,so therefore wouldn't have barked. That was always supposing it had been Jeremy of course.
The dog has always puzzled me. If the killer was an unknown person then probably it would have barked and possible the killer would have wanted to eliminate something that would spoil his plans? Yet when the copes went there apparently both dogs were barking. Did the outside dog bark when he heard them turn up and this in turn set the other dog off barking? Or was the inside dog barking from the outset? Jeremy said that it was always quiet.
-
A good dog would know by your footsteps who you were.
would he know how you opened the window.....I'm not conviced.
-
Then again perhaps that is what happened? He alerted the whole house and foiled the killers plans? Just trying to see things from the other side.
I had given this some thought. Supposing it was Jeremy that entered the house that night. He could have simply gone in through a door - he had keys. He would have only needed to use the window on the way out when he had 'covered his tracks' by making it look like all the doors were locked and bolted.
-
Exactly, a red herring which enables various people to try and link Jeremy in, I still think it was most likely, a sucide and a domestic...personally, and everything else is either coincidental or manipulated. imho
I agree but this still leaves the enormous question of why the police would buckle and divert to gun for Bamber? What would make them need to seize upon and micro-manage Julie Mugford, going over and above in trying to make her a credible witness? It's as if Desperate diseases must have desperate remedies
The best answer I've seen from the guilty camp is that they had wrongly destroyed the crime scene and now had to come up with the goods, to satisfy the mounting suspicions towards Bamber.
Mike Tesko would answer it is to do with the dynamics surrounding the bungled raid, ACC Simpson and RB.
-
I had given this some thought. Supposing it was Jeremy that entered the house that night. He could have simply gone in through a door - he had keys. He would have only needed to use the window on the way out when he had 'covered his tracks' by making it look like all the doors were locked and bolted.
Yes except Ralph would have bolted the doors before he went to bed, I thought. They would have probably gone to bed early as harvest time would mean an early start next day.
-
Or your smell. Crispy probably wasn't that bright though.
Anymore clever assumptions Bridget, poor Simon Hall
-
Yes except Ralph would have bolted the doors before he went to bed, I thought. They would have probably gone to bed early as harvest time would mean an early start next day.
Did all the doors have an inside bolt?
Yes, they might have gone to bed early, Jeremy might have been the last one out for all we know.
-
I agree but this still leaves the enormous question of why the police would buckle and divert to gun for Bamber? What would make them need to seize upon and micro-manage Julie Mugford, going over and above in trying to make her a credible witness? It's as if Desperate diseases must have desperate remedies
The best answer I've seen from the guilty camp is that they had wrongly destroyed the crime scene and now had to come up with the goods, to satisfy the mounting suspicions towards Bamber.
Mike Tesko would answer it is to do with the dynamics surrounding the bungled raid, ACC Simpson and RB.
Thi is really changing the goal posts but we talk about Jimmy Bell, millionnaire farmer there was also Wilfred Bull who shot his brother acciddentally and then went to prison for life for shooting his wife. Bell, Bull and Bamber were all wealthy, living in the same area and knew each other. Wilfred Bull, multi millionnaire knew Prime Ministers, and many other people in power all over the world. May be clutching at broken straws but it makes you think there may be a connection to something we are totally unaware of......peter healey's book
-
Hi Maggie
Have you read Jeremy's ex girlfriend's stat, Suzette Ford? JB lived with her for a while. She was separated from her husband and had two children. She said he was very good with her children eg spent time playing with them, spent c£70 on buying them lego, took them to the park. Sound like someone capable of murdering his 6 year old nephews? I believe she attended some of the trial and believed him to be innocent.
As an aside Suzette looked far more glamorous than JM. There's a pic on the red site.
Finding a lady more glamorous than mugford was never going to present a problem really was it ?
-
Hi Maggie
Have you read Jeremy's ex girlfriend's stat, Suzette Ford? JB lived with her for a while. She was separated from her husband and had two children. She said he was very good with her children eg spent time playing with them, spent c£70 on buying them lego, took them to the park. Sound like someone capable of murdering his 6 year old nephews? I believe she attended some of the trial and believed him to be innocent.
As an aside Suzette looked far more glamorous than JM. There's a pic on the red site.
Hi egap, yes I have read that and seen her picture, she was very good looking. I can't tie Jeremy to these crimes, it's too cantradictory simple reasoning tells you he wasn't capable. It takes a certain kind of person to commit such a heinous crime and there is no hint any where of him showing the slightest sign of such behaviour. imo
-
Hi Maggie
Have you read Jeremy's ex girlfriend's stat, Suzette Ford? JB lived with her for a while. She was separated from her husband and had two children. She said he was very good with her children eg spent time playing with them, spent c£70 on buying them lego, took them to the park. Sound like someone capable of murdering his 6 year old nephews? I believe she attended some of the trial and believed him to be innocent.
As an aside Suzette looked far more glamorous than JM. There's a pic on the red site.
I'm afraid I don't frequent the red light district so I wouldn't know?
-
Hi Maggie
Have you read Jeremy's ex girlfriend's stat, Suzette Ford? JB lived with her for a while. She was separated from her husband and had two children. She said he was very good with her children eg spent time playing with them, spent c£70 on buying them lego, took them to the park. Sound like someone capable of murdering his 6 year old nephews? I believe she attended some of the trial and believed him to be innocent.
As an aside Suzette looked far more glamorous than JM. There's a pic on the red site.
Absolutely Egap another great example
-
Finding a lady more glamorous than mugford was never going to present a problem really was it ?
I should imagine he found Julie Mugford a bit dangerous probably a bit exciting, she wasn't afraid to break the law. Should think that was quite attractive to a young guy like Jeremy.
-
I should imagine he found Julie Mugford a bit dangerous probably a bit exciting, she wasn't afraid to break the law. Should think that was quite attractive to a young guy like Jeremy.
With a high price to pay in time jeremy was duped a harsh lesson learned and still learning.
-
With a high price to pay in time jeremy was duped a harsh lesson learned and still learning.
Yes, it seems to me she was a much tougher character than JB, but I'm sure the guilty side will rubbish such an opinion. ::) ::)
-
Did all the doors have an inside bolt?
Yes, they might have gone to bed early, Jeremy might have been the last one out for all we know.
Trouble is elphick, it's all supposition, we really don'y know anything because there is no concrete evidence to habg anything on. The only fact we know is that 5 people died in WHF sometime during that night and Jeremy Bamber did not.
-
Maggie,,,I'm afraid that had Jeremy driven any faster to WHF,,he too could well have been the 6th.
Then it would have begged the question of " whodunnit ". He probably would have still been blamed.
-
Maggie,,,I'm afraid that had Jeremy driven any faster to WHF,,he too could well have been the 6th.
Then it would have begged the question of " whodunnit ". He probably would have still been blamed.
He probably would. Iv'e been called out at night to an incident in my family and even though you know you need to get there quickly, I remember driving slowly and carefully, taking care not to panic and also part of me being extremely reluctant to get there. You'd think you'd be all screeching tyres and adrenalin speed that wasn't the case for me.
-
I do...in my wildest fantasies!
oo-er missus :D
-
Jeremy may at first seen mugford as someone with an edge i think it was Sloppy Joes where they first met while jeremy worked there as a bartender .
-
I should imagine he found Julie Mugford a bit dangerous probably a bit exciting, she wasn't afraid to break the law. Should think that was quite attractive to a young guy like Jeremy.
If you reverse the names in your post I would completely agree with it ;)
-
Full of double standards that woman,Maggie,,,and a selective memory too. AE,that is.
Jeremy was easily led I'm afraid,,and enjoyed being in with the " in crowd " at the time. Look how he was vilified for having Brett Collins as a friend. To Jeremy it was exciting and " different " having a friend like that,,but it didn't mean there was any ulterior motive behind it in any way. It's how people perceived things,or wanted to. Somehow,,a very insular community,including the extended family. ( but were they ? )
-
Hi Bridget don,t think I will try and reverse anything as I will get it all wrong :) :) :)
-
Hi Bridget don,t think I will try and reverse anything as I will get it all wrong :) :) :)
Ok, I'll do it for you:
I should imagine she found Jeremy a bit dangerous probably a bit exciting, he wasn't afraid to break the law. Should think that was quite attractive to a young girl like Julie.
That's better!
-
Hi Bridget there was silly me reversing the letters in her name and coming up with mumbo jumbo ;)what are you going to do with me :) :) :)
-
Hi egap you are so naughty considering you come over as a very refined young lady. :) :) :)
-
If you reverse the names in your post I would completely agree with it ;)
So what about the cheque fraud bridget....jeremy had nothing to do wirh that.
-
So what about the cheque fraud bridget....jeremy had nothing to do wirh that.
Is cheque fraud exciting?
-
Hi Bridget don,t think I will try and reverse anything as I will get it all wrong :) :) :)
Susie can you reverse. You say you hate driving.x
-
Hi Maggie not very good driving forwards or backwards and worse than ever operating a computer when things go wrong I have to get a man in and he costs me a fortune. I am suppose to be gardening but I keep cheating and coming in.
-
Is cheque fraud exciting?
Come on bridget not to me no. Julie mugford and her mate did that all on tehr own. It was certainly incredibly dishonest. Sellng a bit of old style cannabis in the 80s was hardly dangerous either
-
Ok, I'll do it for you:
I should imagine she found Jeremy a bit dangerous probably a bit exciting, he wasn't afraid to break the law. Should think that was quite attractive to a young girl like Julie.
That's better!
Ooh look. I've found a picture of Julie Mugford. ::)
-
Come on bridget not to me no. Julie mugford and her mate did that all on tehr own. It was certainly incredibly dishonest. Sellng a bit of old style cannabis in the 80s was hardly dangerous either
How about burglary? :D
I think she did the cheque fraud thing to impress him. He was probably making himself out to be a bit more of a gangsta than he actually was.
-
Maggie/Bridget I could not even manage cheque fraud I would make an ass of it maybe the break in to the caravan park was done under the influence of drink or other sustances it is a case of who was leading who ;D 8) 8)
-
Ooh look. I've found a picture of Julie Mugford. ::)
I could be wrong but I don't think that's her...
-
Hi Bridget maybe they thought they were Bonnie & Clyde :) :) :)
-
Shouldn't that halo be down round her ankles,Grahame.?
-
Hi Bridget maybe they thought they were Bonnie & Clyde :) :) :)
Yes, I agree with that.
-
How about burglary? :D
I think she did the cheque fraud thing to impress him. He was probably making himself out to be a bit more of a gangsta than he actually was.
here we go again. Its all supposition. I think she did cheque fraud with her friend because they chose to. why would her mate want to impress jeremy. Julie was no saint and ill say it for you,niether was jeremy.
-
egap1 I think the break in was an act of rebellion as he felt so controlled by June obviously the money as well but I don,t think he was kept short of money and as I said earlier we don,t know what they were on and sometimes people do crazy things when under the influence ??? and they would both be showing off like a couple of kids I have a feeling Jeremy was immature. :)
-
Can't believe some of those progs about young woman going out in town centres, getting plastered, mouthing off to all and sundry, fighting, falling down in the gutter with their kebabs and dried vomit stuck to side of their faces, knickers round ankles that's assuming they had any of in the first place.
I remember partying hard in my younger days but never the above. Its truly revolting.
An average Towie { The only way is England }
-
Hi egap1 difficult to imagine really and when they are abroad they are into unprotected sex with people they have never met and not likely to meet again they can pick all kind of diseases. They go out half dressed and well under the influence before they leave home and the fighting they are worse than the boys. It must be so worrying for a Mother who has a young daughter wondering what they are getting upto. They cost the tax payers so much money with the police patrol A&E for treatment when is it going to end. It would seem we have so many really young people who are have liver damage in their twenties and if they don,t stop drinking they will die young.
-
Dearie me,,,I'll tell you how gormless I've just been.
At the ATM,I was trying to put my card in the machine,forcing the card which didn't want to budge,until a young man came speeding towards it and said he'd not collected his money.!
I was that busy fighting the machine that I didn't even notice any money.
A fine robber I'd make.
That's what becomes of being mechanically minded into wondering what had gone wrong with the ATM instead.
I was just glad that it was me next and not someone else with a sharper eye,and quicker on foot.
I'm not money orientated you see,,I haven't made it my" God ".
-
Hi lookout nice to know we have some honest people around when ever I am given too much change I give it back trying to buy my way to heaven ;D ;) :)
-
Hi Susan,,,I felt awful when the chap came to pick his money up,,,that I hadn't actually seen it,hahaha.
There was enough to choke a goat when he removed it. I'm so glad that I was there,although I say it myself. The young fellow was relieved too. Aww,it was probably for his weekend as well.
Must pay a visit to spec-savers in future.
-
lookout you will be going to heaven along with me :)
-
Given Jeremy has had since 1986 to think again where he stands in his plea of innocence and this has not happened i truly believe this is strong evidence in itself to actually believe jeremy is innocent many a man would have given up by now .
-
Hi lookout nice to know we have some honest people around when ever I am given too much change I give it back trying to buy my way to heaven ;D ;) :)
Found £5 in street week last another £5 this monday both on pavement nr car just parked at one time i would have handed in not now both well spent at Mc Donalds.
-
Of course,Mertol,,you're right. It's known that prisoners plead innocence for so long,,then give up,as most are guilty anyway,,but it would appear that in Jeremy's case,,because he's pleaded innocence for so many years now,and his side of events hasn't altered by a single word,,that he should be believed.
The most tragic thing that could happen would be for him to die in prison,,then receive a posthumous pardon. How anyone could,or would live,,knowing that, after the event, is unimaginable. It would be as bad as sending someone to the gallows. But someone out there knows he's innocent.
-
Dearie me,,,I'll tell you how gormless I've just been.
At the ATM,I was trying to put my card in the machine,forcing the card which didn't want to budge,until a young man came speeding towards it and said he'd not collected his money.!
I was that busy fighting the machine that I didn't even notice any money.
A fine robber I'd make.
That's what becomes of being mechanically minded into wondering what had gone wrong with the ATM instead.
I was just glad that it was me next and not someone else with a sharper eye,and quicker on foot.
I'm not money orientated you see,,I haven't made it my" God ".
Hi lookout, I would have scarpered......hahahahahaha
No I would have taken it into the bank....Your a honest sort, I can vouch for that... :) :) :)
-
Of course,Mertol,,you're right. It's known that prisoners plead innocence for so long,,then give up,as most are guilty anyway,,but it would appear that in Jeremy's case,,because he's pleaded innocence for so many years now,and his side of events hasn't altered by a single word,,that he should be believed.
The most tragic thing that could happen would be for him to die in prison,,then receive a posthumous pardon. How anyone could,or would live,,knowing that, after the event, is unimaginable. It would be as bad as sending someone to the gallows. But someone out there knows he's innocent.
If things stay as they are that is exactly the destiny of jeremy.
-
Hi Patti,,,believe it or not,it frightened me afterwards,because really,you tend not to look downwards until you've put your pin,etc into it,,except in my case,I was only interested in wondering what was wrong,hahaha. I actually did wonder why the chap was running so fast towards me though,,and felt quite relieved that I hadn't been able to put my pin in,,,little did I know he was running to rescue his money,and not to rob me.
-
If things stay as they are that is exactly the destiny of jeremy.
I just hope to God that won't be the end result,Mertol. I sincerely hope not.
-
Of course,Mertol,,you're right. It's known that prisoners plead innocence for so long,,then give up,as most are guilty anyway,,but it would appear that in Jeremy's case,,because he's pleaded innocence for so many years now,and his side of events hasn't altered by a single word,,that he should be believed.
The most tragic thing that could happen would be for him to die in prison,,then receive a posthumous pardon. How anyone could,or would live,,knowing that, after the event, is unimaginable. It would be as bad as sending someone to the gallows. But someone out there knows he's innocent.
I disagree that they haven't altered a single word, of course they have!
It wasn't long ago that Jeremy tried to change the words his Dad had spoken to him on the phone the night he called him. Jeremy tried to claim that he'd never told the police what had been reported. Even though he himself has told the story of "Sheila gone beserk with the gun" many, many times.
-
How about burglary? :D
I think she did the cheque fraud thing to impress him. He was probably making himself out to be a bit more of a gangsta than he actually was.
Oh yeah? More like playing the victim. The devil made me do it officer. ;D
-
I could be wrong but I don't think that's her...
Well I only had your description of her to go by. ::)
-
I just hope to God that won't be the end result,Mertol. I sincerely hope not.
Sometimes looking at the real picture places things in perspective and the thought of jeremy being released has to come into the picture also, i think jeremy will remain strong for the moment like this forum but everyone has a limit.
-
Dearie me,,,I'll tell you how gormless I've just been.
At the ATM,I was trying to put my card in the machine,forcing the card which didn't want to budge,until a young man came speeding towards it and said he'd not collected his money.!
I was that busy fighting the machine that I didn't even notice any money.
A fine robber I'd make.
That's what becomes of being mechanically minded into wondering what had gone wrong with the ATM instead.
I was just glad that it was me next and not someone else with a sharper eye,and quicker on foot.
I'm not money orientated you see,,I haven't made it my" God ".
I got news for you. He's just robbed you. ;D
-
Lookout was making a general view that jeremy maintains innocence to this day.
-
But what they knew (or believed) was that Sheila had shot everyone, why would they change tack at the whim of the relatives, and at risk of their careers?
Bridget, hi. In answer to your question from yesterday:
I think that when the police first entered WHF they activated a chain of events that took on life of its'own. Sheila, still just alive, according to Mike,was moved from where she was initially seen, on the kitchen floor, to the bedroom. This information was given to AE by DC Clarke before he left, with Jeremy, to take his witness statement. At some point AE is allowed in to do some clearing up!!!! and comes away with items which under other circumstances may, or may not have been used as evidence, but as this was obviously a clear cut case of murders followed by suicide it hardly mattered if their performance was sloppy and unprofessional because there was nobody else there. By the time they moved Sheila from bed to her first position on the floor, for reasons best known to themselves, I imagine that any possibility of remaining life had been put to rest..........and if all this is sounding like major cock up, I believe that's exactly what it was. But who was going to know and who was going to tell?
It all changed when the family started to drip poison about Jeremy. There's no evidence to say he did anything but then, other than an armoury of guns, there's little to say he didn't, either. You asked why they would put their careers at risk. I'm suggesting that they already HAD and they were looking round for damage limitation and any means possible to avoid revealing what had really taken place in that farmhouse. Charging Jeremy and maybe withholding anything which could cause doubt about his guilt was their way out.
-
I got news for you. He's just robbed you. ;D
I was in Asda yesterday checking out on the self service tills ( yes ladies men have cracked it including typing in barcodes }, a woman to my right saw 2 £10 notes come out of her console, a chap had just gone forgetting his change, she handed the money to customer services then said to me im stupid arnt i i should have kept it , i said yes you are and survived.
-
Hi Patti,,,believe it or not,it frightened me afterwards,because really,you tend not to look downwards until you've put your pin,etc into it,,except in my case,I was only interested in wondering what was wrong,hahaha. I actually did wonder why the chap was running so fast towards me though,,and felt quite relieved that I hadn't been able to put my pin in,,,little did I know he was running to rescue his money,and not to rob me.
Hi lookout, that must have been quite frightening....I hope you were ready to bop him one hahahahha
I'm off to Sainsbury's hope it isn't busy, catch you later. :) :) :) :)
-
Bridget, hi. In answer to your question from yesterday:
I think that when the police first entered WHF they activated a chain of events that took on life of its'own. Sheila, still just alive, according to Mike,was moved from where she was initially seen, on the kitchen floor, to the bedroom. This information was given to AE by DC Clarke before he left, with Jeremy, to take his witness statement. At some point AE is allowed in to do some clearing up!!!! and comes away with items which under other circumstances may, or may not have been used as evidence, but as this was obviously a clear cut case of murders followed by suicide it hardly mattered if their performance was sloppy and unprofessional because there was nobody else there. By the time they moved Sheila from bed to her first position on the floor, for reasons best known to themselves, I imagine that any possibility of remaining life had been put to rest..........and if all this is sounding like major cock up, I believe that's exactly what it was. But who was going to know and who was going to tell?
It all changed when the family started to drip poison about Jeremy. There's no evidence to say he did anything but then, other than an armoury of guns, there's little to say he didn't, either. You asked why they would put their careers at risk. I'm suggesting that they already HAD and they were looking round for damage limitation and any means possible to avoid revealing what had really taken place in that farmhouse. Charging Jeremy and maybe withholding anything which could cause doubt about his guilt was their way out.
I'm wondering if the cops entered first into the back kitchen where they found Sheila (just a theory, nothing to write home about or start a row. Just twisting things around on the picture of things) Then they broke into the kitchen via the white door and found Ralph? Hence the radio message "one dead female one dead male". Whilst they were in the kitchen Sheila ran up the back stairs holding her neck to staunch the blood and then went into the main bedroom and there shot herself again? Or of course perhaps that was where the police shot her? Nah. Because of the radio message.
-
Bridget, hi. In answer to your question from yesterday:
I think that when the police first entered WHF they activated a chain of events that took on life of its'own. Sheila, still just alive, according to Mike,was moved from where she was initially seen, on the kitchen floor, to the bedroom. This information was given to AE by DC Clarke before he left, with Jeremy, to take his witness statement. At some point AE is allowed in to do some clearing up!!!! and comes away with items which under other circumstances may, or may not have been used as evidence, but as this was obviously a clear cut case of murders followed by suicide it hardly mattered if their performance was sloppy and unprofessional because there was nobody else there. By the time they moved Sheila from bed to her first position on the floor, for reasons best known to themselves, I imagine that any possibility of remaining life had been put to rest..........and if all this is sounding like major cock up, I believe that's exactly what it was. But who was going to know and who was going to tell?
It all changed when the family started to drip poison about Jeremy. There's no evidence to say he did anything but then, other than an armoury of guns, there's little to say he didn't, either. You asked why they would put their careers at risk. I'm suggesting that they already HAD and they were looking round for damage limitation and any means possible to avoid revealing what had really taken place in that farmhouse. Charging Jeremy and maybe withholding anything which could cause doubt about his guilt was their way out.
How fortunate the dead can't speak,eh,April.?
-
Sometimes they speak volumes lookout. ;)
-
I'm wondering if the cops entered first into the back kitchen where they found Sheila (just a theory, nothing to write home about or start a row. Just twisting things around on the picture of things) Then they broke into the kitchen via the white door and found Ralph? Hence the radio message "one dead female one dead male". Whilst they were in the kitchen Sheila ran up the back stairs holding her neck to staunch the blood and then went into the main bedroom and there shot herself again? Or of course perhaps that was where the police shot her? Nah. Because of the radio message.
Yes Grahame, that too is a possibility. They had already pronounced her dead.
-
Absolutely,Grahame.
-
Sparkle, I have followed Jeremy's case and tried to read as much as I possibly can on this wonderful forum of Mike's for some time now and I have found nothing but suspicion that implicates Jeremy to the murders.
That is really what keeps me hooked to the forum.
I find it hard to believe that Jeremy was convicted on the word of a spurned girlfriend.
If Julie Mugford had come forward to the Police straight away after identifying the bodies then I would find her statements against Jeremy more credible.
However, she did not and instead spent loads more time with him until he dumped her!
I have no idea what went on inside White House Farm that terrible night and I don't think the Police do either.
The greatest problem of proving how the events unfolded that night and who killed who is the total destruction of material that could now be D.N.A. tested and perhaps resolve this case.
Essex Police continued to destroy as much crime scene evidence as possible over the years, despite being told not to due to Jeremy's appeals.
Essex Police said they had made a mistake" when it was found out what they had been up to!
Summer :)
-
Sparkle, I have followed Jeremy's case and tried to read as much as I possibly can on this wonderful forum of Mike's for some time now and I have found nothing but suspicion that implicates Jeremy to the murders.
That is really what keeps me hooked to the forum.
I find it hard to believe that Jeremy was convicted on the word of a spurned girlfriend.
If Julie Mugford had come forward to the Police straight away after identifying the bodies then I would find her statements against Jeremy more credible.
However, she did not and instead spent loads more time with him until he dumped her!
I have no idea what went on inside White House Farm that terrible night and I don't think the Police do either.
The greatest problem of proving how the events unfolded that night and who killed who is the total destruction of material that could now be D.N.A. tested and perhaps resolve this case.
Essex Police continued to destroy as much crime scene evidence as possible over the years, despite being told not to due to Jeremy's appeals.
Essex Police said they had made a mistake" when it was found out what they had been up to!
Summer :)
Good points, Summer.
-
The greatest problem of proving how the events unfolded that night and who killed who is the total destruction of material that could now be D.N.A. tested and perhaps resolve this case.
Essex Police continued to destroy as much crime scene evidence as possible over the years.
Hi Summer :)
This is why people suspect a cover up! It was such a high profile case, yet a man was still protesting his innocence and, they destroy the evidence... :-\
-
The greatest problem of proving how the events unfolded that night and who killed who is the total destruction of material that could now be D.N.A. tested and perhaps resolve this case.
Essex Police continued to destroy as much crime scene evidence as possible over the years.
Hi Summer :)
This is why people suspect a cover up! It was such a high profile case, yet a man was still protesting his innocence and, they destroy the evidence... :-\
i think most people will agree the methods of investigation for the time viewed under the spotlight today look and are primative and dated, i was hoping for the Arizona tests to make the breakthrough so badly needed, whatever evidence is left or exists today should be looked again but using 21st Century forensics if the truth could be known its down to costs nothing more .
-
i think most people will agree the methods of investigation for the time viewed under the spotlight today look and are primative and dated, i was hoping for the Arizona tests to make the breakthrough so badly needed, whatever evidence is left or exists today should be looked again but using 21st Century forensics if the truth could be known its down to costs nothing more .
I will never understand the law or our legal system; it is said to be the best in the world? We see cold cases resumed and resolved....James Hanratty for example.....yet the family still proclaim he is innocent, even though modern forensic science says otherwise....
I read recently that DNA evidence can sometimes be flawed...In JB's case they were no DNA, it was still being in it's early stages.
All the EP had was a blood sample....and blood group A can relate to half of the Country......so what does that prove? Does it prove that half of the Country could have committed the crime?
In all fairness though, there should be no human blood on that silencer...unless?????????????????
-
Patti a stitch up by everyone involved, he didn't stand a chance
-
Patti a stitch up by everyone involved, he didn't stand a chance
Jackie I don't think that everyone was involved in a stitch up! It only takes one person to say something and the other lambs follow suit.... :) :) :) :)
-
Jackie I don't think that everyone was involved in a stitch up! It only takes one person to say something and the other lambs follow suit.... :) :) :) :)
when you have those big search lights all directed on you as jeremy did from then on its curtains, that trial was over before it started today i would not be suprised to see it thrown out of court but back then we had incompitance everywhere.
-
when you have those big search lights all directed on you as jeremy did from then on its curtains, that trial was over before it started today i would not be suprised to see it thrown out of court but back then we had incompitance everywhere.
We have incompetence now in 2012. The CCRC reject everything they see, in JB's case, they have the same answers in all of the submissions put to them. It's a case of conflict of interest....This is why, it should be done in separate Country. ;) ;) :-\ :-\
-
We have incompetence now in 2012. The CCRC reject everything they see, in JB's case, they have the same answers in all of the submissions put to them. It's a case of conflict of interest....This is why, it should be done in separate Country. ;) ;) :-\ :-\
we do patti i dont question that for a moment, as ive always said from day one there is something not right here, one the one hand you saw DB getting agressive at the end of the recent documentary saying it stops here like the hell it does and on the other at the time of the books release you read Colin suprised to hear jeremy arrested and later forgives him as a saving act as i read it.
-
Mertol I think that's called passing the blame
-
Mertol I think that's called passing the blame
hi jackie or all part of the release cycle ?
-
I will never understand the law or our legal system; it is said to be the best in the world? We see cold cases resumed and resolved....James Hanratty for example.....yet the family still proclaim he is innocent, even though modern forensic science says otherwise....
I read recently that DNA evidence can sometimes be flawed...In JB's case they were no DNA, it was still being in it's early stages.
All the EP had was a blood sample....and blood group A can relate to half of the Country......so what does that prove? Does it prove that half of the Country could have committed the crime?
In all fairness though, there should be no human blood on that silencer...unless?????????????????
The blood group A was just one of 5 tests they did, 1 produced no result so the blood matched on 3 tests other than the A/B/O grouping.
-
The greatest problem of proving how the events unfolded that night and who killed who is the total destruction of material that could now be D.N.A. tested and perhaps resolve this case.
Essex Police continued to destroy as much crime scene evidence as possible over the years.
Hi Summer :)
This is why people suspect a cover up! It was such a high profile case, yet a man was still protesting his innocence and, they destroy the evidence... :-\
........and why would they do that if there's nothing to hide? That "they continued to destroy" could be translated as "anything the defence could use."
I feel convinced that whatever happened was contained within the parameters of the farmhouse and in some way went beyond a team getting its' knuckles rapped. Maybe an "error" occured, of such magnitude, that it required all those present to, if not keep their mouths shut, say only that which diverted attention away from their own actions that night. To quote JackiePreece ".....it was a stitch up by everybody concerned. Jeremy didn't stand a chance."
-
If Julie Mugford had come forward to the Police straight away after identifying the bodies then I would find her statements against Jeremy more credible.
However, she did not and instead spent loads more time with him until he dumped her!
Julie Mugford was arrested, grilled, placed under extreme pressure, micro managed to the nth degree, offered immunity, had statements altered, set up with a lucrative deal and then waved goodbye across the Atlantic. It's taken 26-27 years for most of the above statement to become known.
Where does this leave her 'diary'?
-
Jackie I don't think that everyone was involved in a stitch up! It only takes one person to say something and the other lambs follow suit.... :) :) :) :)
That's how I see it. The wolves hide behind the lambs and mingle with them immitating them then kill them secretly.
-
Jackie I don't think that everyone was involved in a stitch up! It only takes one person to say something and the other lambs follow suit.... :) :) :) :)
But patti, what do you believe was the reason that one person said something that caused the other lambs to follow?
-
But patti, what do you believe was the reason that one person said something that caused the other lambs to follow?
Well the fact that the police suddenly changed direction shows that something happened? The relatives did keep bothering the cops about the fact that they thought jeremy was guilty and they did have an ally in the police it seems? One officer who listened to them and then Taff Jones was taken off the case for some reason. Sounds rather like manipulation to me by someone?
-
Well the fact that the police suddenly changed direction shows that something happened? The relatives did keep bothering the cops about the fact that they thought jeremy was guilty and they did have an ally in the police it seems? One officer who listened to them and then Taff Jones was taken off the case for some reason. Sounds rather like manipulation to me by someone?
Grahame, I have to ask why was this necessary? To "nudge" somebody into a murder frame has to have more behind it than trying to cover up placing a head in a coal scuttle to stop blood flowing or tossing around towels and cushions to mop it up?
-
It is Julie Mugford that leads me to believe that Jeremy is innocent. I've seen people say that the idea of her accusing him of something like this just because she was dumped is madness, but I have seen first hand just how people can react when they have their hearts broken, and I'm not one bit surprised.
If my boyfriend had done something like this, not only would I have shopped him straight away, but there's no way I would have done a runner halfway across the world. I'd be staying put, and for every breath he took protesting his innocence, I would be fighting back and telling the whole world that he is wrong and I am right. How can she truly believe he did something so horrible and just start a new life and pretend all this never happened?
Shame would be my guess.
-
It is Julie Mugford that leads me to believe that Jeremy is innocent. I've seen people say that the idea of her accusing him of something like this just because she was dumped is madness, but I have seen first hand just how people can react when they have their hearts broken, and I'm not one bit surprised.
If my boyfriend had done something like this, not only would I have shopped him straight away, but there's no way I would have done a runner halfway across the world. I'd be staying put, and for every breath he took protesting his innocence, I would be fighting back and telling the whole world that he is wrong and I am right. How can she truly believe he did something so horrible and just start a new life and pretend all this never happened?
Shame would be my guess.
Hi, Sparkle. Coupled with ice cold fear would be my guess. Wonder how she lives with it.
-
Grahame, I have to ask why was this necessary? To "nudge" somebody into a murder frame has to have more behind it than trying to cover up placing a head in a coal scuttle to stop blood flowing or tossing around towels and cushions to mop it up?
Hi April. Quite possibly the fact that the police had to break into the kitchen had the effect of moving Ralph in the chair and perhaps tipping him over so that his head ended up in the coal scuttle? Remember he was probably in rigor by then?
Consider also that the relatives were very quick in putting Jeremy in the frame. Now for a family to do that, don't you think it rather strange? If that had been myself the last person I would suspect would be one of my own family.
-
Hi April. Quite possibly the fact that the police had to break into the kitchen had the effect of moving Ralph in the chair and perhaps tipping him over so that his head ended up in the coal scuttle? Remember he was probably in rigor by then?
Consider also that the relatives were very quick in putting Jeremy in the frame. Now for a family to do that, don't you think it rather strange? If that had been myself the last person I would suspect would be one of my own family.
Yes, It does stop somewhere short of family support,but, Grahame, I guess your agenda wouldn't be about ridding yourself of an impediment that stood between you and your lifestyle.
-
Yes, It does stop somewhere short of family support,but, Grahame, I guess your agenda wouldn't be about ridding yourself of an impediment that stood between you and your lifestyle.
Maybe. But I think we should be careful about speaking about the family in any accusing manner. It is difficult of course. Because they do seem to be at the centre of things? But they do give me an overwhelming sense that they really didn't like JB at all?
-
Well the fact that the police suddenly changed direction shows that something happened? The relatives did keep bothering the cops about the fact that they thought jeremy was guilty and they did have an ally in the police it seems? One officer who listened to them and then Taff Jones was taken off the case for some reason. Sounds rather like manipulation to me by someone?
Grahame,you mentioned manipulation. I'd ask you to read the late Robert Boutflour's " pedigree " on that.
-
Grahame,you mentioned manipulation. I'd ask you to read the late Robert Boutflour's " pedigree " on that.
Hi lookout. Could you point me to it please :)
-
It speaks for itself when the whole family,including the one who was nearest and dearest to you,,,,all suddenly turn tail,especially in the case of Julie Mugford who couldn't leave quick enough,,,miles away.
Jeremy has been well and truly used in every way by everyone.
There was no love lost between any of them,,and to turn on Jeremy like they've all done,,,speaks volumes about the sort of people they are underneath.
Three members of the family were turned away from the police station a couple of times for causing a nuisance with their insistance on nailing Jeremy.
Greed and jealousy played the biggest part in this.