Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 29, 2012, 03:42:AM
-
One of the reasons why the CCRC may have rejected the latest expert ballistic / medico evidence could be that they felt they might be drawn in to the argument that the silencer, blood and paint evidence which was used and relied on to great effect, was and had been manufactured by police, family and prosecution expert witnesses. This could help to explain why the CCRC refused to exercise thier power to get an independant expert report to nullify the conclusions of the Arizona tests?
-
Without the silencer, blood, and paint evidence the case against Jeremy collapses...
For this reason the powers that be will do everything within thier power to prevent the truth about how and why this evidence was manufactured? The CCRC is just an Agency set up by the State to protect itself, and to try and prevent cases like this one from damaging the image of the Criminal Justice System...
-
The poxy excuses the police have come up with for why the exhibit reference for the silencer had to be changed / altered from, SBJ/1 to DB/1, and then altered again from DB/1 to DRB/1, quite frankly do not hold water, and was introduced long after the trial as nothing but a smokescreen, to hide for the fact that there were two different similar looking Parker hale silencers in police possession which were present at the scene at the time of the shootings. One that was seized by DS Stan Jones (SBJ/1), and the other found a month or so later (DRB/1) by David Boutflour. In order to merge both of these silencers together and present them as one silencer, an intermediary exhibit reference of DB/1 was introduced, along with a cover story which went along the lines that the exhibit reference had to be changed from one to the other because of a clash between various witnesses having exhibits with the same exhibit references, SBJ/1 and DB/1 - but when you you look deeper into this cock and bull story it just simply is not true...
-
DB/1, for example, was a soil sample taken from tge scene by PC David Bird. However, there simply is no other exhibit in the case / investigation bearing an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, only the original reference to a sikencer...
-
Without the silencer, blood, and paint evidence the case against Jeremy collapses...
For this reason the powers that be will do everything within thier power to prevent the truth about how and why this evidence was manufactured? The CCRC is just an Agency set up by the State to protect itself, and to try and prevent cases like this one from damaging the image of the Criminal Justice System...
Without the silencer, blood, and paint evidence the case against Jeremy collapses...
What about the SC picture you have,what about the itemised bills you have? Don't you think you should do everything in you powers to set him free? You don't need to rely on anyone else Mike, just your own sense of Justice for JB? Surely you want him free just like the majority of us? The two bits of evididence you see fit to withhold will do this.It will prove the family were lying from day one,prove the police cover up,prove everything. Why won't you do this simple task? I know you'd prefer the guilty relatives and police to put their hands up to it,but after 27 years I'd say the odds on them doing that are slim.no doubt you'll want me to wait and see,but I think I,and everyone else(JB included) has waited for you for long enough,don't you think.... ?.
-
soil sample taken from the scene by PC David Bird.
I hope he used a Clegg Soil Impact Tester to do this.
-
I wonder where the suicide letter is,,that Sheila had written to her birth mother,,Christine Jay.?
" An action was raised during the original investigation to obtain this letter,,,however no further action was taken and it was signed off by the SIO."
I think there was a suggestion at some time that the brother,Peter Jay would be best contacted rather than Christine herself.
Why were all Sheilas' diaries destroyed,,,along with other vital evidence such as clothing from the family,bedding,the bible.?
When did Anthony Pargeter move to Spain.? What about his gun and silencer at WHF.?
-
Hi lookout I had not heard about the suicide letter from Sheila to her natural Mother has anyone ever seen it also diaries where have they gone somebody must know. What information could be gleaned from them as to how Sheila felt about her life.
-
Hi lookout I had not heard about the suicide letter from Sheila to her natural Mother has anyone ever seen it also diaries where have they gone somebody must know. What information could be gleaned from them as to how Sheila felt about her life.
Who was it saying ive blown all the money? now that is a issue.
-
mertol22 where have you been really missed you thought you must have gone off to sunnier climate :) :)
-
mertol22 where have you been really missed you thought you must have gone off to sunnier climate :) :)
Hello Suasan, ive been without internet for a littlw while, my fresh sim card arrived today, though at present im posting at mc donalds free wi fi at Lakeside Doncaster.
-
Hi lookout I think the same guy got £60,000 from a newspaper who he sued. His share from the family he said and laughed he,d blown the lot.
-
I look at this case from different angles, yet i always come back to the start, all this case is about money, one of the top reasons to commit murder.
-
Hi mertol22 I bet you really missed your internet connection not so long ago during a storm the lightning hit my modem and put the phones and the computer off I had to go and buy a new one cost about £30 we had a storm last night so I unplugged everything I was nervous of it happening again. Glad you are OK. :) :)
-
Hi mertol22 I bet you really missed your internet connection not so long ago during a storm the lightning hit my modem and put the phones and the computer off I had to go and buy a new one cost about £30 we had a storm last night so I unplugged everything I was nervous of it happening again. Glad you are OK. :) :)
A smart move susan unplugging, ive been in contact with patti via email , and i was on the phone last night to jackie, i miss that gal on the forum, mike is right about the silencer but in my eyes its not enough to convict someone there is no proof he fired any firearms that night, and thats poor investigations.
-
Hi mertol22 of course Patti has her daughter,s wedding today hope the weather was good to them makes all the difference to a wedding for the photo,s etc. How is Jackie getting on well I hope I use to hear about her from Maggie but she is off on hols just now and I am not getting any pm,s it seems so strange. I personally think the evidence against Jeremy was very weak and I don,t think it would stand up in Court today also as it was treated as a murder suicide all the forensic evidence was destroyed or lost. Terrible sad case.
-
I look at this case from different angles, yet i always come back to the start, all this case is about money, one of the top reasons to commit murder.
Hi Mertol,,,yes about who would benefit from what with Jeremy out of the way.
-
those who like champers pockets.
-
Barbara Wilson had enough to say about the " jiggery-pokery " that was going on,,after Jeremy was out of the way. Even then,,,no charges were brought against all the fraud.
If you read through Bambertweets and highlight one or two that didn't reach the courtroom,,,it would open your eyes. The whole affair spells out a cover-up.
Those whose statements that were in Jeremys' defence weren't called as witnesses.
-
Hi lookout I think the same guy got £60,000 from a newspaper who he sued. His share from the family he said and laughed he,d blown the lot.
You are merging two different people.
-
Barbara Wilson had enough to say about the " jiggery-pokery " that was going on,,after Jeremy was out of the way. Even then,,,no charges were brought against all the fraud.
If you read through Bambertweets and highlight one or two that didn't reach the courtroom,,,it would open your eyes. The whole affair spells out a cover-up.
Those whose statements that were in Jeremys' defence weren't called as witnesses.
Barbara Wilson is convinced of bamber's guilt
-
Barbara Wilson is convinced of bamber's guilt
That's as maybe,,Vidvic,,,from the start, that was,,,but I bet she must have been doing a bit of thinking 12 months later.
-
sorry vidvic that is why I did not mention names as I knew I had read about both items but get the names mixed up of the males in the family.
-
Who was it saying ive blown all the money? now that is a issue.
Mertol, I believe it to have been one of the extended family, so an Eaton or a Boutflower?
-
Barbara Wilson is convinced of bamber's guilt
She was also convinced of Peter Eatons guilt of thieving years later...
-
She was also convinced of Peter Eatons guilt of thieving years later...
Judging by the excerpt of her statement that never made it to court, she was far from convinced that Bamber was a wrong'un prior to the killings.
-
Without the silencer, blood, and paint evidence the case against Jeremy collapses...
For this reason the powers that be will do everything within thier power to prevent the truth about how and why this evidence was manufactured? The CCRC is just an Agency set up by the State to protect itself, and to try and prevent cases like this one from damaging the image of the Criminal Justice System...
However, if it had been left to the state, no silencer would ever have been found at all.
-
Hi Neil did you enjoy the tennis what a disaster Nadal going out so early. :(
-
Judging by the excerpt of her statement that never made it to court, she was far from convinced that Bamber was a wrong'un prior to the killings.
Can you put this BW statement up Roch please ?
-
Hi Neil did you enjoy the tennis what a disaster Nadal going out so early. :(
Hi Susan, yes it was very nice thank you. We saw the British girl, Heather Watson get through which was good (she got knocked out today!). 7 pounds 20p for a glass of Pimms! 5 pounds for a slice of pizza!! Yes, a bit of a shame about Rafa, he is so good to watch, but it does give Murray a chance! Well, maybe!
-
Barbara Wilson is convinced of bamber's guilt
Barbara Wilson had made 14 statements to the police,,and not one was a damning one against Jeremy.
She'd actually stated that she got on better with JB than she did her own son. In a statement,she'd described Jeremy as a likeable young man,,,who was pleasant,,not violent in any way,,,and not once did she mention at any time that Nevill had told her that JB intended to kill him,or anything which could be interpreted as such. Nevill didn't have thoughts that he may die in the near future.
Barbara Wilson didn't mention this at the trial,,regardless of what had been bandied about of JB wanting to kill his family.
-
If recent Arizona tests true...
Well they've not been knocked.
...Silencer evidence manufactured
The Ministry of Common Sense would concur.
-
Barbara Wilson had made 14 statements to the police,,and not one was a damning one against Jeremy.
She'd actually stated that she got on better with JB than she did her own son. In a statement,she'd described Jeremy as a likeable young man,,,who was pleasant,,not violent in any way,,,and not once did she mention at any time that Nevill had told her that JB intended to kill him,or anything which could be interpreted as such. Nevill didn't have thoughts that he may die in the near future.
Barbara Wilson didn't mention this at the trial,,regardless of what had been bandied about of JB wanting to kill his family.
Can you post a link to Barbara Wilson's 14 statements please?
-
One of the reasons why the CCRC may have rejected the latest expert ballistic / medico evidence could be that they felt they might be drawn in to the argument that the silencer, blood and paint evidence which was used and relied on to great effect, was and had been manufactured by police, family and prosecution expert witnesses. This could help to explain why the CCRC refused to exercise thier power to get an independant expert report to nullify the conclusions of the Arizona tests?
The odd thing that strikes me about the scratch makes is that on the 13th August a paint sample was taken from underneath the Aga. These scratch marks could have been done in the attempt to get the sample by whoever it was that took the sample. Innocently done.
AE says in her statement that up to then she had not noticed the scratch marks.
Peter Sutherst confirms this in his analysis of the photographs taken at the crime scene and after the sample was taken.
In MHO the scratch marks and paint on the silencer evidence, would be now be very weak coming from the CPS if it was examined in court today.
It could be argued that paint could have got onto the silencer at time and not on the night of the murders. Blood however, is not so easy to argue upon. Although, it is now claimed that no DNA found on the silencer, belonged to Sheila. In order to eliminate silencer was never used, there should be no trace of blood in or on the silencer.
Again, this has weakened the CPS's argument considerably and now could be argued that the silencer had been contaminated, from the moment it was taken out of the cupboard. :) :) :)
-
Patti, hi, good morning, how was the wedding and are you sober yet!!!!! Thought about you at 3.30 and hoped the sun was shining. Back to topic!! When you refer to scratches on Aga, are you meaning scratches ON Aga or scratches on mantel piece surrounding Aga?
-
Hi Neil did you enjoy the tennis what a disaster Nadal going out so early. :(
Nooooooooooooooooooo really???? Not seen the news yet :'( ;) ;) ;)
-
Patti, hi, good morning, how was the wedding and are you sober yet!!!!! Thought about you at 3.30 and hoped the sun was shining. Back to topic!! When you refer to scratches on Aga, are you meaning scratches ON Aga or scratches on mantel piece surrounding Aga?
Hi April..wedding was fantastic, she looked beautiful and the day was sunny and hot. Brought my granddaughter back with me, she looked like a princess....Had to buy a new camera, mine broke yesterday morning, so had to nip a buy one...I can't wait to see the photos....My son went into town, he has not come back yet..no doubt he went to the casino with his friend and he has stayed there... :D :D
I am on about the scratch marks under the mantel piece of the Aga.....that the CPS claimed the silencer had made.... :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti glad the wedding went well also glad you are back Bridget has been quite naughty actually saying she was going to tell lies when she did the polygraph test. Shame about Nadal nearly lost Rodg last night he took the match in the last 5th set. :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti glad the wedding went well also glad you are back Bridget has been quite naughty actually saying she was going to tell lies when she did the polygraph test. Shame about Nadal nearly lost Rodg last night he took the match in the last 5th set. :) :) :)
Nothing new there then Susan...hahahahahh
Our Bridget is nice really....she is very knowledgeable about the case, but she wont pass the lie detector if she tells fibs.... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti why are you unable to use the document. ???
-
Hi Patti why are you unable to use the document. ???
There is no space left on the forum....It has been posted before...Mike might know how to upload it... :) :) :)
-
Can you post a link to Barbara Wilson's 14 statements please?
Bridget go to Bambertweets and see the info there. The statement is there containing the " character reference " that she gave of Jeremy. There wasn't one damning one,,in fact,,there were a couple which stated how likeable Jeremy was.
It was PE 12 months after the murders that she " damned ". Because of this case at the time,,that other case concerning PE never saw light of day,,,and this is where Barbara Wilson probably changed her mind about the whole WHF affair.
-
Bridget go to Bambertweets and see the info there. The statement is there containing the " character reference " that she gave of Jeremy. There wasn't one damning one,,in fact,,there were a couple which stated how likeable Jeremy was.
It was PE 12 months after the murders that she " damned ". Because of this case at the time,,that other case concerning PE never saw light of day,,,and this is where Barbara Wilson probably changed her mind about the whole WHF affair.
I did, and found one 6 or 7 line extract from one statement, soI'm wondering where you got this from:
She'd actually stated that she got on better with JB than she did her own son. In a statement,she'd described Jeremy as a likeable young man,,,who was pleasant,,not violent in any way,,,and not once did she mention at any time that Nevill had told her that JB intended to kill him,or anything which could be interpreted as such. Nevill didn't have thoughts that he may die in the near future.
-
Hi Lookout
I'm not aware of any suicide letter to Sheila's birth mother. My understanding is that Sheila sent 7/8 letters in total. The last being sent about 2 weeks before the murders and this wld have been around the time of Sheila's birthday (I think?). These letters played no part in the original police investigation/trial. Dr Ferguson was asked at trial what affect this reunion may have had on Sheila and he said Sheila saw it as a positive experience but that the parting may have been difficult.
In preparation for the 02 CoA hearing the letters were obtained by EP but my understanding is that they have not been disclosed and remain under PII :o. Here's the link:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1989.msg60921.html#msg60921
Again,,,the post is amongst the Bambertweets,depending which section of them that you highlight.
It was something that Jeremy was told while inside the prison,,along with information about Farhad,is it,,the friend of Sheila's anyway,,who he said of her that Sheila used to punch the twins in the face.
He was asked to appear in court ( for Jeremy's defence ),,but wasn't called as a witness.?
-
Again,,,the post is amongst the Bambertweets,depending which section of them that you highlight.
It was something that Jeremy was told while inside the prison,,along with information about Farhad,is it,,the friend of Sheila's anyway,,who he said of her that Sheila used to punch the twins in the face.He was asked to appear in court ( for Jeremy's defence ),,but wasn't called as a witness.?
That's certainly not what Freddie said in any of his statements.
-
That's certainly not what Freddie said in any of his statements.
Bridget,,,highlight recent images on Bambertweets and it gives you various statements etc,,and yes,you'll see what Freddie had to say. He was petrified of the woman knowing what she was capable of.
The above was some of the things he wrote.( don't shoot the messenger )
-
Bridget,,,highlight recent images on Bambertweets and it gives you various statements etc,,and yes,you'll see what Freddie had to say. He was petrified of the woman knowing what she was capable of.
The above was some of the things he wrote.( don't shoot the messenger )
I have read his statements and cannot find anything about Sheila "punching the twins in the face". If there is some other statement on Bambertweets I can't see it, please provide a link to it.
-
I have read his statements and cannot find anything about Sheila "punching the twins in the face". If there is some other statement on Bambertweets I can't see it, please provide a link to it.
It's on the " recent images " of twitpics/bambertweets and the statement about the children is on an extract from an interview of Suzette Ford-19.09.86. Just highlight the 3rd or 4th letter from your right.
-
It's on the " recent images " of twitpics/bambertweets and the statement about the children is on an extract from an interview of Suzette Ford-19.09.86. Just highlight the 3rd or 4th letter from your right.
Ok, I see the one you mean, so Suzette Ford said that Freddie had said that, but Freddie himself doesn't mention it in any of his statements - in fact he says that he never saw her use physical violence towards anyone.
-
Hi Bridget
My view is that there is far more evidence showing that Sheila was prone to aggressive behaviour than Jeremy. In fact save Jeremy twisting JM's arm up her back in an attempt to stop her using violence against him I don't believe there's any?
Hi Egap, what evidence is there of her using violence against others though?
-
Hi Bridget
(This is so annoying I typed my response hit post and it disappeared >:( I think I struck two keys simultaneously)
Anyway for a repeat performance. Colin's wit stat refers to Sheila as striking him, throwing pots and pans, smashing his prized possessions and punching her fist through a pane of glass. Freddie's wit stat refers to her as thumping her chest and the walls with her fists so much so he was scared for the safety of himself and others.
There are numerous other examples of what I wld consider aggressive and anti-social behaviour: Dr F's wit stats confirming her morbid thoughts re June and the twins and suicide ideation. Helen Grimster's wit stat where she appears rather uncomfortable about Sheila discussing suicide and drug taking. Being expelled from school twice. Getting sacked from her job.
I don't blame Sheila as I think she had a dreadful start in life in that she was adopted by a mentally ill woman and grew up in a dysfunctional family. June did not suffer mental illness after adopting Jeremy as she did with Sheila. Although I'm not convinced that the bang Jeremy received to his head around age 2 was entirely innocent (thank goodness Maggie is not around she wld be going ballistic ;D).
I accept that she had rages, but really, out of all that the only time she was physically violent towards someone else was when she once clumped Colin. I'm sure it was scarey to watch, and perhaps if a person tried to restrain her they may have got hurt, but it really paints a picture of someone who was more of a danger to herself than to others.
-
Colin said that Sheila was more than justified in thumping him one, he had been cheating on her. I would have been angry too, and would have followed up the punch with a swift kick in his nuts!!
-
Colin said that Sheila was more than justified in thumping him one, he had been cheating on her. I would have been angry too, and would have followed up the punch with a swift kick in his nuts!!
I wouldn't have said Colins' life was a bed of roses either living with someone whose mood changed like the weather.
-
If anyone takes the time to study psychology and criminology, you will see that it is very rare to kill for the first time, not only once but 4 or possibly 5 times.
What the study of criminology does, is to recognise pattens of behaviour, a behaviour that leads up to the killings. It is what they call psychological profiling.
If you take Peter Sutcliffe as an example, he did not suddenly become a killer, who displayed bodies. He most likely attacked his first few victims, then came the hammer attacks, then came the kill and display...He got ambitious with each kill....
A serial killer is someone who kills more than one person, someone who has desires to kill. Someone who wants control over their victims.
In the case of what happened at WHF.....The killer displayed just that, a desire to kill and took total control....
You have to weigh up who is most likely to be the killer...It had to be Sheila or Jeremy....
Given the background and the psychological profile which one would you say it would be?
Who had the ideas to kill? Who hated the place? who had said who they wanted to kill? Work it out! :) :) :)
-
Who was it saying ive blown all the money? now that is a issue.
David Boutflour
-
David Boutflour
Yes,,,and it was his late fathers' blood ( same match as Sheilas' ),along with a grey hair,that was on that silencer that David Boutflour " found ",,,and who a team of experts had allegedly looked in the cupboard but didn't see it on the day after the murders,,,,,something to do with the fact that it wasn't there in the first place.... Quite a lot of things were " spirited " away in this case.
-
Hi Bridget
(This is so annoying I typed my response hit post and it disappeared >:( I think I struck two keys simultaneously)
Anyway for a repeat performance. Colin's wit stat refers to Sheila as striking him, throwing pots and pans, smashing his prized possessions and punching her fist through a pane of glass. Freddie's wit stat refers to her as thumping her chest and the walls with her fists so much so he was scared for the safety of himself and others.
There are numerous other examples of what I wld consider aggressive and anti-social behaviour: Dr F's wit stats confirming her morbid thoughts re June and the twins and suicide ideation. Helen Grimster's wit stat where she appears rather uncomfortable about Sheila discussing suicide and drug taking. Being expelled from school twice. Getting sacked from her job.
I don't blame Sheila as I think she had a dreadful start in life in that she was adopted by a mentally ill woman and grew up in a dysfunctional family. June did not suffer mental illness after adopting Jeremy as she did with Sheila. Although I'm not convinced that the bang Jeremy received to his head around age 2 was entirely innocent (thank goodness Maggie is not around she wld be going ballistic ;D).
Just read your brilliant post egap. Once again you have spoken with the evidence that has been presented regarding Sheila.
Of course I must add that there is not one scrap of evidence that JB was violent or ever having any mental disorders.
:) :) :) :)
-
If anyone takes the time to study psychology and criminology, you will see that it is very rare to kill for the first time, not only once but 4 or possibly 5 times.
What the study of criminology does, is to recognise pattens of behaviour, a behaviour that leads up to the killings. It is what they call psychological profiling.
If you take Peter Sutcliffe as an example, he did not suddenly become a killer, who displayed bodies. He most likely attacked his first few victims, then came the hammer attacks, then came the kill and display...He got ambitious with each kill....
A serial killer is someone who kills more than one person, someone who has desires to kill. Someone who wants control over their victims.
In the case of what happened at WHF.....The killer displayed just that, a desire to kill and took total control....
You have to weigh up who is most likely to be the killer...It had to be Sheila or Jeremy....
Given the background and the psychological profile which one would you say it would be?
Who had the ideas to kill? Who hated the place? who had said who they wanted to kill? Work it out! :) :) :)
But Jeremy wasn't killing for the same reasons at Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe got a thrill out of killing people, that was his MO. Jeremy was killing for financial gain - so why would he have killed before? He wiped out everyone that would was before him in the inheritence line.
Someone who kills for money isn't going to have killed before.
-
Hi Patti hope you are feeling good today. Talking about the reasons why people kill their are so many Peter Sutcliffe,s reason was a sexual thrill he got wont go into details what he did other people kill out of jealousy. Did you watch the programme on last week called Lifers it was very interesting and interviewed prisoners and they talked about the reasons why they committed murders. Some were out and out thugs who were brought up in a culture of carrying a knife to stay alive drugs had a big part to play in murders. Others kill whilst their mind is disturbed and considered at the time not to be responsible for their actions. Don,t hear of many cases where a person kills to gain an inheritance as they know they are going to be suspect number 1.
-
But Jeremy wasn't killing for the same reasons at Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe got a thrill out of killing people, that was his MO. Jeremy was killing for financial gain - so why would he have killed before? He wiped out everyone that would was before him in the inheritence line.
Someone who kills for money isn't going to have killed before.
I have never heard of anything so absurd - Jeremy killed for financial gain?
And how do you work that out, how was all that /this money going to fall into his hands? There would be other beneficiaries depending upon who died first to last, surely? And exactly how was Jeremy going to achieve that, how was he going to prove who had died, and in what order? The money from his parents estate(s) was never just going to fall into his lap unproblematic. Robert Boutflour (now himself deceased) looked into this on behalf of the relatives within days / weeks of the killings. It transpired that because the police were unable to establish time of death, the matter might have to be treated as though everyone had been killed or died in a road traffic accident, where the eldest victim had died first, and the youngest last - Sheila would be taken out of the equation if she had committed suicide or taken her own life so to speak. The money from his parents estate(s) was never simply going to fall into Jeremy' hands, there was an administrator of the wills (Basil John Cock) who would be bound by law to make sure any monies and property subject of the estate went to its rightful, legal beneficiary - so, where is it set out in clear terms that everything would have automatically gone to Jeremy (but for his convictions)? I don't agree with anyone who says that everything from his parents estate would automatically have gone to him. I am sure the relatives and other beneficiaries would have contested such a move, if Jeremy had not been convicted of the murders...
Jeremy could not have orchestrated the murders with a view to him inheriting everything in his parents estate, without careful thought about the contents of his parents wills, entitlements of other beneficiaries, and proving the time of death in the case of all five victims. How could he have proved that victim (a) died first, followed by victims (b), (c), (d) and (e) in order so that everything would automatically fall into his hands and nobody else would have been entitled to anything? It is an impossible scenario to even contemplate, let alone to put forward and expect everyone to believe it. The only certainty that comes out of this affair is that once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, he himself was taken out of the equation, and he would not be entitled to anything at all from his parents estate(s)? Any financial gain from the deaths would be contested by the very same relatives who set out from the beginning to implicate Jeremy in the shootings as the murderer...
It would be much more simpler for the relatives to put Jeremy in the frame, than say for Jeremy to have carried out the murders with a 100% expectancy of receiving everything in his parents estate and for him to gain financially to the extent that nobody else, no other beneficiary would have got anything...
-
Morning Mike I also think had Jeremy not been wrongfully convicted it would not have been an open and shut case that he would inherit the whole of the Estate. It would have been contested by the family maybe including the next of kin of the dear little boys. As I said in my previous post not many murders are committed for an inheritance.
-
Morning Mike I also think had Jeremy not been wrongfully convicted it would not have been an open and shut case that he would inherit the whole of the Estate. It would have been contested by the family maybe including the next of kin of the dear little boys. As I said in my previous post not many murders are committed for an inheritance.
I agree....
Nothing was clear cut as to who would inherit even if Jeremy had not been convicted of the murders - it would have been a long drawn out matter, which much falling out between all beneficiaries in the clamber to get as much as they could for themselves...
-
Half of the estate would have been Jeremy's anyway, all he had to do was wait. It was like money in the bank increasing in value. Was he so greedy and impatient that he would slaughter his whole family? It's clear from the wills that Ralph and June didn't want the relatives to get more than a pittance. The way the relatives behaved concerning Gran Speakman speaks volumes.
-
morning lebaleb Jeremy seemed to be having a good lifestyle and I think he seemed to get what he wanted out of his Dad. He was provided with a house, car shares in the caravan park a decent salary from the farm why would he want to murder the whole family for money from what I have read his parents wanted Sheila and Jeremy to have the Estate between them with a mere pittance going to the extended family.
-
But Jeremy wasn't killing for the same reasons at Sutcliffe. Sutcliffe got a thrill out of killing people, that was his MO. Jeremy was killing for financial gain - so why would he have killed before? He wiped out everyone that would was before him in the inheritence line.
Someone who kills for money isn't going to have killed before.
Hi mat
I don't think you understand where I am coming from. I don't think for one minute Sheila or Jeremy killed before, in no way I am suggesting that. I am on about the psychological profile of a killer. For example, had either one of them had any mental disorders? Had either one of them threatened to take their own life? Had either one of them made any suggestions that they wanted to kill? Had either one of them shown any signs of psychopathy? I am on about the patten leading up to the crime.
In all fairness if one was to do a psychological profile Sheila would come out top, she fits the profile.
I know there is a great deal of doubt that Sheila could have killed her family, but look at they way they were killed. One two shots to the body....not a direct kill. Both NB and JB were able to move about when they had been shot....this tells us the killer was in control of the situation and enjoyed what they were doing. The killer wanted them to suffer, taunted them if you like; until the final shots to the head killed them outright. Who ever did this mat was insane and had severe mental health problems.
No someone who kills for money, may not have killed before, but they might have shown some signs of mental illness prior to the killings.
JB was not short of money mat. He had his own place, he owned 42 acres of land, had 8% share of the caravan sight, had all his bills paid for. had 2500 a year bonus, he earned 170 per week, had a new car. He was in a relationship, he had friends, he mixed socially, he was kind hearted, he hated killing animals. The only thing that JB was famous for was his arrogance and his inhability to except what had happened and of course that press photograph with the stare.....Oh and lets not forget the holidays and high life that the press portrayed him as having....Did you know when he went to Amsterdam, they all shared one room and it was not even a 3 star..
The evidence against him is very weak and it has weakened more so over the years...with what has come to light. If he had a retrial, he would be a free man. Unless someone can come up with something that is concrete.
I did not lie to over the windows mat....There is not one scrap of evidence to say he entered those windows or left via any windows at WHF.....They were extensively examined by forensics and they found nothing.... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Just read your brilliant post egap. Once again you have spoken with the evidence that has been presented regarding Sheila.
Of course I must add that there is not one scrap of evidence that JB was violent or ever having any mental disorders. :) :) :) :)
You say that as if the two automatically go hand in hand. They don't.
-
I have never heard of anything so absurd - Jeremy killed for financial gain?
And how do you work that out, how was all that /this money going to fall into his hands? There would be other beneficiaries depending upon who died first to last, surely? And exactly how was Jeremy going to achieve that, how was he going to prove who had died, and in what order? The money from his parents estate(s) was never just going to fall into his lap unproblematic. Robert Boutflour (now himself deceased) looked into this on behalf of the relatives within days / weeks of the killings. It transpired that because the police were unable to establish time of death, the matter might have to be treated as though everyone had been killed or died in a road traffic accident, where the eldest victim had died first, and the youngest last - Sheila would be taken out of the equation if she had committed suicide or taken her own life so to speak. The money from his parents estate(s) was never simply going to fall into Jeremy' hands, there was an administrator of the wills (Basil John Cock) who would be bound by law to make sure any monies and property subject of the estate went to its rightful, legal beneficiary - so, where is it set out in clear terms that everything would have automatically gone to Jeremy (but for his convictions)? I don't agree with anyone who says that everything from his parents estate would automatically have gone to him. I am sure the relatives and other beneficiaries would have contested such a move, if Jeremy had not been convicted of the murders...
Jeremy could not have orchestrated the murders with a view to him inheriting everything in his parents estate, without careful thought about the contents of his parents wills, entitlements of other beneficiaries, and proving the time of death in the case of all five victims. How could he have proved that victim (a) died first, followed by victims (b), (c), (d) and (e) in order so that everything would automatically fall into his hands and nobody else would have been entitled to anything? It is an impossible scenario to even contemplate, let alone to put forward and expect everyone to believe it. The only certainty that comes out of this affair is that once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, he himself was taken out of the equation, and he would not be entitled to anything at all from his parents estate(s)? Any financial gain from the deaths would be contested by the very same relatives who set out from the beginning to implicate Jeremy in the shootings as the murderer...
It would be much more simpler for the relatives to put Jeremy in the frame, than say for Jeremy to have carried out the murders with a 100% expectancy of receiving everything in his parents estate and for him to gain financially to the extent that nobody else, no other beneficiary would have got anything...
Mike, I think you may be overlooking that Jeremy stood to inherit much more than the rellies thought he should have and I have no doubt, that how ever June and Neville died, the rellies would have gone to court in order to maintain their lifestyle. I believe the situation would have been discussed many times. The mass deaths must have been seen as a God given opportunity which they grabbed with both hands.
EP must have been satisfied that they had it wrapped up. Why else treat the scene in such a cavelier manner? Why else destroy potential evidence? Why else give permission for funerals? The answer has to be that they felt further investigation to be unnecessary...........until the rellies started poking around Jeremy's name had probably only been used as that of the sole survivor. The police, I believe, wouldn't have thought of charging Jeremy had it not been for the rellies who pushed them forward AND provided them with the "evidence" with which to do it. Reason? IMO, because they were afraid that bequests alone wouldn't provide them with enough to maintain their lifestyle. Now, what was it that has been said about crimes being committed out of greed?
-
You can bet your life that the relatives had already worked out their financial gains. Something which the jury were never told about, as to who got what. Yes,,,they'd have all been rubbing their hands once Jeremy was cuffed. Pure unadulterated greed was their motives for seeing Jeremy incarcerated. You've only to read the horror stories in the months following the deaths. Absolutely disgusting.
-
Hi mat
I don't think you understand where I am coming from. I don't think for one minute Sheila or Jeremy killed before, in no way I am suggesting that. I am on about the psychological profile of a killer. For example, had either one of them had any mental disorders? Had either one of them threatened to take their own life? Had either one of them made any suggestions that they wanted to kill? Had either one of them shown any signs of psychopathy? I am on about the patten leading up to the crime.
In all fairness if one was to do a psychological profile Sheila would come out top, she fits the profile.
I know there is a great deal of doubt that Sheila could have killed her family, but look at they way they were killed. One two shots to the body....not a direct kill. Both NB and JB were able to move about when they had been shot....this tells us the killer was in control of the situation and enjoyed what they were doing. The killer wanted them to suffer, taunted them if you like; until the final shots to the head killed them outright. Who ever did this mat was insane and had severe mental health problems.
No someone who kills for money, may not have killed before, but they might have shown some signs of mental illness prior to the killings.
JB was not short of money mat. He had his own place, he owned 42 acres of land, had 8% share of the caravan sight, had all his bills paid for. had 2500 a year bonus, he earned 170 per week, had a new car. He was in a relationship, he had friends, he mixed socially, he was kind hearted, he hated killing animals. The only thing that JB was famous for was his arrogance and his inhability to except what had happened and of course that press photograph with the stare.....Oh and lets not forget the holidays and high life that the press portrayed him as having....Did you know when he went to Amsterdam, they all shared one room and it was not even a 3 star..
The evidence against him is very weak and it has weakened more so over the years...with what has come to light. If he had a retrial, he would be a free man. Unless someone can come up with something that is concrete.
I did not lie to over the windows mat....There is not one scrap of evidence to say he entered those windows or left via any windows at WHF.....They were extensively examined by forensics and they found nothing.... :) :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti, the house has a sliced onion in each room to kill the bugs, £170 in the mid 1980s was a lot of money when money went far not like today, without question jeremy was not rolling in money but not short, meanwhile in south yorkshire the region was being butchered with the miners strike 2 very different worlds, you do not kill and winner takes all did the relatives already know they were not in a shout ?
-
Hi Bridget
It depends what the def of violence is in this context but Colin's wit stat and book claims that Sheila smashed his prized possessions (not sure what these prized possessions were perhaps his artwork) to hurt him psychologically. To my mind the smashing of property is violent behaviour.
As far as I can see there's absolutely no evidence whatsover of JB behaving violently towards anyone or anything or going out of his way to hurt anyone mentally. No anti-social behaviour. No probs at school, with employers, with neighbours or girlfriends.
Egap, hi. An exercise sometimes suggested during psychotherapy is that the client punches a pillow as a way of getting anger out of their system. Basically, violence under controlled conditions.
I recall that there were statements made to some papers by Jeremy's school "friends" which record him, for various reasons as not being considered to be "one of them." Some, I imagine, saw it as an opportunity to put the boot in at a safe remove.
Whilst I think it reasonable to think he wasn't one of "them", after all, this is what the rellies seemed to think, I think it likely that one of his biggest problems was his looks. They were good. He probably never got acne and his peer group would have been jealous as hell.
-
Egap, hi. An exercise sometimes suggested during psychotherapy is that the client punches a pillow as a way of getting anger out of their system. Basically, violence under controlled conditions.
I recall that there were statements made to some papers by Jeremy's school "friends" which record him, for various reasons as not being considered to be "one of them." Some, I imagine, saw it as an opportunity to put the boot in at a safe remove.
Whilst I think it reasonable to think he wasn't one of "them", after all, this is what the rellies seemed to think, I think it likely that one of his biggest problems was his looks. They were good. He probably never got acne and his peer group would have been jealous as hell.
I think many of the theories over Sheila's mental state and her 'profile' as a killer could equally apply to Jeremy. He was also adopted, and so had the same potential for issues to arise from that. He was sent to boarding school relatively young, where he was bullied. Sheila's problems may or may not have manifested in her mental illness, his may have manifested in his seemingly cold arrogance an poor relationship with his adoptive parents, particularly with his mother. Going back to Patti's post regarding serial killers profiles, didn't Geoffry Dahmer start with animals?
-
I think many of the theories over Sheila's mental state and her 'profile' as a killer could equally apply to Jeremy. He was also adopted, and so had the same potential for issues to arise from that. He was sent to boarding school relatively young, where he was bullied. Sheila's problems may or may not have manifested in her mental illness, his may have manifested in his seemingly cold arrogance an poor relationship with his adoptive parents, particularly with his mother. Going back to Patti's post regarding serial killers profiles, didn't Geoffry Dahmer start with animals?
Bridget, hi. How are you? Many of those theories apply to me, too. However, I did have ghastly acne!!! All I can say is that children will respond to the same stimulii in different ways, but I suspect that June waged a different type of control over Sheila, her own repressed emotions, perhaps, and of course this is just IMO, causing Sheila to suppress hers. In spending so much energy on Sheila, it's possible that Jeremy felt neglected by her. I get the impression that he didn't feel as inextricably bound to her as Sheila did and possibly the "cold arrogence" helped shield him from feeling hurt by it.
-
Bridget, hi. How are you? Many of those theories apply to me, too. However, I did have ghastly acne!!! All I can say is that children will respond to the same stimulii in different ways, but I suspect that June waged a different type of control over Sheila, her own repressed emotions, perhaps, and of course this is just IMO, causing Sheila to suppress hers. In spending so much energy on Sheila, it's possible that Jeremy felt neglected by her. I get the impression that he didn't feel as inextricably bound to her as Sheila did and possibly the "cold arrogence" helped shield him from feeling hurt by it.
Hi April, I'm fine thanks!
I can't disagree with any of that, but it still doesn't make Sheila a killer, IMO :)
-
Hi Bridget
There's one fundamental difference between Sheila and Jeremy with regard to their upbrining and that is June's mental illness in 1959 caused by adopting Sheila. Imo this is quite likely to have given rise to an attachment disorder. June did not suffer mental illness shortly after adopting Jeremy.
First Sheila suffered a 'Primal Wound' ie separation from her birth mother.
http://nancyverrier.com/information-for-adoptees/
Second Sheila suffered an attachment disorder by having an unresponsive caregiver in the crucial first year or so of life.
http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html
I'm afraid to say the above link says much about Sheila.
I doubt if there are many adoptive mothers who adopt and then become so depressed that they need ect as an in-patient. June was 34/35 years of age when she adopted Sheila. She made a conscious decision to adopt. I feel sure she must have had reservations at the time and this is unforgiveable in my view. Dr F's wit stat states Sheila as saying June lacked warmth towards her and I wld imagine the relationship was frosty throughout. (OMG if Maggie was here she wld be going ape. I can feel her wrath just thinking about it).
Thanks, there's some interesting information on that link and I can see why you would come to the conclusion that attachment disorder may be at the root of Sheila's problems. But her problems are well documented, we know that she had them, although probably not as much was known then as it is now about why she had them. But the fact that she had them, for whatever underlying reason, doesn't mean she killed her family.
Given what is said here about June, even though she was apparently mentally recovered by the time she adopted Jeremy, do you think she was able to connect with him?
-
Hi April1
I wld imagine a lot of not being one of "them" amounted to Jeremy not engaging in sports ie cricket, rugby and football. It's a Q I keep meaning to ask Mike which I'll do next. I think Jeremy might have had an artistic bent like his birth sister and for this reason he might have been considered not one of "us". Plus he might just naturally have felt at ease around females. Note in The Guardian vid he refers to accompanying Sheila on modelling assignments and mixing with her friends and he was only 15 yoa at the time. His gawky mates were prob jealous of his 'pulling power' and ease with women.
Egap! YES!! right on the nail, and just imagine what sort of problems any artistic leanings would creazte for him!!! My God, it doesn't bear thinking about. Home life. Anything falling outside of what their strict moral code regarded as "normal" would have been frowned upon. Wasn't Neville supposed to have referred to him as "Nancy?" Didn't the rellies make insinuations about his sexuality? Is there any work less suited, than farming, to an artistic personality? School life!!!! Imagine him being surrounded by all those tough, macho kids, all taking the piss out of him, because he wasn't like them, and not being able to go home and tell his parents. WAS the arrogance about "You can't touch me because you can't reach me?"
-
Hi April1
I wld imagine a lot of not being one of "them" amounted to Jeremy not engaging in sports ie cricket, rugby and football. It's a Q I keep meaning to ask Mike which I'll do next. I think Jeremy might have had an artistic bent like his birth sister and for this reason he might have been considered not one of "us". Plus he might just naturally have felt at ease around females. Note in The Guardian vid he refers to accompanying Sheila on modelling assignments and mixing with her friends and he was only 15 yoa at the time. His gawky mates were prob jealous of his 'pulling power' and ease with women.
Sort of cross posted.
-
Hi April1
Agree 100%.
Sadly I think Jeremy and Sheila were bad "fits" with the Bambers. If you look at the background of the birth families they're very different to the Bambers. Albeit Jeremy's birth father was a major in the army and Nevill a RAF pilot. Jeremy seems to take after his birth sister who is a prof artist eg he has an interest in sculpture. Sheila apparently had a talent for writing short stories and her birth uncle read the classics and English at Oxford and wrote poetry and novels. Nature v nuture did not mesh well in this adoptive family :(
Nor did it in another adoptive family, egap, for exactly!!! the same reasons!!! I have more understanding now of how hard it is for those who are all about practicality to find any common ground with those of us who aren't.
-
Hi April, I'm fine thanks!
I can't disagree with any of that, but it still doesn't make Sheila a killer, IMO :)
Hi Bridget,,,it was her illness that made her a killer. An illness that Sheila had no control over,,,and neither did anyone else judging by the severity of it,,,including her own doctor and the staff at the clinics where she stayed. It never appeared to stabilise for very long,even after her monthly injections,,which were wrongly reduced in strength. It should have been a gradual process,not something that is suddenly reduced. It goes for most of medications,,unless of course there are immediate adverse effects.
Sheila wasn't responsible for her actions simply because her illness had taken over.
-
Hi mat
I don't think you understand where I am coming from. I don't think for one minute Sheila or Jeremy killed before, in no way I am suggesting that. I am on about the psychological profile of a killer. For example, had either one of them had any mental disorders? Had either one of them threatened to take their own life? Had either one of them made any suggestions that they wanted to kill? Had either one of them shown any signs of psychopathy? I am on about the patten leading up to the crime.
In all fairness if one was to do a psychological profile Sheila would come out top, she fits the profile.
I know there is a great deal of doubt that Sheila could have killed her family, but look at they way they were killed. One two shots to the body....not a direct kill. Both NB and JB were able to move about when they had been shot....this tells us the killer was in control of the situation and enjoyed what they were doing. The killer wanted them to suffer, taunted them if you like; until the final shots to the head killed them outright. Who ever did this mat was insane and had severe mental health problems.
No someone who kills for money, may not have killed before, but they might have shown some signs of mental illness prior to the killings.
JB was not short of money mat. He had his own place, he owned 42 acres of land, had 8% share of the caravan sight, had all his bills paid for. had 2500 a year bonus, he earned 170 per week, had a new car. He was in a relationship, he had friends, he mixed socially, he was kind hearted, he hated killing animals. The only thing that JB was famous for was his arrogance and his inhability to except what had happened and of course that press photograph with the stare.....Oh and lets not forget the holidays and high life that the press portrayed him as having....Did you know when he went to Amsterdam, they all shared one room and it was not even a 3 star..
The evidence against him is very weak and it has weakened more so over the years...with what has come to light. If he had a retrial, he would be a free man. Unless someone can come up with something that is concrete.
I did not lie to over the windows mat....There is not one scrap of evidence to say he entered those windows or left via any windows at WHF.....They were extensively examined by forensics and they found nothing.... :) :) :) :) :)
Hey, Patti.
Oh, no Patti I understood what you were getting at. You just can't even begin to compare The yorkshire Ripper and Jeremy Bamber. Completely different MO and profiles. I didn't think it was a fair point.
-
Hey, Patti.
Oh, no Patti I understood what you were getting at. You just can't even begin to compare The yorkshire Ripper and Jeremy Bamber. Completely different MO and profiles. I didn't think it was a fair point.
Mat babe.
I didn't mean to compare I was talking about psychological profiling and just used his case as an example of what I was trying to get at. Sorry If you think it was not a fair point. I was talking in general about psychology and criminology....
If i was to give you a carpet sample, made with certain fibres that resembled a giraffe, would you buy it, or would you be interested in the carpet....lol
:) :) :) :)
-
Hi Bridget,,,it was her illness that made her a killer. An illness that Sheila had no control over,,,and neither did anyone else judging by the severity of it,,,including her own doctor and the staff at the clinics where she stayed. It never appeared to stabilise for very long,even after her monthly injections,,which were wrongly reduced in strength. It should have been a gradual process,not something that is suddenly reduced. It goes for most of medications,,unless of course there are immediate adverse effects.
Sheila wasn't responsible for her actions simply because her illness had taken over.
No, it was her illness that made her a useful scapegoat.
-
No, it was her illness that made her a useful scapegoat.
You think it's credible that Jeremy Bamber pre-planned using his sister's mental health issues, to (falsely) portray her as having killed her own children? I find that that notion lacks credibility. What precedent in 1984/5 did he use, to make such a notion not just credible to him self but also likely to be credible to everyone else? Had there been a spate or cluster of similar crimes leading up to the mid 80's which would potentially lend credibility to this particular incident also being a mentally unwell mother killing her own children?
Is it purely coincidence (in relation to defence based claims today) that his first reactions noted at the scene were to blame the raid team?
-
You think it's credible that Jeremy Bamber pre-planned using his sister's mental health issues, to (falsely) portray her as having killed her own children? I find that that notion lacks credibility. What precedent in 1984/5 did he use, to make such a notion not just credible to him self but also likely to be credible to everyone else? Had there been a spate or cluster of similar crimes leading up to the mid 80's which would potentially lend credibility to this particular incident also being a mentally unwell mother killing her own children?
Is it purely coincidence (in relation to defence based claims today) that his first reactions noted at the scene were to blame the raid team?
For women to kill their children was apparently an extremely rare occurrence until more recent times. Yet was it really so rare?
I recall as a child reading about a woman who had half a dozen babies on her own, in her bedroom, all of whom died. I believe she admitted in her interview that she killed some of these babies. Yet I don't recall her being arrested.
Perhaps more children were murdered by their mothers at the time of the WHF murders and prior to that time yet the police found this so abhorrent and imcomprensible that did not prosecute the women concerned?
-
For women to kill their children was apparently an extremely rare occurrence until more recent times. Yet was it really so rare?
I recall as a child reading about a woman who had half a dozen babies on her own, in her bedroom, all of whom died. I believe she admitted in her interview that she killed some of these babies. Yet I don't recall her being arrested.
Perhaps more children were murdered by their mothers at the time of the WHF murders and prior to that time yet the police found this so abhorrent and imcomprensible that did not prosecute the women concerned?
There is a sort of precedent for such conduct by the police. When I studied 'o' Level Sociology, a very long time ago, we were told by our tutor that there had been an apparent zero suicide rate in certain parts of Catholic Ireland. Then the police changed their reporting procedures and these areas began to report suicides. researchers found that the police in the areas concerned had been reluctant to describe self inflicted deaths there as suicide and had been describing these deaths as accidental deaths.
-
No, it was her illness that made her a useful scapegoat.
It was Jeremys' lack of gumption for not having seen through the police and the relatives who were looking for someone to blame for something he clearly didn't do. He was the scapegoat,,,as it will be proved.
-
It was Jeremys' lack of gumption for not having seen through the police and the relatives who were looking for someone to blame for something he clearly didn't do. He was the scapegoat,,,as it will be proved.
I think 24 year old Jeremy believed he would be found innocent, Lookout, I don't believe he even considered the prospect of being found guilty.
-
No, it was her illness that made her a useful scapegoat.
Bridget, my understand of schizophrenics is that while they are on meds they are safe from the worst ravages of their illness. The minute they decide they no longer need meds can spell danger for themselves and others. When Sheila asked her doctor, a locum I believe, to adjust her meds, a chain of events with potentially tragic outcome was set in motion. Firstly, her meds should never have been halved, should not even have been reduced without strict monitoring. This appears not to have happened. Perhaps it was because Sheila wasn't within reach of her regular doctor, maybe she managed to avoid seeing any doctor or maybe her illness was tightening its' grip on her and she saw doctors as instruments of the Devil. For whatever reason, it seems she may have fallen through her safety net.
We know the farm wasn't a place of peace and harmony for her at the best of times, added to which, her boys didn't consider it their favourite place to be either and then during the drive, her estranged husband says he's met somebody else. Might she have felt that he was abandoning her. Hard enough for her to cope with on full meds, but expecting her to cope with all that stress without her full theraputic dose, would, IMO, be asking too much of her.
I think it can reasonably be assumed that by the time she reached the farm she was experiencing huge emotional turmoil which probably caused her illness to gain a tighter hold, which in turn, could have caused Sheila to loosen her grip on reality.
-
Bridget, my understand of schizophrenics is that while they are on meds they are safe from the worst ravages of their illness. The minute they decide they no longer need meds can spell danger for themselves and others. When Sheila asked her doctor, a locum I believe, to adjust her meds, a chain of events with potentially tragic outcome was set in motion. Firstly, her meds should never have been halved, should not even have been reduced without strict monitoring. This appears not to have happened. Perhaps it was because Sheila wasn't within reach of her regular doctor, maybe she managed to avoid seeing any doctor or maybe her illness was tightening its' grip on her and she saw doctors as instruments of the Devil. For whatever reason, it seems she may have fallen through her safety net.
We know the farm wasn't a place of peace and harmony for her at the best of times, added to which, her boys didn't consider it their favourite place to be either and then during the drive, her estranged husband says he's met somebody else. Might she have felt that he was abandoning her. Hard enough for her to cope with on full meds, but expecting her to cope with all that stress without her full theraputic dose, would, IMO, be asking too much of her.
I think it can reasonably be assumed that by the time she reached the farm she was experiencing huge emotional turmoil which probably caused her illness to gain a tighter hold, which in turn, could have caused Sheila to loosen her grip on reality.
Excellent points, April. Claire Powell, a journalist who interviewed Sheila's London friends prior to deciding to write a book about the murders, says that there was a general expectation among Sheila's friends that Sheila and her ex husband would get together again, yet Sheila instead learned on that journey to WHF that Colin did not wish to reunite with her. She must have been devasted.
-
Hi April1
Well thankfully my adoptive parents were all about practicality as is the case with my birth parents. All liked and played sport and I'm sporty :).
I think I must have missed out on a gene for artistry. Furthermore I have 0 interest in fiction films, theatre, ballet, opera, literature, art etc. I'm only interested in practical matters. What does that make me: a rather sad individual I would say :'( . I was truly hopeless at art etc at school.
I like music, interior design, fashion, cooking and gardening though so I guess there may be some hope for me but I don't think I'll be invited to join the inner clique of the cultured ladies of the JB forum eg your good self, Nuala etc.
However, in terms of Sheila and Jeremy I think they were totally different to June and Nevill and whilst many adoptive parents wld support and encourage these differences I don't think this was the case here at least as far as June was concerned. So they had to suppress their true "authentic" selves which I believe in Sheila's case led to her mental health issues. :(.
I can imagine that those who have not been adopted might have trouble in getting their heads round this but that's why I'm here and maybe you too April1? :) :)
Lovely post egap, one I can relate to well because, although I was not adopted as a child, I always felt as though I was. My mother was not at all maternal so, until the age of 3 or 4, I was brought up by my grandparents. Then my parents moved away, my mother brought me up during school term times and I lived with my grandparents during school holidays. Term times were for me, the times when I repeatedly lost my mother, because that's what my grandmother had effectively become
-
Hi April1
Well thankfully my adoptive parents were all about practicality as is the case with my birth parents. All liked and played sport and I'm sporty :).
I think I must have missed out on a gene for artistry. Furthermore I have 0 interest in fiction films, theatre, ballet, opera, literature, art etc. I'm only interested in practical matters. What does that make me: a rather sad individual I would say :'( . I was truly hopeless at art etc at school.
I like music, interior design, fashion, cooking and gardening though so I guess there may be some hope for me but I don't think I'll be invited to join the inner clique of the cultured ladies of the JB forum eg your good self, Nuala etc.
However, in terms of Sheila and Jeremy I think they were totally different to June and Nevill and whilst many adoptive parents wld support and encourage these differences I don't think this was the case here at least as far as June was concerned. So they had to suppress their true "authentic" selves which I believe in Sheila's case led to her mental health issues. :(.
I can imagine that those who have not been adopted might have trouble in getting their heads round this but that's why I'm here and maybe you too April1? :) :)
Anyone who is sporty gets top marks in my book. I am massively sporty!
-
Hi Nuala
Thank you for sharing this with me. I've always felt an affinity with you so your post might explain why :). Plus we both have Irish ancestry. My maternal grandfather was Irish. My partner's father was Irish. My paternal grandparents were Scots. So my children are almost pure Celts. Lovely :).
Hope your cat is ok.
Goodnight
Egap1
x
Same here, egap, I've always felt an afinity with you too. My cat is good thanks, he still has a reasonable quality of life and has been out in the garden in the sun and shade all day, having a lovely, lazy time.
Good night to you too x
-
You think it's credible that Jeremy Bamber pre-planned using his sister's mental health issues, to (falsely) portray her as having killed her own children? I find that that notion lacks credibility. What precedent in 1984/5 did he use
Yes, absolutely! Which is whey he was asked about her illness at the seen and gave so much information about it. Which is why he spoke about the conversation that supposedly took place that night about fostering the twins out...
It was ALL based around her mental health issues.
-
You think it's credible that Jeremy Bamber pre-planned using his sister's mental health issues, to (falsely) portray her as having killed her own children? I find that that notion lacks credibility. What precedent in 1984/5 did he use, to make such a notion not just credible to him self but also likely to be credible to everyone else? Had there been a spate or cluster of similar crimes leading up to the mid 80's which would potentially lend credibility to this particular incident also being a mentally unwell mother killing her own children?
Is it purely coincidence (in relation to defence based claims today) that his first reactions noted at the scene were to blame the raid team?
Yes I think it's credible, he still does it today. Why did he need a precedent? The police fell for it at first, and people still do today.
-
Yes, absolutely! Which is whey he was asked about her illness at the seen and gave so much information about it. Which is why he spoke about the conversation that supposedly took place that night about fostering the twins out...
It was ALL based around her mental health issues.
Ralph called the police at 3:26am, and told the officer that his daughter had got one of his guns and was going berserk - he recorded the details of the telephone number from where the call was made to the police (whf). So Ralph must have been in on it, as well...
-
Yes I think it's credible, he still does it today. Why did he need a precedent? The police fell for it at first, and people still do today.
Since Ralph called the police from whf, and told them that his daughter had got one of his guns (3:26am) and that she was going berserk, Ralph must have been in on the plan to use Sheila's mental health issues as well? Jeremy never told Malcolm Bonnet that he was Sheila's dad, and that she was his daughter, or that Sheila had got one of his dads guns, and so Bonnet could not relay that information to PC West for him to make the mistake of writing it down wrongly. In any event there is no evidence from Bonnet saying that he told PC West exactly what PC West recorded at 3:26am, except at the bottom of the message where West makes mention that the son contacted the police and reported a telephone call from father, etc...
The 3:26am telephone log consists of two separate messages, first part from Ralph, second part from Bonnet reporting what Jeremy had told him, whereas, the other telephone log times at 3:36am, is all about what Jeremy told the police when he made his call to the police...
-
Bridget, my understand of schizophrenics is that while they are on meds they are safe from the worst ravages of their illness. The minute they decide they no longer need meds can spell danger for themselves and others. When Sheila asked her doctor, a locum I believe, to adjust her meds, a chain of events with potentially tragic outcome was set in motion. Firstly, her meds should never have been halved, should not even have been reduced without strict monitoring. This appears not to have happened. Perhaps it was because Sheila wasn't within reach of her regular doctor, maybe she managed to avoid seeing any doctor or maybe her illness was tightening its' grip on her and she saw doctors as instruments of the Devil. For whatever reason, it seems she may have fallen through her safety net.
We know the farm wasn't a place of peace and harmony for her at the best of times, added to which, her boys didn't consider it their favourite place to be either and then during the drive, her estranged husband says he's met somebody else. Might she have felt that he was abandoning her. Hard enough for her to cope with on full meds, but expecting her to cope with all that stress without her full theraputic dose, would, IMO, be asking too much of her.
I think it can reasonably be assumed that by the time she reached the farm she was experiencing huge emotional turmoil which probably caused her illness to gain a tighter hold, which in turn, could have caused Sheila to loosen her grip on reality.
Hi April,
I just want to say first of all that I find your and Egap's posts in particular on this subject both interesting and insightful, and I hope that I don't detract from that when I say that although I accept that all of the things you describe are true for some people to varying degrees, it is entirely speculative to say that it applies to Sheila, and that it caused her to massacre her family.
-
Hi April,
I just want to say first of all that I find your and Egap's posts in particular on this subject both interesting and insightful, and I hope that I don't detract from that when I say that although I accept that all of the things you describe are true for some people to varying degrees, it is entirely speculative to say that it applies to Sheila, and that it caused her to massacre her family.
The same speculative logic used and relied upon to persecute Jeremy, no less...
-
Good morning Bridget
I don't agree that it's entirely speculative in Sheila's case but then I would say that wouldn't I ;)? In any event I think this is best determined by a forensic psychologist/psychiatrist who specialises in attachment disorders, adoption pscyhology and adoption reunions. Also one that is without any conflicts of interest - I have concerns that Dr Fergsuon who treated June and Sheila throughout 1958 to 1985 and was paid privately by the adoptive parents may have been conflicted ;). Anyway I feel sure that the case will eventually find itself back at the CoA and if the defence feel there's some mileage in this area I'm sure it will be explored.
It's certainly no more speculative than JB being labelled a psychopath, motivated by money/greed and resentful. There's absolutely no evidence to support these assertions whatsoever. In the same way that the DNA results 17/20 from the silencer and 13/20 from the population at large are utterly meaningless as a % cannot be applied and therefore it is inadmissible as evidence.
Blimey I think I've been let off lightly here. If Maggie was around...I hope she doesn't go through all the posts when she returns or I'll be in for it big style ;D.
Egap, hi, good morning. I imagine that had Sheila and I, perhaps you, too, had the benefit of being raised in a family unit such a Maggie's, our outcomes may have been decidedly different!!!!!
-
Good morning April1
Yes I agree and I've told Maggie this often enough but I don't understand why she feels the need to 'protect' June when it's obvious to most that she was a TOTALLY unsuitable adoptive mother.
Egap, I guess if our own adoptive mothers had been "good enough" it would be hard for us to see what the other side was like and we certainly would be unlikey to have the insight we now have, because they weren't(good enough).
-
Good morning Bridget
I don't agree that it's entirely speculative in Sheila's case but then I would say that wouldn't I ;)? In any event I think this is best determined by a forensic psychologist/psychiatrist who specialises in attachment disorders, adoption pscyhology and adoption reunions. Also one that is without any conflicts of interest - I have concerns that Dr Fergsuon who treated June and Sheila throughout 1958 to 1985 and was paid privately by the adoptive parents may have been conflicted ;). Anyway I feel sure that the case will eventually find itself back at the CoA and if the defence feel there's some mileage in this area I'm sure it will be explored.
It's certainly no more speculative than JB being labelled a psychopath, motivated by money/greed and resentful. There's absolutely no evidence to support these assertions whatsoever. In the same way that the DNA results 17/20 from the silencer and 13/20 from the population at large are utterly meaningless as a % cannot be applied and therefore it is inadmissible as evidence.
Blimey I think I've been let off lightly here. If Maggie was around...I hope she doesn't go through all the posts when she returns or I'll be in for it big style ;D.
All fair points, I don't pretend to have the definitive answer either.
I think the pair of you are in for the high jump when Maggie gets back!
-
Morning April1 reading with interest your posts with egap1 re. adoption. I don,t profess to know anything about adoption but perhaps Motherhood did not come up to June,s expectations and therefore did the best she was able to with Sheila and Jeremy. I for one have often wondered how it would be possible to give away your own child for adoption I could never have done it whatever the circumstances but in saying that I would never have adopted if I had had no children of my own don,t wish to sound a heartless creature I,m far from that I just don,t think the maternal instinct in me is as strong as other women. Then again maybe its easy for me to talk when the situation never arose.
-
Hi April1
Yes I agree but all adoptive parents were to some degree let down by the lack of pre and post adoption counselling so I do have some sympathy for them. But in June's case I think she could have had all the counselling in the world and she would still have been TOTALLY unsuitable which is borne out by the fact that she suffered severe depression as a direct result of adopting Sheila. Sheila should have been removed from the Bambers care and placed with an adoptive family with a proven track record. The Bambers should have been prevented from adopting any further children. This may sound harsh but the risks were too great and sadly those risks were allowed to be played out and ended in tragedy :( :( :( :( :( :(.
You and I have lived to tell the tale :) :)
Egap, I imagine it goes without saying that I'm in full agreement with all you've said.
-
Yes I think it's credible, he still does it today. Why did he need a precedent? The police fell for it at first, and people still do today.
I think you may have misunderstood my question. What widely known precedent was there back then, to afford credibility to the notion that a mother would slay her own children due to mental health issues?
-
Hi april1 thanks for that I found it very interesting and agree the most important thing for a child is warmth and love whether adopted or not. June probably inwardly could not accept her two adoptive children were born out of wedlock and this is why her religious beliefs were instilled into Sheila more than Jeremy as she would be horrified at Sheila having children out of wedlock. A very complicated state of affairs and I feel after reading certain articles that June never bonded with Sheila not sure about Jeremy but Ralph bonded with both of them.
-
I think you may have misunderstood my question. What widely known precedent was there back then, to afford credibility to the notion that a mother would slay her own children due to mental health issues?
I did understand it, but with all due respect, it's a daft question. The notion was clearly credible to the police for about a month - what do you think they said to him - "well unless you can name a few we're not going to believe you"? Has the prosecution ever tried to use the apparent (according to you, I haven't looked) lack off a precedent to discredit his story?
-
Hi egap1 yes and I wont leave the area because of the stray cats what does that tell you about me. Act and think so much differently when one is somewhat older :) :) :) What age was June when she adopted Sheila?
-
Morning April1 reading with interest your posts with egap1 re. adoption. I don,t profess to know anything about adoption but perhaps Motherhood did not come up to June,s expectations and therefore did the best she was able to with Sheila and Jeremy. I for one have often wondered how it would be possible to give away your own child for adoption I could never have done it whatever the circumstances but in saying that I would never have adopted if I had had no children of my own don,t wish to sound a heartless creature I,m far from that I just don,t think the maternal instinct in me is as strong as other women. Then again maybe its easy for me to talk when the situation never arose.
Susan, hi and good morning. Not for one minute do you sound like a "heartless creature." I think you're right in saying that Motherhood didn't come up to June's expectations, partly, I imagine, because her children didn't meet her expectations. We can, of course, only speculate on what those expectations were about, but I suspect, using my own mother as a yardstick, it was something about perfection, which we know is only an ideal, rarely and fleetingly a reality.......and entirely subjective.
I believe most women gave their babies away in the belief that they would have a better life and I honestly believe it, for the most part, to be true. A small percentage, however, draw the short straw. Bought up between the tenets of being forbidden to answer back and being ordered to stand up for myself, being expected to be strong enough to organize her life and subservient enough to do it the way she wanted, I look at Sheila and think "There but for the grace of God."
I feel that maternal instinct varies from woman to woman, but I can't help thinking, that on a scale of 1-10, a measurement of 10(highly maternal) can be as dysfunctional as a measurement of 1(decidedly unmaternal) and the optimum being a couple of points either side of the middle, "good enough" in psychology speak.
As I've gained more insight, I've been able to become more objective about mothers like June and my own. Their children would have been seen as the answer to whatever prayers they were offering and their expectations of them unrealistically high. They may have expected that their children would show them the love that they, themselves, were uncapable of showing. They may have mapped out a personality and a future that it was impossible for their children to fulfill. Failure to deliver would have been devastating, would have shattered their hopes and dreams. Looking back at it, from a safe distance, I long to put my arms around both these women, but I doubt it would be any more acceptable now, than it was then.
-
I did understand it, but with all due respect, it's a daft question. The notion was clearly credible to the police for about a month - what do you think they said to him - "well unless you can name a few we're not going to believe you"? Has the prosecution ever tried to use the apparent (according to you, I haven't looked) lack off a precedent to discredit his story?
That is a fair answer in one respect. It was credible enough for them to run with it.
However my point is, what made Bamber believe it was a credible plan to run with? Why did he, a 24 year old in the mid 80's, think it was a feasible plan to portray his sister having been responsible for the murder of her own sons, due to mental health?
Planned, staged suicide (with a single shot) yes. Staged suicide with two shots and the murder of her own children... passed off as mental health issues... no. It's so far of a jump that it does not seem credible to me. I cant buy it at all.
Now if this attempt to frame his sister was happening now, with all the stories we have had in the news of mothers and fathers killing their own kids, I might find it more credible that somebody would attempt to pull it off. Because there is massive precedent and it's topical.
-
Hi April1 thanks for the post you have certainly opened my eyes to the problems that could have existed between June and Sheila and maybe Jeremy. I think Jeremy was an attention seeker maybe he lacked attention as a child. June,s expectations of how a daughter should be probably does not exist in the real world. Maggie is the most warm loving caring Mother any child could have.
-
That is a fair answer in one respect. It was credible enough for them to run with it.
However my point is, what made Bamber believe it was a credible plan to run with? Why did he, a 24 year old in the mid 80's, think it was a feasible plan to portray his sister having been responsible for the murder of her own sons, due to mental health?
Planned, staged suicide (with a single shot) yes. Staged suicide with two shots and the murder of her own children... passed off as mental health issues... no. It's so far of a jump that it does not seem credible to me. I cant buy it at all.
Now if this attempt to frame his sister was happening now, with all the stories we have had in the news of mothers and fathers killing their own kids, I might find it more credible that somebody would attempt to pull it off. Because there is massive precedent and it's topical.
I doubt that his thinking went much further than do the deed, blame the loony. Are you saying that it would have been inconceivable for a mother with mental health issues to kill her children in the 1980s? Clearly it wasn't, you only have to read the newspaper reports from August 1985, none of them even question it.
The second shot was where it all went wrong for him - that wasn't the plan - but it happened and he had to run with it, he had no choice.
-
I doubt that his thinking went much further than do the deed, blame the loony. Are you saying that it would have been inconceivable for a mother with mental health issues to kill her children in the 1980s? Clearly it wasn't, you only have to read the newspaper reports from August 1985, none of them even question it.
The second shot was where it all went wrong for him - that wasn't the plan - but it happened and he had to run with it, he had no choice.
For which the angles of trajectory by a murderer, still haven't been properly explained. You're making quite a leap with your 'do the deed, blame it on the loony' theory aren't you?
If we dig out earlier newspaper reports of similar crimes, I might be more amenable to the view that there was a precedent available to influence his planning. And you cant state that nobody questioned things because they clearly did. There was a trial by media and intense pressure placed upon EP.
-
For which the angles of trajectory by a murderer, still haven't been properly explained. You're making quite a leap with your 'do the deed, blame it on the loony' theory aren't you?
If we dig out earlier newspaper reports of similar crimes, I might be more amenable to the view that there was a precedent available to influence his planning. And you cant state that nobody questioned things because they clearly did. There was a trial by media and intense pressure placed upon EP.
I didn't say no one questioned 'things', I said that no one questioned the fact that a mother with mental illness might have killed her own children. Are you honestly suggesting that because there weren't stories of mothers with mental illness killing their children all over the papers the idea could not have occurred to him?
What leap? It may be an abridged version, but that is exactly what he was convicted of doing.
Don't try to deflect the argument with trajectory theories, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the trajectories preclude Sheila having been murdered ;)
-
Junes' expectations set a precedent for Sheilas' behaviour in her teenage years,,,rebellion.
It's all very well teaching your child good manners etc,,,but it's another when you try and mould them into your way of thinking. Children,,whether adopted or not,are individuals who should be left to build their own unique character and should be " guided " through their lives,,without regimentation.
Although both children in this case had a very good upbringing and start in life,,at the same time,,it was a pretty strict " regime " and I imagine,overbearing and oppressive at times where neither children were " allowed to be themselves ",,,not what I would say was a normal environment by todays standards of childcare.
I appreciate that things were a lot different in the 80's as" family values " were still being taught,,,and like all others,June and Nevill wanted the best grounding for their children,,,which works for some but not for others,and because Sheila and Jeremy were of different parentage to start with,,genetically this grounding worked for one but not for the other.
Saying that,,you can have exactly the same biological parents of children who are totally different in every way,,,so in a way it's a myth to say that adoptees are any different to biological children.
However,,getting back to Sheila,who was no different from some girls today who happen to mix with " the wrong crowd "and realise that they're missing out on life,,so follow their peers into drinking and drugs,etc ,,and if they're not careful,,descend in a downward spiral of either becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict or both. Dependent on their mindset,,,they'll either stop and think what they're doing to themselves or others,,or they'll go further down the route beyond redemption.
Because there was little or no understanding of Sheilas's behavioural problems as a teenager,,,whatever punishment that was meted out to her would have been the wrong punishment anyway,,and would have pushed Sheila further away from her parents.. The psychology of a growing teenager is indeed complex and takes a lot of understanding,,,for whatever you ask or tell them to do,they'll always do the opposite.
I imagine that Sheila would have been quite a handful,,especially later when she did rely on drugs,and possibly this is why Nevill kept a little supply in his safe in order to keep Sheila" going" rather than her seek a supplier elsewhere. However,,one drug invariably leads to a much stronger one which sadly Sheila yielded to,,,,cocaine. A drug,,which I wouldn't have thought was as readily available then as now,,plus more costly ( I don't know ) hence her having a large debt to her " supplier ".
Do we know who supplied Sheila with cocaine,,,and who the debt belonged to.?
Let it be known that a paranoid schizophrenic drug-taker,,,who also takes prescription drugs,,,,can move mountains,regardless of their size or whether it's a male or female. It's unklike any other illness because of it being so unpredictable,,,and they're known for skipping their medication and also for killing total strangers as well as family members once they're out of control. Fact.
-
I didn't say no one questioned 'things', I said that no one questioned the fact that a mother with mental illness might have killed her own children. Are you honestly suggesting that because there weren't stories of mothers with mental illness killing their children all over the papers the idea could not have occurred to him?
What leap? It may be an abridged version, but that is exactly what he was convicted of doing.
Don't try to deflect the argument with trajectory theories, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the trajectories preclude Sheila having been murdered ;)
I think the bottom line is, which ever "side" we favour, we can produce an equal number of pointers with which to accuse the opposite side. But it's not that simple. What was the defining moment that we decided that Sheila or Jeremy was innocent/guilty and what factors contributed to that decision?
In 1985, I had scant knowledge of mental illness and was uncomfortable with the idea of a beautiful, affluent, well educated girl killing her children. Jeremy's attitude went a long way in changing my mind. Good looking, conceited, indolent. More interested in living the high life than in solid citizenship. Much more likely that he did it. Most of this is supposition and prejudice. Mine. But many felt the same, for the same reasons.
All these years on, my views have changed and whilst I no longer believe Jeremy responsible, I feel disinclined to accuse Sheila. Why? Well, if we could take her illness away we would probably find a sensitive, gentle girl who enjoyed her children and didn't have a murderous thought in her body. From biblical times, people were thought to be "possessed," Sheila was. I believe there was a time when June told her she was, which was quite an irony. But whether we see her, as June did, as being possessed by the Devil OR held in the grip of a cruel illness which robbed her of herself, the effect is the same for both. There were times when SHEILA would disappear. She had been over taken/taken over by something over which she had no control.
I feel that this view absolves Sheila from any responsibility. The balance of her mind was disturbed. SHEILA, temporarily, was not there and that much is not conjecture. The combination of dramatically reduced medication together with Colin's pronouncement that he had found somebody else may have served to push the last part of her out.
There is no more/less supposition about the case for/against Sheila than there is regarding Jeremy. The big difference is that the jury wasn't privy to the whole of Sheila's story.
-
Hi April,,I'm afraid the jury weren't privy to a lot of things,,including the truth.
I often wonder how members of the jury at that particular time,feel about that same case if they happen to read this forum.? They can talk about the case if they so wish,,freely,that is,without being actually asked about it,,which isn't permitted. They're not allowed to be approached.
-
I think the bottom line is, which ever "side" we favour, we can produce an equal number of pointers with which to accuse the opposite side. But it's not that simple. What was the defining moment that we decided that Sheila or Jeremy was innocent/guilty and what factors contributed to that decision?
In 1985, I had scant knowledge of mental illness and was uncomfortable with the idea of a beautiful, affluent, well educated girl killing her children. Jeremy's attitude went a long way in changing my mind. Good looking, conceited, indolent. More interested in living the high life than in solid citizenship. Much more likely that he did it. Most of this is supposition and prejudice. Mine. But many felt the same, for the same reasons.
All these years on, my views have changed and whilst I no longer believe Jeremy responsible, I feel disinclined to accuse Sheila. Why? Well, if we could take her illness away we would probably find a sensitive, gentle girl who enjoyed her children and didn't have a murderous thought in her body. From biblical times, people were thought to be "possessed," Sheila was. I believe there was a time when June told her she was, which was quite an irony. But whether we see her, as June did, as being possessed by the Devil OR held in the grip of a cruel illness which robbed her of herself, the effect is the same for both. There were times when SHEILA would disappear. She had been over taken/taken over by something over which she had no control.
I feel that this view absolves Sheila from any responsibility. The balance of her mind was disturbed. SHEILA, temporarily, was not there and that much is not conjecture. The combination of dramatically reduced medication together with Colin's pronouncement that he had found somebody else may have served to push the last part of her out.
There is no more/less supposition about the case for/against Sheila than there is regarding Jeremy. The big difference is that the jury wasn't privy to the whole of Sheila's story.
Actually it is, we only have Jeremy's word that Sheila was experiencing any sort of 'episode' that night, and even if we accept his word as to the subject of conversation around the table, it is conjecture that that might have caused such an episode.
-
Hi egap1 thanks for the information at 34 June was mature enough to know her own mind. Perhaps after 9 years of marriage she felt unfulfilled as women did not have careers then like now and maybe her life felt empty. Back to the garden :)
-
Actually it is, we only have Jeremy's word that Sheila was experiencing any sort of 'episode' that night, and even if we accept his word as to the subject of conversation around the table, it is conjecture that that might have caused such an episode.
Bridget, I was trying to move away from Sheila making any rational decisions about what she may have done. Given the circumstances I feel it likely that at some point/points during that stay she would have been "absent." Maybe she was "leaving" when she spoke on the phone that evening?
You are correct, it is conjecture that an "absent" episode was responsible for mass murder, but conjecture is what we turn to when there is no proof and can be used to great effect in both defense and attack and as such, given that there is no concrete proof that Jeremy returned to the farm later that night, that, too, might be seen as conjecture.
-
Hi Susan
@ 34 yoa you wld have hoped that she did know her own mind but sadly it appears not to have been the case :(
By all accounts she was kept quite busy by getting actively involved with the local community, church warden, attending church etc, running of the farm and ocs and I believe her and Nevill played tennis so it sounds like she led quite a busy life.
If her life felt empty and she was looking for her adopted children to fill the emptiness why adopt and then employ a nanny/send the children away to boarding school miles from home? I understand Nevill is on record as saying it wldn't have been right for JB rubbing shoulders with folk he might one day have to employ on the farm but something doesn't quite ring true about this. It was a med sized farm not some plc giant. Why not just send the children to local fee paying schools? I grew up in a fairly rural area and all the local farming children attended the local fee paying schools. I wldn't have thought the reasons for this were that the parents didn't want their sons/daughters mingling with folk they might one day have to employ rather they thought they wld receive a better overall education especially with regard to sport.
Too wet here for gardening
(quote)
Egap, the upbringing the children received was very much par for the course in that strata of society, at that time. There were/are numerous fee paying schools in and around the area, but wherever they went locally would necessitate them being taxied, probably in different directions, to different schools, so life would have been made easier by sending them to schools at some distance removed. It may be that his role as magistrate informed Neville's decision to educate Jeremy outside the area and whilst Felsted would have seemed to be the obvious choice, possibly Jeremy didn't pass CE. Neville's supposed comments regarding the rubbing of shoulders with potential future employees does sound somewhat high handed, and if he said it, says much about him as a person.
-
Hi egap1 I think in some cases couples like the Bambers like to fit the typical middle class couple i.e. a boy and a girl both away at school a volvo car and a dog :) I am not sure June wanted the children for the good of the children or for herself sometimes women like June have difficulty showing affection and love as they never received it themselves.It is difficult to speculate but just because you don,t show love does not mean you do not feel it. Maybe June was cold it really is unfair of me to speculate as I never knew her people who did may speak so differently.
-
Hi egap1 I think in some cases couples like the Bambers like to fit the typical middle class couple i.e. a boy and a girl both away at school a volvo car and a dog :) I am not sure June wanted the children for the good of the children or for herself sometimes women like June have difficulty showing affection and love as they never received it themselves.It is difficult to speculate but just because you don,t show love does not mean you do not feel it. Maybe June was cold it really is unfair of me to speculate as I never knew her people who did may speak so differently.
Susan, what you say rings bells. My mother had been married nearly 20 years, and suddenly everyone around her had children so she decided she could "put up with the mess and inconvenience" a child would create because it would look after her in her old age. It was indeed, all about what a child could give her, rather than, in terms of affection, what she could do for a child.
June is described as being modest, quiet, kind, prudish, shy, gentle and sometimes a bit strange. It sounds as if Neville was the driving force and she was content to stay in the background. Maybe she was able to use the children as a reason not to join him at social gatherings she had no liking for.
-
I didn't say no one questioned 'things', I said that no one questioned the fact that a mother with mental illness might have killed her own children. Are you honestly suggesting that because there weren't stories of mothers with mental illness killing their children all over the papers the idea could not have occurred to him?
What leap? It may be an abridged version, but that is exactly what he was convicted of doing.
Don't try to deflect the argument with trajectory theories, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the trajectories preclude Sheila having been murdered ;)
I haven't deflected anything, it was you who mentioned the second shot :)
How do you know that nobody questioned how or why a mother killed her own children? You cannot possibly know that. I'm certain that up to 1985, this would have been a massively rare occurrence in comparison to modern Britain. This rarity could have influenced anything, from press speculation to relatives' suspicion.
I simply do not believe that Jeremy Bamber thought 'yes, I can kill my nephews and blame it on Sheila... that will work and everyone will believe it because she is a nutter'. Erm... Bullshit.
What do you make of the other plan he came up with? I'll kill everyone but tip my girlfriend off beforehand. That will be fine, she won't say anything.
Not only does he predict years in to the future that mentally unstable mothers have the propensity to kill their children, he is at the same time so mind numbingly stupid as to almost guarantee a prison sentence, by telling his trainee primary school teacher girlfriend that the twins will be killed.
-
Hi april1 I am sure June was a good person maybe the religion got in the way of her being a loving Mum I wonder if she was brought up in a religious household herself in her own mind she thought she was doing the best for the children but maybe too controlling then children tend to rebel when they are older and go against everything they were taught. It is so strange life as if Jeremy,s Mother had kept him and Sheila,s kept her everything would have been so different.
-
I haven't deflected anything, it was you who mentioned the second shot :)
How do you know that nobody questioned how or why a mother killed her own children? You cannot possibly know that. I'm certain that up to 1985, this would have been a massively rare occurrence in comparison to modern Britain. This rarity could have influenced anything, from press speculation to relatives' suspicion.
I simply do not believe that Jeremy Bamber thought 'yes, I can kill my nephews and blame it on Sheila... that will work and everyone will believe it because she is a nutter'. Erm... Bullshit.
What do you make of the other plan he came up with? I'll kill everyone but tip my girlfriend off beforehand. That will be fine, she won't say anything.
Not only does he predict years in to the future that mentally unstable mothers have the propensity to kill their children, he is at the same time so mind numbingly stupid as to almost guarantee a prison sentence, by telling his trainee primary school teacher girlfriend that the twins will be killed.
Apart from the fact that it was Neville, June Sheila and his nephews, I'd say that is exactly what he thought.
He didn't need to predict anything, he was relying solely on Sheila being seen as the nutter with a gun.
Regarding the telling of Julie -speculation warning but since you asked - I think he saw their partnership as a sort of Bonnie & Clyde relationship. I think he loved her but not nearly as much as he believed she did him. He believed she was supportive of his plan, and in any case so besotted that she would never betray him. I think he underestimated the detrimental effect that the killings would have on Julie, and their relationship. After a while she was difficult to be around and he went sniffing elsewhere, which triggered the end. He never foresaw that happening.
-
Apart from the fact that it was Neville, June Sheila and his nephews, I'd say that is exactly what he thought.
He didn't need to predict anything, he was relying solely on Sheila being seen as the nutter with a gun.
Regarding the telling of Julie -speculation warning but since you asked - I think he saw their partnership as a sort of Bonnie & Clyde relationship. I think he loved her but not nearly as much as he believed she did him. He believed she was supportive of his plan, and in any case so besotted that she would never betray him. I think he underestimated the detrimental effect that the killings would have on Julie, and their relationship. After a while she was difficult to be around and he went sniffing elsewhere, which triggered the end. He never foresaw that happening.
He believed she was supportive of his plan? How could he believe that unless she actually was supportive of his plan? He underestimated the detrimental effect that killing two six year olds would have upon his trainee primary school teacher girlfriend? He went sniffing elsewhere, as response to Julie being difficult with him because she was carrying the burden of him wiping his entire family out, yet despite this, he didn't see the end coming??? :D
With respect... I cannot buy any of this.
-
He believed she was supportive of his plan? How could he believe that unless she actually was supportive of his plan? He underestimated the detrimental effect that killing two six year olds would have upon his trainee primary school teacher girlfriend? He went sniffing elsewhere, as response to Julie being difficult with him because she was carrying the burden of him wiping his entire family out, yet despite this, he didn't see the end coming??? :D
With respect... I cannot buy any of this.
That's because you can't put yourself in the head of a guilty Bamber - try harder!
I'm sure when he thought of Julie he didn't base his judgment on the fact that she was a trainee teacher. He knew her, or thought he did intimately. She was unwillinging to believe that he was serious, and so did not seem particularly outraged when he spoke of killing his family - she simply brushed it off. He took that as acceptance.
-
OK so he shot Sheila twice.
Would you think he would have still gone along with idea to blame her? Surely panic would have set in, he would have realised he had blown it...I doubt he would have been that stupid to shoot someone twice then still pin the blame on her.
If it was me, I would have made it look like a break in.....Job done!
But, no....this case is far more complex. :) :) :) :)
-
OK so he shot Sheila twice.
Would you think he would have still gone along with idea to blame her? Surely panic would have set in, he would have realised he had blown it...I doubt he would have been that stupid to shoot someone twice then still pin the blame on her.
If it was me, I would have made it look like a break in.....Job done!
But, no....this case is far more complex. :) :) :) :)
Patti,,,I wouldn't have even answered the phone. In fact,,he may have been better off not bothering altogether,,then who would have got the blame.? Being as there's no evidence that he even committed the murders.
-
OK so he shot Sheila twice.
Would you think he would have still gone along with idea to blame her? Surely panic would have set in, he would have realised he had blown it...I doubt he would have been that stupid to shoot someone twice then still pin the blame on her.
If it was me, I would have made it look like a break in.....Job done!
But, no....this case is far more complex. :) :) :) :)
That's one of those weak points I was talking about earlier.. :)
-
That's because you can't put yourself in the head of a guilty Bamber - try harder!
I'm sure when he thought of Julie he didn't base his judgment on the fact that she was a trainee teacher. He knew her, or thought he did intimately. She was unwillinging to believe that he was serious, and so did not seem particularly outraged when he spoke of killing his family - she simply brushed it off. He took that as acceptance.
Ok, so what you are suggesting here is that Jeremy tested Julie (unbeknown to her) by running past her the idea of killing his family. When Julie didn't take him seriously (and therefore didn't offer opposition) he took that as tacit approval of the idea and duly carried it out. This in turn led to a rather delayed realisation from Julie who eventually plucked up the courage to turn him in. This turning him in and sudden prick of conscience just happened to coincide with him cosying up to another woman.
Have I got this right?
-
Patti,,,I wouldn't have even answered the phone. In fact,,he may have been better off not bothering altogether,,then who would have got the blame.? Being as there's no evidence that he even committed the murders.
Hi Lookout, I don't answer my phone unless I know who it is calling me. It was about 3am when the police phoned me about my mum. I must admit I did answer it and just caught the word police in the sentence...but, that call lasted much longer than the call JB said he had....I still go back to what he said in his first statement of him saying, I'm not really sure if he said Sheila or She.....but he said it was Sheila to police when he rang them....so he must have been sure....but was he? I have always said June looks the most likely to have walked through a crime scene rather than her daughter....but that is guessing I suppose....
What a day I have had with my car....talk about getting ripped off.....one garge 94 quid and the next one 25 quid....for the same work...how can that be? :-\ :) :) :) :)
-
Ok, so what you are suggesting here is that Jeremy tested Julie (unbeknown to her) by running past her the idea of killing his family. When Julie didn't take him seriously (and therefore didn't offer opposition) he took that as tacit approval of the idea and duly carried it out. This in turn led to a rather delayed realisation from Julie who eventually plucked up the courage to turn him in. This turning him in and sudden prick of conscience just happened to coincide with him cosying up to another woman.
Have I got this right?
Close - it wasn't a test. I doubt he came straight out with the assertion that he would kill them, he probably started with whinging about them, built up to saying he hated them, then to wishing them harm and then wanting them dead. I'm not saying he did it consciously, but as his trust in her grew he felt he could be more and more open about his true feelings.
I don't deny that her 'prick of conscience' was probably triggered by the end of the relationship, but that doesn't make her a liar. Who among us haven't had our eyes opened to someone's real character at some point in time - and very often following a falling out.
-
That's one of those weak points I was talking about earlier.. :)
Thank you for that Bridget...I shall play on that now.. ;) ;) :) :)
-
Thank you for that Bridget...I shall play on that now.. ;) ;) :) :)
No doubt.
-
OK so he shot Sheila twice.
Would you think he would have still gone along with idea to blame her? Surely panic would have set in, he would have realised he had blown it...I doubt he would have been that stupid to shoot someone twice then still pin the blame on her.
If it was me, I would have made it look like a break in.....Job done!
But, no....this case is far more complex. :) :) :) :)
Patti, hi. I'm trying to get inside JMs head. I can go along with her not believing him capable of such a thing, but might she not have wanted reassurance or did alarm bells not ring, was she really able to pretend those menacing words had never been said. OK!! Job done, supposedly. He rings her with the "good" news. What would be expected of a well bought up young lady who is training to be a teacher when she discovers her boyfriend has slaughtered his family? At the very least I'd expect her to run like Hell to anywhere other than near to her murdering swine of a boyfriend, but no!!!! she stays by his side, presumably still sleeping with him and accepts money from him to go on holiday. Is that collusion or being an accessory after the fact? I think it more likely she negotiated a deal that extricated her from the excrement by dropping him in it.
-
Close - it wasn't a test. I doubt he came straight out with the assertion that he would kill them, he probably started with whinging about them, built up to saying he hated them, then to wishing them harm and then wanting them dead. I'm not saying he did it consciously, but as his trust in her grew he felt he could be more and more open about his true feelings.
I don't deny that her 'prick of conscience' was probably triggered by the end of the relationship, but that doesn't make her a liar. Who among us haven't had our eyes opened to someone's real character at some point in time - and very often following a falling out.
Ok thanks for explaining. Taking an explanatory approach would help you get some of your points across better on here, imho... and if you don't mind me saying so :)
-
Ok thanks for explaining. Taking an explanatory approach would help you get some of your points across better on here, imho... and if you don't mind me saying so :)
I try, but it's not always easy under fire :)
-
I try, but it's not always easy under fire :)
I'm pretty sure that you will be under fire from me soon. You are after all, deep behind enemy lines... ;D
-
I'm pretty sure that you will be under fire from me soon. You are after all, deep behind enemy lines... ;D
I know.. and much of the time without back up!
-
Patti, hi. I'm trying to get inside JMs head. I can go along with her not believing him capable of such a thing, but might she not have wanted reassurance or did alarm bells not ring, was she really able to pretend those menacing words had never been said. OK!! Job done, supposedly. He rings her with the "good" news. What would be expected of a well bought up young lady who is training to be a teacher when she discovers her boyfriend has slaughtered his family? At the very least I'd expect her to run like Hell to anywhere other than near to her murdering swine of a boyfriend, but no!!!! she stays by his side, presumably still sleeping with him and accepts money from him to go on holiday. Is that collusion or being an accessory after the fact? I think it more likely she negotiated a deal that extricated her from the excrement by dropping him in it.
Hi April
I don't know much about JM....You might not believe me, but I have not read her statements yet. However, I did read the News of the World article. What did she say, Jeremy never admitted he was guilty to me.
April, she loved him, no doubt about that and, I honestly believe Jeremy loved her. If what she said is true, then I have no doubt in my mind that she should have faced trial too. It was unusual for the jury to be aware of previous offences, but in this case they were aware, she had sold drugs and helped steal money. She wasn't let off lightly was she? she was let off big time....and got paid for it.
Never trust a woman that had been scorned, she could even commit murder.
I agree with you april, if only we could get inside her head.... :) :) :) :)
-
I know.. and much of the time without back up!
It's not our fault that there's loads of morons on your side :-\ We have no choice but to filter them out. So you'll have to make do with the handful of non morons allowed to post on here.
-
I know.. and much of the time without back up!
Lol.....Have you anywhere to duck Bridget? ;D ;D ;D
-
There's something about 3am phone-calls which invariably spell the death of someone. My sis-in-law had gone into cardiac arrest at that time,which meant a quick dash to the hospital.
It's when people are at their lowest ebb,,,and this is when I think of Sheila and her unsettled and scared state. How that girl must have felt,,I can only imagine,having sat with patients at this hour,,strangely enough,attempted suicides on drips. ( It was like daytime to me )
Anyone waking at this hour takes time to adjust and also " hear properly " too,because it's easy to miss words when you're half-asleep.
There must have been one hell of a row at WHF that night. It's harder to get an overall picture of what happened because of not knowing for sure who died first. I'm surprised that wasn't entered as I think it's important.
Garages are a rip-off,,if you allow them to be,,but how an extra £70 can be justified I don't know. That's terrible.Query it with the Office of Fair Trading.
My daughter will have to pay-up,,her alternator has gone,oooops.
-
It's not our fault that there's loads of morons on your side :-\ We have no choice but to filter them out. So you'll have to make do with the handful of non morons allowed to post on here.
Gee thanks... :-\
Lol.....Have you anywhere to duck Bridget? ;D ;D ;D
Behind you if necessary... are you up to protecting me from Roch when he's been on the home brew?
-
There's something about 3am phone-calls which invariably spell the death of someone. My sis-in-law had gone into cardiac arrest at that time,which meant a quick dash to the hospital.
It's when people are at their lowest ebb,,,and this is when I think of Sheila and her unsettled and scared state. How that girl must have felt,,I can only imagine,having sat with patients at this hour,,strangely enough,attempted suicides on drips. ( It was like daytime to me )
Anyone waking at this hour takes time to adjust and also " hear properly " too,because it's easy to miss words when you're half-asleep.
There must have been one hell of a row at WHF that night. It's harder to get an overall picture of what happened because of not knowing for sure who died first. I'm surprised that wasn't entered as I think it's important.
Garages are a rip-off,,if you allow them to be,,but how an extra £70 can be justified I don't know. That's terrible.Query it with the Office of Fair Trading.
My daughter will have to pay-up,,her alternator has gone,oooops.
I think as we get older we are more aware that calls at that time of night mean something. I wonder why BT weren't pressed for data...surely they could have traced a call in 1985.....Blimey, we had the technology to phone someone on the moon....so they say..lolol
You know me Lookout, I was so angry....with my garage to the point I had told them that I believed they had ripped me off in the past....I shall never go back there and they haven't heard the last of me either, for I told them I was reporting them..... :) :) :) :)
-
Gee thanks... :-\
Behind you if necessary... are you up to protecting me from Roch when he's been on the home brew?
Oh dear! You have put me on the spot there Bridget....If Roch is on his home brew, I might be with him, tis the drink you see....hahahahahha
-
Oh dear! You have put me on the spot there Bridget....If Roch is on his home brew, I might be with him, tis the drink you see....hahahahahha
Ah... I get you - a sort of p*ssed pincer movement...I'llwatch out for that.
I'd like to know where you found a garage that would even fart in your general direction for 25 quid!
-
There's something about 3am phone-calls which invariably spell the death of someone. My sis-in-law had gone into cardiac arrest at that time,which meant a quick dash to the hospital.
It's when people are at their lowest ebb,,,and this is when I think of Sheila and her unsettled and scared state. How that girl must have felt,,I can only imagine,having sat with patients at this hour,,strangely enough,attempted suicides on drips. ( It was like daytime to me )
Anyone waking at this hour takes time to adjust and also " hear properly " too,because it's easy to miss words when you're half-asleep.
There must have been one hell of a row at WHF that night. It's harder to get an overall picture of what happened because of not knowing for sure who died first. I'm surprised that wasn't entered as I think it's important.
Garages are a rip-off,,if you allow them to be,,but how an extra £70 can be justified I don't know. That's terrible.Query it with the Office of Fair Trading.
My daughter will have to pay-up,,her alternator has gone,oooops.
Its a long road to arrive at a decent garage, best one i know is in Lincoln.
-
Its a long road to arrive at a decent garage, best one i know is in Lincoln.
Ooooh,just a wee bit too far,Mertol,,but thanks anyway.
Do you feel as though you've been through the mangle.?
-
Ooooh,just a wee bit too far,Mertol,,but thanks anyway.
Do you feel as though you've been through the mangle.?
Well ive put on hold a nightly Dallas episode as im just forehead hot, ill pull through thanks for asking and an early nite to all.
-
Well ive put on hold a nightly Dallas episode as im just forehead hot, ill pull through thanks for asking and an early nite to all.
A couple of paracetamols and off you go,up the dancers.Nite Mertol,hope you're okay soon.
-
I wonder if it was buddy who posted this post they do tend to use names of people from this forum I am according to them on as a Guest quite often so is Patti I for one have posted on the red forum.
-
The post I have just made about buddy posting should read I FOR ONE HAVE NEVER POSTED ON THE RED FORUM not quite woken up yet. :)
-
Just a quick question for Steve uk, where do you stand on the silencer issue? Forgive me if you've already answered elsewhere.
-
Just a quick question for Steve uk, where do you stand on the silencer issue? Forgive me if you've already answered elsewhere.
Hi Neil I think it's become complicated with Jeremy Bamber's team sowing the seeds of doubt in everybody's mind over the years which they have every right to do,but notwithstanding I think it's a tactic they're employing at every opportunity with every piece of evidence in the hope that the authorities will just want to rid themselves of this troublesome case and let him go,which they won't.
In my opinion the defence since the trial hasn't done a bad job,and I recall that at the original trial this was the only question which the jurors asked about the blood in the silencer,about whether it could only have been Sheila's or a mixture of the parents' blood. The jurors were told at the time if I remember rightly that the blood on the silencer was Sheila's. Since the 1986 trial forensic evidence has emerged that the blood could have been a mixture of June's and Ralph's(Nevill's) and that June's DNA was on the silencer,but they couldn't be sure whether Sheila's was.
We just don't know whether Jeremy did use a silencer that morning,though it would have made sense had he killed the twins first and didn't want to rouse the suspicion of other occupants of the house. Jeremy knew he couldn't kill so many people outright with the first round of ammunition so after he killed the twins he shot June in bed and possibly Nevill in the bedroom or on the landing. This would account for the ten shots of the first load of ammunition after which Jeremy would have to reload,whereupon Nevill seized his chance and fled downstairs to try and reach the telephone in the kitchen.
I'm going off the point slightly but I do believe a silencer was fitted to the rifle,and Andrew Hunter MP came to the same conclusion in his book draft. The point about the silencer evidence in court was that as Jeremy was by necessity in such close proximity to Sheila when he shot her with the silencer that backspatter lodged in the silencer,which Jeremy then cleaned and replaced in the gun cupboard. It was less dangerous in his mind to put the silencer back there than to remove it from the farm altogether as he had nowhere to hide it and I believe the drains were also searched by Police.
Of course the Jeremy supporters claim multifarious things;either there was no silencer used in the crimes in the first place so the silencer was irrelevant,or there was a silencer but there was contamination,or a flake of Sheila's blood was deliberately placed in the silencer by the relatives to incriminate Jeremy.
As I'm of the belief that the Julie Mugford testimony is true and that Jeremy's statement to the Police was a pack of lies from start to finish the silencer evidence to my mind is not a crucial part of this case,it just tends to confirm my belief that this case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Hi Neil I think it's become complicated with Jeremy Bamber's team sowing the seeds of doubt in everybody's mind over the years which they have every right to do,but notwithstanding I think it's a tactic they're employing at every opportunity with every piece of evidence in the hope that the authorities will just want to rid themselves of this troublesome case and let him go,which they won't.
In my opinion the defence since the trial hasn't done a bad job,and I recall that at the original trial this was the only question which the jurors asked about the blood in the silencer,about whether it could only have been Sheila's or a mixture of the parents' blood. The jurors were told at the time if I remember rightly that the blood on the silencer was Sheila's. Since the 1986 trial forensic evidence has emerged that the blood could have been a mixture of June's and Ralph's(Nevill's) and that June's DNA was on the silencer,but they couldn't be sure whether Sheila's was.
We just don't know whether Jeremy did use a silencer that morning,though it would have made sense had he killed the twins first and didn't want to rouse the suspicion of other occupants of the house. Jeremy knew he couldn't kill so many people outright with the first round of ammunition so after he killed the twins he shot June in bed and possibly Nevill in the bedroom or on the landing. This would account for the ten shots of the first load of ammunition after which Jeremy would have to reload,whereupon Nevill seized his chance and fled downstairs to try and reach the telephone in the kitchen.
I'm going off the point slightly but I do believe a silencer was fitted to the rifle,and Andrew Hunter MP came to the same conclusion in his book draft. The point about the silencer evidence in court was that as Jeremy was by necessity in such close proximity to Sheila when he shot her with the silencer that backspatter lodged in the silencer,which Jeremy then cleaned and replaced in the gun cupboard. It was less dangerous in his mind to put the silencer back there than to remove it from the farm altogether as he had nowhere to hide it and I believe the drains were also searched by Police.
Of course the Jeremy supporters claim multifarious things;either there was no silencer used in the crimes in the first place so the silencer was irrelevant,or there was a silencer but there was contamination,or a flake of Sheila's blood was deliberately placed in the silencer by the relatives to incriminate Jeremy.
As I'm of the belief that the Julie Mugford testimony is true and that Jeremy's statement to the Police was a pack of lies from start to finish the silencer evidence to my mind is not a crucial part of this case,it just tends to confirm my belief that this case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Excellent post, Steve! (Again!)
-
Hi Neil I think it's become complicated with Jeremy Bamber's team sowing the seeds of doubt in everybody's mind over the years which they have every right to do,but notwithstanding I think it's a tactic they're employing at every opportunity with every piece of evidence in the hope that the authorities will just want to rid themselves of this troublesome case and let him go,which they won't.
In my opinion the defence since the trial hasn't done a bad job,and I recall that at the original trial this was the only question which the jurors asked about the blood in the silencer,about whether it could only have been Sheila's or a mixture of the parents' blood. The jurors were told at the time if I remember rightly that the blood on the silencer was Sheila's. Since the 1986 trial forensic evidence has emerged that the blood could have been a mixture of June's and Ralph's(Nevill's) and that June's DNA was on the silencer,but they couldn't be sure whether Sheila's was.
We just don't know whether Jeremy did use a silencer that morning,though it would have made sense had he killed the twins first and didn't want to rouse the suspicion of other occupants of the house. Jeremy knew he couldn't kill so many people outright with the first round of ammunition so after he killed the twins he shot June in bed and possibly Nevill in the bedroom or on the landing. This would account for the ten shots of the first load of ammunition after which Jeremy would have to reload,whereupon Nevill seized his chance and fled downstairs to try and reach the telephone in the kitchen.
I'm going off the point slightly but I do believe a silencer was fitted to the rifle,and Andrew Hunter MP came to the same conclusion in his book draft. The point about the silencer evidence in court was that as Jeremy was by necessity in such close proximity to Sheila when he shot her with the silencer that backspatter lodged in the silencer,which Jeremy then cleaned and replaced in the gun cupboard. It was less dangerous in his mind to put the silencer back there than to remove it from the farm altogether as he had nowhere to hide it and I believe the drains were also searched by Police.
Of course the Jeremy supporters claim multifarious things;either there was no silencer used in the crimes in the first place so the silencer was irrelevant,or there was a silencer but there was contamination,or a flake of Sheila's blood was deliberately placed in the silencer by the relatives to incriminate Jeremy.
As I'm of the belief that the Julie Mugford testimony is true and that Jeremy's statement to the Police was a pack of lies from start to finish the silencer evidence to my mind is not a crucial part of this case,it just tends to confirm my belief that this case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If JB cleaned the silencer how come there was still blood, and a [GREY] hair still attached to it when it was retrieved by the police?
For the life of me I cannot understand how the defence never questioned the silencer evidence, considering how many people had handled it.
The scraping off of blood, the dismantling ect. This was contaminated evidence IMO.
-
Hi Neil I think it's become complicated with Jeremy Bamber's team sowing the seeds of doubt in everybody's mind over the years which they have every right to do,but notwithstanding I think it's a tactic they're employing at every opportunity with every piece of evidence in the hope that the authorities will just want to rid themselves of this troublesome case and let him go,which they won't.
In my opinion the defence since the trial hasn't done a bad job,and I recall that at the original trial this was the only question which the jurors asked about the blood in the silencer,about whether it could only have been Sheila's or a mixture of the parents' blood. The jurors were told at the time if I remember rightly that the blood on the silencer was Sheila's. Since the 1986 trial forensic evidence has emerged that the blood could have been a mixture of June's and Ralph's(Nevill's) and that June's DNA was on the silencer,but they couldn't be sure whether Sheila's was.
We just don't know whether Jeremy did use a silencer that morning,though it would have made sense had he killed the twins first and didn't want to rouse the suspicion of other occupants of the house. Jeremy knew he couldn't kill so many people outright with the first round of ammunition so after he killed the twins he shot June in bed and possibly Nevill in the bedroom or on the landing. This would account for the ten shots of the first load of ammunition after which Jeremy would have to reload,whereupon Nevill seized his chance and fled downstairs to try and reach the telephone in the kitchen.
I'm going off the point slightly but I do believe a silencer was fitted to the rifle,and Andrew Hunter MP came to the same conclusion in his book draft. The point about the silencer evidence in court was that as Jeremy was by necessity in such close proximity to Sheila when he shot her with the silencer that backspatter lodged in the silencer,which Jeremy then cleaned and replaced in the gun cupboard. It was less dangerous in his mind to put the silencer back there than to remove it from the farm altogether as he had nowhere to hide it and I believe the drains were also searched by Police.
Of course the Jeremy supporters claim multifarious things;either there was no silencer used in the crimes in the first place so the silencer was irrelevant,or there was a silencer but there was contamination,or a flake of Sheila's blood was deliberately placed in the silencer by the relatives to incriminate Jeremy.
Of course, you would say these things, and that...
You forget to consider and mention that one DS "Stan" the man, Jones, seized or took four exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1). Just to remind you and everybody else, he seized these exhibits on the morning of 7th August 1985, and one of them was a photograph of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter always kept his .22 bolt action rifle with its Parker hale silencer attached to its barrel. He also took possession and control of a silencer 9SBJ/1) which himself and DCI "Taff" Jones spoke to and questioned Jeremy about at his cottage ion the afternoon of 9th August 1985, before the police handed the keys to whf over to Ann Eaton (later that evening). So, first of all, get your facts right about when police seized or took possession of the silencer, if there was only ever one silencer in police possession and under their control from the scene at any stage. Let me remind you of something that you and everybody else from the camp on the opposite of the fence, appear to keep overlooking, how could DS "Stan" Jones, find and take possession of the silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, and how could he and DCI Jones speak to Jeremy about its possible use on the rifle, when they asked him about this on 9th August 1985, if the silencer (SBJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1, or whatever you want to call it), was not found by David Boutflour until 10th August 1985, and it did not get handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton, until the evening of 12th August 1985? You see, it just doesn't add up or make any sort of sense that there was only just the one silencer, you do not have to be a supersleuth to work that out, it should be obvious to anybody and everybody, that there has been and is something very dodgy going on here, relating to the silencer, or these silencers? You cannot wrongly label a silencer by the identifying mark of SBJ/1 on 7th August 1985, and later claim it was the same silencer which david Boutflour found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, which did not get handed to DS Jones until the evening of 12th August 1985, and make out there was just some simple problem with the way the silencer was originally labelled for identification purposes, and this was why the silencer ended up having three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, at one stag e or another? Police and relatives have set out to deliberately make this into a one silencer, one rifle, bullets from one batch of ammunition crime - but it is all disturbingly untrue...
Another thing...
One of the four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1) taken by DS "Stan" Jones that morning (7th August 1985) was a photograph of the downstairs toilet at the scene (whf) - yet we have been told that only PC Bird (SOCO) took photographs inside the premises that morning? Funny how the truth eventually comes out to expose the lies told by the police regarding who took pictures at the scene, and what of?
The silencer evidence is dodgy, it should never have been allowed in as evidence, and now that it has been and is, there should be an appeal to remove its influence from the case, which I am afraid leaves the prosecutions case with nothing at all to sustain these convictions any further by. You and anybody else can continue to rely upon such dodgy evidence to say this proves this and that, but it will always be dodgy evidence, and it should not have been allowed in as evidence as part of the prosecutions case for all the reasons given previously...
-
If JB cleaned the silencer how come there was still blood, and a [GREY] hair still attached to it when it was retrieved by the police?
For the life of me I cannot understand how the defence never questioned the silencer evidence, considering how many people had handled it.
The scraping off of blood, the dismantling ect. This was contaminated evidence IMO.
Jeremy was euphoric by that stage-he had killed all five family members and everything had gone swimmingly. His last humiliation of his family besides killing June right between the eyes was to clean the silencer with one of Sheila's tampons,thus leaving a trace of her blood inside the baffles of the silencer,which he would not have been able to see with the naked eye. He would also be in a rush to leave the property and therefore was not as thorough as he might have been.
As far as the Anthony Pargeter rifle is concerned,didn't he win a libel action against a newspaper in that regard so I'd be careful what you say about that particular subject.
-
Jeremy was euphoric by that stage-he had killed all five family members and everything had gone swimmingly. His last humiliation of his family besides killing June right between the eyes was to clean the silencer with one of Sheila's tampons,thus leaving a trace of her blood inside the baffles of the silencer,which he would not have been able to see with the naked eye. He would also be in a rush to leave the property and therefore was not as thorough as he might have been.
Steve....no offence but pleeease stick to the facts :o :o
-
Jeremy was euphoric by that stage-he had killed all five family members and everything had gone swimmingly. His last humiliation of his family besides killing June right between the eyes was to clean the silencer with one of Sheila's tampons,thus leaving a trace of her blood inside the baffles of the silencer,which he would not have been able to see with the naked eye. He would also be in a rush to leave the property and therefore was not as thorough as he might have been.
As far as the Anthony Pargeter rifle is concerned,didn't he win a libel action against a newspaper in that regard so I'd be careful what you say about that particular subject.
I don't have to be caeeful about anything I say about Pargeter; or his rifle, or his Parker hale silencer, or his .22 ammunition which he was licensed to keep and use at whf. You tell him from me, that he can take me to court anytime, and we will see who broke the law by taking his bolt action rifle away from the scene around the time of the murders. How strange, that for five years, he kept his .22 bruno bolt action rifle in the downstairs toilet at the scene, and then according to his COLP statement he took it home on the penultinate week-end vefore the shootings without providing LLany legitimate reason for doing so. This is despite the fact that in his original statement made to Essex police he told them that his rifle was always kept at whf in the toilet, but tgat he took the bolt from it and took that home with him to Bournend in
-
I don't have to be caeeful about anything I say about Pargeter; or his rifle, or his Parker hale silencer, or his .22 ammunition which he was licensed to keep and use at whf. You tell him from me, that he can take me to court anytime, and we will see who broke the law by taking his bolt action rifle away from the scene around the time of the murders. How strange, that for five years, he kept his .22 bruno bolt action rifle in the downstairs toilet at the scene, and then according to his COLP statement he took it home on the penultinate week-end vefore the shootings without providing LLany legitimate reason for doing so. This is despite the fact that in his original statement made to Essex police he told them that his rifle was always kept at whf in the toilet, but tgat he took the bolt from it and took that home with him to Bournend in
Hi Mike, you have all the facts on Anthony Pargeter and all I have is gut feeling which I have had since I first read about him, obviously that doesn't prove anything but I have always had a strange feeling that Anthony Pargeter or his rifle have some connection with this shooting. IMHO
-
Hi Mike, you have all the facts on Anthony Pargeter and all I have is gut feeling which I have had since I first read about him, obviously that doesn't prove anything but I have always had a strange feeling that Anthony Pargeter or his rifle have some connection with this shooting. IMHO
Same here,Maggie. Perhaps he offers free hols for favours rendered.
-
If JB cleaned the silencer how come there was still blood, and a [GREY] hair still attached to it when it was retrieved by the police?
For the life of me I cannot understand how the defence never questioned the silencer evidence, considering how many people had handled it.
The scraping off of blood, the dismantling ect. This was contaminated evidence IMO.
Also with what did he clean it?
-
Jeremy was euphoric by that stage-he had killed all five family members and everything had gone swimmingly. His last humiliation of his family besides killing June right between the eyes was to clean the silencer with one of Sheila's tampons,thus leaving a trace of her blood inside the baffles of the silencer,which he would not have been able to see with the naked eye. He would also be in a rush to leave the property and therefore was not as thorough as he might have been.
As far as the Anthony Pargeter rifle is concerned,didn't he win a libel action against a newspaper in that regard so I'd be careful what you say about that particular subject.
It would have been impossible to cram a tampon down the silencer as a tampon is much larger than the bore of the silencer. Gun users usually clean a .22 gun and silencer with pipe cleaners.
-
It would have been impossible to cram a tampon down the silencer as a tampon is much larger than the bore of the silencer. Gun users usually clean a .22 gun and silencer with pipe cleaners.
That is true Grahame. The idea of using a tampon to clean the silencer is a non starter.
-
That is true Grahame. The idea of using a tampon to clean the silencer is a non starter.
I'm willing to accept that,but I can't see Jeremy scouring the house for some pipe cleaners. Wasn't there also a rubber gloves' wrapper found in the nearby fields? Are these the gloves alluded to in Julie Mugford's statement,where one of them was alleged to have come off in the confrontation Jeremy had with Ralph(Nevill)?
-
Of course, you would say these things, and that...
You forget to consider and mention that one DS "Stan" the man, Jones, seized or took four exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1). Just to remind you and everybody else, he seized these exhibits on the morning of 7th August 1985, and one of them was a photograph of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter always kept his .22 bolt action rifle with its Parker hale silencer attached to its barrel. He also took possession and control of a silencer 9SBJ/1) which himself and DCI "Taff" Jones spoke to and questioned Jeremy about at his cottage ion the afternoon of 9th August 1985, before the police handed the keys to whf over to Ann Eaton (later that evening). So, first of all, get your facts right about when police seized or took possession of the silencer, if there was only ever one silencer in police possession and under their control from the scene at any stage. Let me remind you of something that you and everybody else from the camp on the opposite of the fence, appear to keep overlooking, how could DS "Stan" Jones, find and take possession of the silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, and how could he and DCI Jones speak to Jeremy about its possible use on the rifle, when they asked him about this on 9th August 1985, if the silencer (SBJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1, or whatever you want to call it), was not found by David Boutflour until 10th August 1985, and it did not get handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton, until the evening of 12th August 1985? You see, it just doesn't add up or make any sort of sense that there was only just the one silencer, you do not have to be a supersleuth to work that out, it should be obvious to anybody and everybody, that there has been and is something very dodgy going on here, relating to the silencer, or these silencers? You cannot wrongly label a silencer by the identifying mark of SBJ/1 on 7th August 1985, and later claim it was the same silencer which david Boutflour found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, which did not get handed to DS Jones until the evening of 12th August 1985, and make out there was just some simple problem with the way the silencer was originally labelled for identification purposes, and this was why the silencer ended up having three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, at one stag e or another? Police and relatives have set out to deliberately make this into a one silencer, one rifle, bullets from one batch of ammunition crime - but it is all disturbingly untrue...
Another thing...
One of the four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1) taken by DS "Stan" Jones that morning (7th August 1985) was a photograph of the downstairs toilet at the scene (whf) - yet we have been told that only PC Bird (SOCO) took photographs inside the premises that morning? Funny how the truth eventually comes out to expose the lies told by the police regarding who took pictures at the scene, and what of?
The silencer evidence is dodgy, it should never have been allowed in as evidence, and now that it has been and is, there should be an appeal to remove its influence from the case, which I am afraid leaves the prosecutions case with nothing at all to sustain these convictions any further by. You and anybody else can continue to rely upon such dodgy evidence to say this proves this and that, but it will always be dodgy evidence, and it should not have been allowed in as evidence as part of the prosecutions case for all the reasons given previously...
are you saying that stan jones took the picture,as in pressing a camera shutter button,or took the picture,as in he took possesion of a developed picture of the downstairs toilet.
this it seems a case of making the words of a statement fit requirements.
-
I'm willing to accept that,but I can't see Jeremy scouring the house for some pipe cleaners. Wasn't there also a rubber gloves' wrapper found in the nearby fields? Are these the gloves alluded to in Julie Mugford's statement,where one of them was alleged to have come off in the confrontation Jeremy had with Ralph(Nevill)?
I can also see him struggling with trying to stuff a tampon down a .22 silencer. ;D
-
Hi steve-uk maybe Jeremy took the pipe cleaners with him. Do you know if the bike had a basket at the front for carrying bits and pieces.. Were rubber gloves found in the nearby field or just a wrapper I would have thought Jeremy would have removed the gloves from the wrapper before he left home and wore them so no finger prints on the bike. Sorry I forgot he washed the bike when he got back home probably still wearing the gloves. :)
-
Hi Grahame wearing his marigolds :)
-
I'm willing to accept that,but I can't see Jeremy scouring the house for some pipe cleaners. Wasn't there also a rubber gloves' wrapper found in the nearby fields? Are these the gloves alluded to in Julie Mugford's statement,where one of them was alleged to have come off in the confrontation Jeremy had with Ralph(Nevill)?
Perhaps you haven't been for many walks in the country Steve? But you will be surprised what you find there. Any country dweller will tell you that. A rubber glove is only as significant as one's imagination would allow it to be.
-
Hi Grahame wearing his marigolds :)
Have you ever tried to to ANYTHING in those thick rubber gloves? Let alone trying to load a rifle magazine. You might as well use boxing gloves? Good thing they didn't find a boxing glove in a field.
-
Grahame it was only the wrapper of the gloves that was found according to steve :)
-
Hi Grahame wearing his marigolds :)
That's right a black diving top and white marigolds. "It's the black and white minstral shoooooow". ;D
-
Grahame don't put ideas in steve's head :)boxing gloves indeed ;)
-
Grahame think the rubber gloves would have been black. Don't think they were much into mix and match back then :)
-
That's right a black diving top and white marigolds. "It's the black and white minstral shoooooow". ;D
..or Mickey Mouse?
-
Hi steve-uk maybe Jeremy took the pipe cleaners with him. Do you know if the bike had a basket at the front for carrying bits and pieces.. Were rubber gloves found in the nearby field or just a wrapper I would have thought Jeremy would have removed the gloves from the wrapper before he left home and wore them so no finger prints on the bike. Sorry I forgot he washed the bike when he got back home probably still wearing the gloves. :)
The Jeremy supporters know all this is possible. Wasn't there a sighting of him wearing women's clothes sometime before the murders..
-
steve-uk have you been talking to Margot about men dressing up in women's clothes :)
-
Bridget :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
steve-uk have you been talking to Margot about men dressing up in women's clothes :)
No is she an expert on this subject..
-
Margot who is not on line just now seems to know all about what clothes men should wear when having a change :)
-
steve-uk have you been talking to Margot about men dressing up in women's clothes :)
:-[ :-X
-
The Jeremy supporters know all this is possible. Wasn't there a sighting of him wearing women's clothes sometime before the murders..
Ok now we have him wearing women's clothing as well as marigolds?
-
Grahame Margot is going to help steve on this one she is an expert on women's clothes :)
-
steve-uk have you been talking to Margot about men dressing up in women's clothes :)
"Mother. No mother I won't do it mother" "Mother what have you done?" "I am not a murderer and to prove it I won't even kill that fly thats on my lap". (scenes from psycho)
-
Grahame I don't think Margot was involved in dressing anyone in that film. She is not that old :)
-
..or Mickey Mouse?
Or seeing that he was fond of dressing up in women's clothes....Mini Mouse. ::)
-
Grahame I don't think Margot was involved in dressing anyone in that film. She is not that old :)
I'm betraying my age. By the way, I think I recall Marigold gloves as being either yellow or orange? Can't be sure though?
-
I'm betraying my age. By the way, I think I recall Marigold gloves as being either yellow or orange? Can't be sure though?
There ya go. They were orange.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_marigold_gloves_invented
-
Grahame you are right marigold gloves are mostly yellow or orange unless Jeremy had rather small hands they would have been tight on him. You can buy black ones for males but they are rather thick and would not have been much good for the activities he is being accused of. :)
-
The Jeremy supporters know all this is possible. Wasn't there a sighting of him wearing women's clothes sometime before the murders..
Could be that he was rehearsing for the local Christmas Panto. What tosh,Steve.
-
No lookout I think Margot has been doing her stuff. :)
-
Could be that he was rehearsing for the local Christmas Panto. What tosh,Steve.
Lookout - correct me if I am wrong. But didn't I see you write that Sheila had a shower AFTER the first shot?
-
Lookout - correct me if I am wrong. But didn't I see you write that Sheila had a shower AFTER the first shot?
Erm,no Mat.
-
Erm,no Mat.
Okay, must have been someone else. I'm trying to reply to the post but I can't find it.
-
Grahame you are right marigold gloves are mostly yellow or orange unless Jeremy had rather small hands they would have been tight on him. You can buy black ones for males but they are rather thick and would not have been much good for the activities he is being accused of. :)
They would have matched his top as well. ;)
-
Grahame that is very important according to Margot if you can't get a good contrast always go for black. They would be less noticeable as well on the bike yellow would have really stood out. :)
-
Hi Neil I think it's become complicated with Jeremy Bamber's team sowing the seeds of doubt in everybody's mind over the years which they have every right to do,but notwithstanding I think it's a tactic they're employing at every opportunity with every piece of evidence in the hope that the authorities will just want to rid themselves of this troublesome case and let him go,which they won't.
In my opinion the defence since the trial hasn't done a bad job,and I recall that at the original trial this was the only question which the jurors asked about the blood in the silencer,about whether it could only have been Sheila's or a mixture of the parents' blood. The jurors were told at the time if I remember rightly that the blood on the silencer was Sheila's. Since the 1986 trial forensic evidence has emerged that the blood could have been a mixture of June's and Ralph's(Nevill's) and that June's DNA was on the silencer,but they couldn't be sure whether Sheila's was.
We just don't know whether Jeremy did use a silencer that morning,though it would have made sense had he killed the twins first and didn't want to rouse the suspicion of other occupants of the house. Jeremy knew he couldn't kill so many people outright with the first round of ammunition so after he killed the twins he shot June in bed and possibly Nevill in the bedroom or on the landing. This would account for the ten shots of the first load of ammunition after which Jeremy would have to reload,whereupon Nevill seized his chance and fled downstairs to try and reach the telephone in the kitchen.
I'm going off the point slightly but I do believe a silencer was fitted to the rifle,and Andrew Hunter MP came to the same conclusion in his book draft. The point about the silencer evidence in court was that as Jeremy was by necessity in such close proximity to Sheila when he shot her with the silencer that backspatter lodged in the silencer,which Jeremy then cleaned and replaced in the gun cupboard. It was less dangerous in his mind to put the silencer back there than to remove it from the farm altogether as he had nowhere to hide it and I believe the drains were also searched by Police.
Of course the Jeremy supporters claim multifarious things;either there was no silencer used in the crimes in the first place so the silencer was irrelevant,or there was a silencer but there was contamination,or a flake of Sheila's blood was deliberately placed in the silencer by the relatives to incriminate Jeremy.
As I'm of the belief that the Julie Mugford testimony is true and that Jeremy's statement to the Police was a pack of lies from start to finish the silencer evidence to my mind is not a crucial part of this case,it just tends to confirm my belief that this case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Thanks Steve, great post, not that I agree with much of it though. My own belief is that the silencer evidence has now been totally discredited. From the moment it was handled by all and sundry, left to sit on a desk in someone's office and generally left wide open to cross contamination, the prosecution should never have been allowed to produce it.
I think it's very difficult to assess Julies evidence without hearing it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. That is why so much importance is placed on a witness appearing, in person, at court. Rather than just hearing the words, you can judge their demeanor etc. I haven't even been able to read the transcript of Julie being cross examined, have you? Therefor I find it difficult to decide whether I believe her or not.
I think that if I had been on that jury and knew about Julies newspaper deal and her criminal activities, I would have been inclined to rely more heavily on other evidence, such as the silencer when reaching my decision, rather than her testimony.
To be honest, I don't know how vigorously the defence challenged the silencer evidence at trial and how much was made of the cross contamination issues. Remember, the silencer evidence, if believed, would be enough to convict, said Judge Drake.
-
Grahame that is very important according to Margot if you can't get a good contrast always go for black. They would be less noticeable as well on the bike yellow would have really stood out. :)
I always go for black. It makes me look slimmer. ;)
-
Thanks Steve, great post, not that I agree with much of it though. My own belief is that the silencer evidence has now been totally discredited. From the moment it was handled by all and sundry, left to sit on a desk in someone's office and generally left wide open to cross contamination, the prosecution should never have been allowed to produce it.
I think it's very difficult to assess Julies evidence without hearing it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. That is why so much importance is placed on a witness appearing, in person, at court. Rather than just hearing the words, you can judge their demeanor etc. I haven't even been able to read the transcript of Julie being cross examined, have you? Therefor I find it difficult to decide whether I believe her or not.
I think that if I had been on that jury and knew about Julies newspaper deal and her criminal activities, I would have been inclined to rely more heavily on other evidence, such as the silencer when reaching my decision, rather than her testimony.
To be honest, I don't know how vigorously the defence challenged the silencer evidence at trial and how much was made of the cross contamination issues. Remember, the silencer evidence, if believed, would be enough to convict, said Judge Drake.
The silencer was a back door submission and they jury bought it, contaminated did not seem to matter, good judges would have dismissed it as evidence, great judges would have thrown the case out and told the inept prosecution lawyer to get the hell out of my court.
-
Grahame all black is always best for wearing in the dark especially riding a bike through the countryside :)
-
Wow Mertol I would not want to run into you with my trolley when I'm in the supermarket especially if I am leaning across the thing in my baggy shorts and sandels and tartan socks. I would be in fear of being frogged marched outside :)
-
Wow Mertol I would not want to run into you with my trolley when I'm in the supermarket especially if I am leaning across the thing in my baggy shorts and sandels and tartan socks. I would be in fear of being frogged marched outside :)
Lucky for you Susan acting the moron in these Supermarkets is a male occurance so consider yourself fortunate.
-
The silencer was a back door submission and they jury bought it, contaminated did not seem to matter, good judges would have dismissed it as evidence, great judges would have thrown the case out and told the inept prosecution lawyer to get the hell out of my court.
I think that the prosecution did not have a case without the silencer evidence. JM's testimony was not enough and the prosecution knew it. So by building up the silencer evidence so as to make it look convincing they actually managed to not only convince the jury, but also the judge. He was completely taken in by it.
Unless of course, dare I say it? He was in on it? But of course we must refrain from saying such things. Because he was a Freemason just like RWB and they are honourable men sworn to uphold the law of the land and also to abide by the Freemason rules that they are to support a fellow Mason even if the fellow Mason was doing something unlawful. You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons...and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him...It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations.
But of course all this is rediculous and fantasy isn't it? ::)
Likewise the silencer evidence counted absolutely nothing on its own either. I honestly think that if Judge (ducky) Drake had not lead the jury on by suggesting that if the blood in the silencer was that of Sheila's then they must judge Bamber guilty then I strongly believe that they would never had considered the silencer evidence as authentic?
In fact he should have seen the potential contamination of the silencer and that there were no independent witnesses at its discovery and should have directed the jury accordingly. Instead he "endorced" the silencer evidence as legitimate and genuine. Which of course we can clearly see that the circumstances of its discovery and its recovery by the police as well as its subsequent testing, that this silencer was a complete red herring.
-
I think that the prosecution did not have a case without the silencer evidence. JM's testimony was not enough and the prosecution knew it. So by building up the silencer evidence so as to make it look convincing they actually managed to not only convince the jury, but also the judge. He was completely taken in by it.
Unless of course, dare I say it? He was in on it? But of course we must refrain from saying such things. Because he was a Freemason just like RWB and they are honourable men sworn to uphold the law of the land and also to abide by the Freemason rules that they are to support a fellow Mason even if the fellow Mason was doing something unlawful. But of course all this is rediculous and fantasy isn't it? ::)
Likewise the silencer evidence counted absolutely nothing on its own either. I honestly think that if Judge (ducky) Drake had not lead the jury on by suggesting that if the blood in the silencer was that of Sheila's then they must judge Bamber guilty then I strongly believe that they would never had considered the silencer evidence as authentic?
In fact he should have seen the potential contamination of the silencer and that there were no independent witnesses at its discovery and should have directed the jury accordingly. Instead he "endorced" the silencer evidence as legitimate and genuine. Which of course we can clearly see that the circumstances of its discovery and its recovery by the police as well as its subsequent testing, that this silencer was a complete red herring.
JM/ Silencer on their own a little weak, JM no physical back up, Silencer physical back up they wanted physical evidence without it no case. One needed the other .
-
Thanks Steve, great post, not that I agree with much of it though. My own belief is that the silencer evidence has now been totally discredited. From the moment it was handled by all and sundry, left to sit on a desk in someone's office and generally left wide open to cross contamination, the prosecution should never have been allowed to produce it.
I think it's very difficult to assess Julies evidence without hearing it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. That is why so much importance is placed on a witness appearing, in person, at court. Rather than just hearing the words, you can judge their demeanor etc. I haven't even been able to read the transcript of Julie being cross examined, have you? Therefor I find it difficult to decide whether I believe her or not.
I think that if I had been on that jury and knew about Julies newspaper deal and her criminal activities, I would have been inclined to rely more heavily on other evidence, such as the silencer when reaching my decision, rather than her testimony.
To be honest, I don't know how vigorously the defence challenged the silencer evidence at trial and how much was made of the cross contamination issues. Remember, the silencer evidence, if believed, would be enough to convict, said Judge Drake.
Hi Neil if you scroll down on this link to The Trial you'll find the account of Julie Mugford in court. I'm sure I'll be blamed somehow for posting it but here goes:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1
It's not working so type Sleuthing for Justice David Shaw into your browser.
-
JM/ Silencer on their own a little weak, JM no physical back up, Silencer physical back up they wanted physical evidence without it no case. One needed the other .
Top post. And by the way, I didn't agree with whichever member who posted that the recent panorama documentary about the Cardiff three / South Wales Police was not relevant to this case. Look at the tactics used by the police in that case / documentary.
-
Hi Neil if you scroll down on this link to The Trial you'll find the account of Julie Mugford in court. I'm sure I'll be blamed somehow for posting it but here goes:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1
It's not working so type Sleuthing for Justice David Shaw into your browser.
Thanks Steve
-
There are some very good posts from about page 3 onwards on this thread,some made by participants engaging in discourse before my involvement with this site. I congratulate those involved for holding such a high quality discussion of the Bamber family, their entourage and the possible psychology behind the crimes.
Are there any other dormant threads which members recommend worthy of re-reading?
-
I think that the prosecution did not have a case without the silencer evidence. JM's testimony was not enough and the prosecution knew it. So by building up the silencer evidence so as to make it look convincing they actually managed to not only convince the jury, but also the judge. He was completely taken in by it.
Unless of course, dare I say it? He was in on it? But of course we must refrain from saying such things. Because he was a Freemason just like RWB and they are honourable men sworn to uphold the law of the land and also to abide by the Freemason rules that they are to support a fellow Mason even if the fellow Mason was doing something unlawful. But of course all this is rediculous and fantasy isn't it? ::)
Likewise the silencer evidence counted absolutely nothing on its own either. I honestly think that if Judge (ducky) Drake had not lead the jury on by suggesting that if the blood in the silencer was that of Sheila's then they must judge Bamber guilty then I strongly believe that they would never had considered the silencer evidence as authentic?
In fact he should have seen the potential contamination of the silencer and that there were no independent witnesses at its discovery and should have directed the jury accordingly. Instead he "endorced" the silencer evidence as legitimate and genuine. Which of course we can clearly see that the circumstances of its discovery and its recovery by the police as well as its subsequent testing, that this silencer was a complete red herring.
RWB wasn't ever a Freemason. His father was but not him.
-
RWB wasn't ever a Freemason. His father was but not him.
Interesting Vic.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=428.0
He either was or he wasn't. I wonder if there is any other source behind the claim that he was?
-
I find it difficult to decide whether I believe her or not.
I think that if I had been on that jury and knew about Julies newspaper deal and her criminal activities, I would have been inclined to rely more heavily on other evidence, such as the silencer when reaching my decision, rather than her testimony.
In fact he should have seen the potential contamination of the silencer and that there were no independent witnesses at its discovery and should have directed the jury accordingly.