Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: curiousessex on September 09, 2012, 10:39:AM
-
The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.
Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.
Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)
Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?
The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.
-
I do wonder if there is a pinch of poetic licence added into the various books. :-\
-
I do wonder if there is a pinch of poetic licence added into the various books. :-\
And in the threads on the forum?
-
And in the threads on the forum?
Well yes, of course.
-
I don't think the NOTW stories did either of them any favours given the context of how the stories had arisen. But surely the main issue which surrounds them is that of incentive to lie. JM's sale of her story, had the contract been signed prior to her giving evidence at trial, could be seen by the jury as an incentive, even if she's actually truthful when she says it wasn't about the money. JB had a far greater incentive to lie than the £40k on offer (staying out of prison), and so his deal becomes something of an irrelevance.
Going back to JM's contract, I'm not sure I see the date of signing being important for any other reason than showing her to have lied about the contract itself. The jury already knew she was capable of lying, they'd heard about the caravan burglary and the cheque fraud. Even if she hadn't signed a contract prior to trial she, and the jury, could be in no doubt that there would be many deals offered, and so the incentive would still be there whether the contract had already been signed or not.
-
I do wonder if there is a pinch of poetic licence added into the various books. :-\
It must also be considered Jeremy participated in the preparation of the book 'Blood Relations'. I think also Aunt Agatha has stated previously she has an original manuscript of the book which was given fto Jeremy for proof reading prior to publication.
The book was first published in 1994 which is prior to the second Appeal.
-
I don't think the NOTW stories did either of them any favours given the context of how the stories had arisen. But surely the main issue which surrounds them is that of incentive to lie. JM's sale of her story, had the contract been signed prior to her giving evidence at trial, could be seen by the jury as an incentive, even if she's actually truthful when she says it wasn't about the money. JB had a far greater incentive to lie than the £40k on offer (staying out of prison), and so his deal becomes something of an irrelevance.
Going back to JM's contract, I'm not sure I see the date of signing being important for any other reason than showing her to have lied about the contract itself. The jury already knew she was capable of lying, they'd heard about the caravan burglary and the cheque fraud. Even if she hadn't signed a contract prior to trial she, and the jury, could be in no doubt that there would be many deals offered, and so the incentive would still be there whether the contract had already been signed or not.
It would appear both parties were capable of lying. In many respects they were in the same boat.
As the judge had pointed out in his summing up it was up to the jury to decide, within the context of 5 murders or 4 muders and a suicide.
The jury decided 'guilty' on a 10-2 majority.
And here we are 26 years later.
-
The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.
Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.
Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)
Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?
The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.
I am afraid your analysis of this is deeply flawed Curious.
First, Jeremy Bamber's deal to sell his story is in a completely different category to that of Julie Mugford. It is illegal for a witness to conclude such a deal before giving evidence, for obvious reasons. The witness should not have a financial interest in a conviction of the accused. There is no such restriction on defendants entering into such arrangements. Before the advent of legal aid in criminal cases it was very common for a defendant's legal representation to be funded by a newspaper which had secured exclusive rights to the defendant's story. Common sense also indicates that Jeremy bamber needed no financial incentive to secure his acquittal on 5 counts of murder!
Second, the reason that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this point was because of the false assurances given by Julie Mugford when she was privqately questioned by the prosecution at the Judge's request. Had those assurances not been given Julie Mugford would certainly have been questioned about this.
-
I am afraid your analysis of this is deeply flawed Curious.
First, Jeremy Bamber's deal to sell his story is in a completely different category to that of Julie Mugford. It is illegal for a witness to conclude such a deal before giving evidence, for obvious reasons. The witness should not have a financial interest in a conviction of the accused. There is no such restriction on defendants entering into such arrangements. Before the advent of legal aid in criminal cases it was very common for a defendant's legal representation to be funded by a newspaper which had secured exclusive rights to the defendant's story. Common sense also indicates that Jeremy bamber needed no financial incentive to secure his acquittal on 5 counts of murder!
Second, the reason that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this point was because of the false assurances given by Julie Mugford when she was privqately questioned by the prosecution at the Judge's request. Had those assurances not been given Julie Mugford would certainly have been questioned about this.
The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.
Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.
Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)
Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?
The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.
To put a slightly different spin on this steve.
1. Imagine as an innocent man you had been tried on murder charges and acquitted after months on remand and constant sensational muck raking press stories . Under those circumstances would you consider it wrong to already have a deal in place, pre trial, to sell your side of the story ?
2. Imagine now that you are a prosecution witness instead in a murder trial . Under those circumstances would you consider it wrong to have a deal in place, pre trial, to sell your side of the
story ?
3. Even if you believe both are wrong . Do you honestly draw a moral equivalence between the two .
-
Well I'm not sure that was my contribution to the debate but it's pretty obvious to me that Julie was going to sell her story on the conviction of Jeremy Bamber so I don't see what real difference it made whether arrangements were made before of after the verdict. Blame the cheque book journalism culture,the "last chance saloon" comment of David Mellor MP so far back I've lost track of the year,and that same merry-go-round keeps on spinning with Levinson.
Call me cynical but I've seen all this before..
-
Well I'm not sure that was my contribution to the debate but it's pretty obvious to me that Julie was going to sell her story on the conviction of Jeremy Bamber so I don't see what real difference it made whether arrangements were made before of after the verdict. Blame the cheque book journalism culture,the "last chance saloon" comment of David Mellor MP so far back I've lost track of the year,and that same merry-go-round keeps on spinning with Levinson.
Call me cynical but I've seen all this before..
Are you not missing the point regarding the relationship between Police and the press? The police can wave in front of Julie Mugford, the prospect of a big fat juicy deal, together with immunity from prosecution, whether it be for the kind of petty crime that would ruin her career aspirations or an accessory to murder.
Carrot and Stick. Do as we say or you've had it. Do as we say and you're made. Safe. Better off. Elsewhere. We'll take you to the bank. We'll pave the way for your immunity. You provide us with what we want. All's well that ends well.
-
Are you not missing the point regarding the relationship between Police and the press? The police can wave in front of Julie Mugford, the prospect of a big fat juicy deal, together with immunity from prosecution, whether it be for the kind of petty crime that would ruin her career aspirations or an accessory to murder.
Carrot and Stick. Do as we say or you've had it. Do as we say and you're made. Safe. Better off. Elsewhere. We'll take you to the bank. We'll pave the way for your immunity. You provide us with what we want. All's well that ends well.
Well wasn't it Liz Rimington who contacted the Police first? The DPP I believe concurred reluctantly that Julie should receive anonymity,but they had to take a look at the wider picture given the nature of Julie's evidence,which was put before a jury and the jury believed her story.
-
The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.
Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.
Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)
Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?
The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.
I'm assuming this sentence is poetic licence?!
-
Are you not missing the point regarding the relationship between Police and the press? The police can wave in front of Julie Mugford, the prospect of a big fat juicy deal, together with immunity from prosecution, whether it be for the kind of petty crime that would ruin her career aspirations or an accessory to murder.
Carrot and Stick. Do as we say or you've had it. Do as we say and you're made. Safe. Better off. Elsewhere. We'll take you to the bank. We'll pave the way for your immunity. You provide us with what we want. All's well that ends well.
There's no honour among thieves,Roch. Another good post.
-
Well I'm not sure that was my contribution to the debate but it's pretty obvious to me that Julie was going to sell her story on the conviction of Jeremy Bamber so I don't see what real difference it made whether arrangements were made before of after the verdict. Blame the cheque book journalism culture,the "last chance saloon" comment of David Mellor MP so far back I've lost track of the year,and that same merry-go-round keeps on spinning with Levinson.
Call me cynical but I've seen all this before..
The difference is apparent or should be steve . Having a vested interest in a guilty verdict and making this deal before the trial , surely taints your testimony . The jury clearly understood this difference hence their questions to the trial judge during deliberations about possible financial motivations of witnesses .
-
I don't think the NOTW stories did either of them any favours given the context of how the stories had arisen. But surely the main issue which surrounds them is that of incentive to lie. JM's sale of her story, had the contract been signed prior to her giving evidence at trial, could be seen by the jury as an incentive, even if she's actually truthful when she says it wasn't about the money. JB had a far greater incentive to lie than the £40k on offer (staying out of prison), and so his deal becomes something of an irrelevance.
Going back to JM's contract, I'm not sure I see the date of signing being important for any other reason than showing her to have lied about the contract itself. The jury already knew she was capable of lying, they'd heard about the caravan burglary and the cheque fraud. Even if she hadn't signed a contract prior to trial she, and the jury, could be in no doubt that there would be many deals offered, and so the incentive would still be there whether the contract had already been signed or not.
Great post Bridget! (As usual!)
Even if the defence had the contract, which they don't, they wouldn't get grounds to appeal because of it. As you say Julie was capabale of lying and this was well known, the judge made it clear in his statements to the jury - but they still chose to convict Bamber.
-
There's no honour among thieves,Roch. Another good post.
Thank you.
-
Great post Bridget! (As usual!)
Even if the defence had the contract, which they don't, they wouldn't get grounds to appeal because of it. As youJulie was capabale of lying and thiswell known say was , the judge made it clear in his statements to the jury - but they still chose to convict Bamber.
The way I see it is that JM's 'testimony' should be discounted to say the least; the silencer evidence is dodgy; the records of phone calls received that night show that a police car was despatched 1 minute before Jeremy made his call and the jury was misled by RB when he said hewould not inherit.
-
the silencer evidence is dodgy;
The defence have failed time and time again to discredit this, they've tried many angles.
the records of phone calls received that night show that a police car was despatched 1 minute before Jeremy made his call
Depending on who you believe.
-
Great post Bridget! (As usual!)
Even if the defence had the contract, which they don't, they wouldn't get grounds to appeal because of it. As you say Julie was capabale of lying and this was well known, the judge made it clear in his statements to the jury - but they still chose to convict Bamber.
Hi mat, even though they don't have the contract they can still question her if an appeal goes ahead and have a right to do so...That's how I look at it...
ngb has said that the jury was not privy to the NOTW contract, it was only discussed in chambers....Had they known this then they might and I only say might, have had a different outcome in whether they believed her story or not... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi mat, even though they don't have the contract they can still question her if an appeal goes ahead and have a right to do so...That's how I look at it...
ngb has said that the jury was not privy to the NOTW contract, it was only discussed in chambers....Had they known this then they might and I only say might, have had a different outcome in whether they believed her story or not... :) :) :) :)
Hi, Patti. :)
Yeah, they can call Julie but they will need good grounds to do so - and I'm not sure if they will get these grounds. She shouldn't be forced to come over here and talk about the case when she has already given her statements unless something new comes up that undermines her original testimony. Even with a date contract I don't think they will have enough, since I've read Julie saying that she wasn't sure if she had signed it or not at the time of the trial- I don't see how someone can be accused of lying when they said they are not sure.
-
Hi, Patti. :)
Yeah, they can call Julie but they will need good grounds to do so - and I'm not sure if they will get these grounds. She shouldn't be forced to come over here and talk about the case when she has already given her statements unless something new comes up that undermines her original testimony. Even with a date contract I don't think they will have enough, since I've read Julie saying that she wasn't sure if she had signed it or not at the time of the trial- I don't see how someone can be accused of lying when they said they are not sure.
Hi Mat, but she was in an hotel on the day of the verdict paid for by the News of the World. Jones rang her at that hotel.....Surely if there was a fresh appeal then this matter would surface? :) :) :)
-
Hi Mat, but she was in an hotel on the day of the verdict paid for by the News of the World. Jones rang her at that hotel.....Surely if there was a fresh appeal then this matter would surface? :) :) :)
I think that the NOTW knew they'd be working with her in the future, most people began to become wise to the fact that Jeremy Bamber had actually odne the killings and that Julie had a story to tell, the NOTW wanted the story - so they kept her on side.
I don't recall Julie saying that she had never stayed in a hotel paid for by the NOTW so I don't think it will be a problem.
Also, even if the defence did manage to get Julie in the U.K (which I can't see them doing) I don't even think they'd know what to do with her.
-
I think that the NOTW knew they'd be working with her in the future, most people began to become wise to the fact that Jeremy Bamber had actually odne the killings and that Julie had a story to tell, the NOTW wanted the story - so they kept her on side.
I don't recall Julie saying that she had never stayed in a hotel paid for by the NOTW so I don't think it will be a problem.
Also, even if the defence did manage to get Julie in the U.K (which I can't see them doing) I don't even think they'd know what to do with her.
And then she told the NOTW that Jeremy never admitted that he had killed his family..... :P :P :P
-
And then she told the NOTW that Jeremy never admitted that he had killed his family..... :P :P :P
Well he didn't, did he - her evidence was that he told her Matthew MacDonald (or whatever his name was) did it.
-
And then she told the NOTW that Jeremy never admitted that he had killed his family..... :P :P :P
Which is what she said all along.
-
Does Matthew McDonald appear early on in JM's statements? Does anybody know where he is first mentioned?
-
Does Matthew McDonald appear early on in JM's statements? Does anybody know where he is first mentioned?
I haven't checked it, but her first statement when changing her story and pointing the finger at JB was on 8/9/85, I'd like to think he was mentioned in that statement.
-
I haven't checked it, but her first statement when changing her story and pointing the finger at JB was on 8/9/85, I'd like to think he was mentioned in that statement.
Thanks for response. I tried to read it but the handwriting isn't the easiest. I've been trying to work out whether the page of the logs that the defence claim has been 'misplaced' by EP, could have been 'misplaced' after it had become clear, that McDonald was a non-starter. The alleged sighting would have suited a prosecution that involved a third party. But when it became focused upon JB being the shooter, the alleged sighting became a potential hindrance. I was trying to work out if there was an attempt by police to shoehorn in a third party, due the sighting having been real, as alleged by JB. But I cannot understand wht McDonald would be picked on and the only thing I could come up with was JM falling apart under duress and naming somebody, i.e. him. 'mercenary'.
-
Thanks for response. I tried to read it but the handwriting isn't the easiest. I've been trying to work out whether the page of the logs that the defence claim has been 'misplaced' by EP, could have been 'misplaced' after it had become clear, that McDonald was a non-starter. The alleged sighting would have suited a prosecution that involved a third party. But when it became focused upon JB being the shooter, the alleged sighting became a potential hindrance. I was trying to work out if there was an attempt by police to shoehorn in a third party, due the sighting having been real, as alleged by JB. But I cannot understand wht McDonald would be picked on and the only thing I could come up with was JM falling apart under duress and naming somebody, i.e. him. 'mercenary'.
There is a typed version, I wrote out the first half before I realised, I'll put up a link.
-
There is a typed version, I wrote out the first half before I realised, I'll put up a link.
Thanks H
-
There is a typed version, I wrote out the first half before I realised, I'll put up a link.
Hand written version: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,572.msg11528.html#msg11528
My rewrite: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647.0.html
There is an official typed version somewhere, I will find it eventually, it is just proving elusive. >:(
-
Hand written version: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,572.msg11528.html#msg11528
My rewrite: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647.0.html
There is an official typed version somewhere, I will find it eventually, it is just proving elusive. >:(
Rochy, see reply #7 of this thread for an official typed version.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.0.html
-
Hand written version: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,572.msg11528.html#msg11528
My rewrite: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647.0.html
There is an official typed version somewhere, I will find it eventually, it is just proving elusive. >:(
Rochy, see reply #7 of this thread for an official typed version.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.0.html
Cheers, I'm turning in now. Got square eyes! I'll read it tomorrow, honest :D
-
Cheers, I'm turning in now. Got square eyes! I'll read it tomorrow, honest :D
No worries, it's an interesting read, even if you don't buy what she claims.
-
No worries, it's an interesting read, even if you don't buy what she claims.
Thank you Hartley....You are a star! :) :) :)
-
Hartley....You have the date being 8/8/85 the day after the murders on your type up? Where she mentions that JB had told her Matthew had done it. Can I query that you have that correct? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Hartley....You have the date being 8/8/85 the day after the murders on your type up? Where she mentions that JB had told her Matthew had done it. Can I query that you have that correct? :-\ :-\ :-\
I reckon it should be 8/9/85. :-[
-
I reckon it should be 8/9/85. :-[
Well spotted.
-
Aww its all warm and cuddly on here tonight ;)
Should we get the condoms out ;)
-
I reckon it should be 8/9/85. :-[
I thought so, easily done! :o :) :) :)
-
Aww its all warm and cuddly on here tonight ;)
Should we get the condoms out ;)
Trust you to be sensible, we don't want any accidents now do we. ;)
-
Aww its all warm and cuddly on here tonight ;)
Should we get the condoms out ;)
:o
Phone sex?
;D ;D ;D
-
:o
Phone sex?
;D ;D ;D
I wouldnt know how, mat. How would i start? Do i ask what undercrackers theyre wearing first ;)
-
Trust you to be sensible, we don't want any accidents now do we. ;)
i certainly dont, Harts. ;) I'll get some minty ribbed ones ;)
-
I wouldnt know how, mat. How would i start? Do i ask what undercrackers theyre wearing first ;)
No idea. I remember Grahame telling me one time that I should "Oh, stop bothering me boy! Why don't you call one of those bloody sex chat lines and speak to a woman you prat!"
Imagine that....how awkward I'd feel. Uh. :-[
-
HoHo!! It would cost you a fotune. You might have Mo from Eastenders ;)
-
i certainly dont, Harts. ;) I'll get some minty ribbed ones ;)
I'm looking at this empty bottle, and wondering what exactly was in it. :-\
-
ooops, you had a good few then, Harts? ;D
-
ooops, you had a good few then, Harts? ;D
Nah, I have to be sensible these days, strangely they seem to have more of an effect these days. :-\
-
No idea. I remember Grahame telling me one time that I should "Oh, stop bothering me boy! Why don't you call one of those bloody sex chat lines and speak to a woman you prat!"
Imagine that....how awkward I'd feel. Uh. :-[
That sounds like u were trying to engage Graham in a bit of phone sex Mat.........!
If that's what u like who am i to argue!
-
That sounds like u were trying to engage Graham in a bit of phone sex Mat.........!
If that's what u like who am i to argue!
HAHA!!!!!! Out of context it does sound like I was bothering him for it! Oh no. :-[
-
HAHA!!!!!! Out of context it does sound like I was bothering him for it! Oh no. :-[
I'm now viewing you in a whole different light.......!
-
I'm now viewing you in a whole different light.......!
Web cam? :-\
-
I cant drink, harts. A few shandy's and i feel like shite the next day. when i was younger i could.
-
Web cam? :-\
It's quality viewing. Mat has a rare talent!
-
I cant drink, harts. A few shandy's and i feel like shite the next day. when i was younger i could.
Yeah I probably have more than the RDA on occasion (usually the wrong occasion :-[ ), but if I didn't, then the wife wouldn't have anything to nag me about, as I'm perfect in every other way. Besides, the wife loves nagging, I'm merely taking an interest in her hobby. :-[
-
It's quality viewing. Mat has a rare talent!
Oh aye, spill ?
-
Yeah I probably have more than the RDA on occasion (usually the wrong occasion :-[ ), but if I didn't, then the wife wouldn't have anything to nag me about, as I'm perfect in every other way. Besides, the wife loves nagging, I'm merely taking an interest in her hobby. :-[
Youre such a good hubby, Harts!!
Hows the little one?
-
Oh aye, spill ?
I woudn't like to steal mat's thunder. I'm sure he can tell u about his talents.
-
Youre such a good hubby, Harts!!
Hows the little one?
Still little, but getting bigger, fine thanks. :)
-
Good, glad to hear it.
-
Well, on that note, I'll bid you all good night and catch up later in the week. Night all x
-
Night, Harts x
-
Oh man, this place just gets stranger.
-
Oh man, this place just gets stranger.
You're telling me. I thought I was on the wrong forum.!
-
Thanks for response. I tried to read it but the handwriting isn't the easiest. I've been trying to work out whether the page of the logs that the defence claim has been 'misplaced' by EP, could have been 'misplaced' after it had become clear, that McDonald was a non-starter. The alleged sighting would have suited a prosecution that involved a third party. But when it became focused upon JB being the shooter, the alleged sighting became a potential hindrance. I was trying to work out if there was an attempt by police to shoehorn in a third party, due the sighting having been real, as alleged by JB. But I cannot understand wht McDonald would be picked on and the only thing I could come up with was JM falling apart under duress and naming somebody, i.e. him. 'mercenary'.
Here’s a suggestion based upon the way plausibility becomes an important consideration when it comes to building a case when real evidence lacking. My basic theory concerning Julie Mugford’s evidence is that she was far less imaginative than Jeremy’s supporters think.
Assuming that nobody doubts that the relatives suspected Jeremy before he fell out with Julie, it’s more than just likely that they communicated their suspicions to her and, given that they had suspicions, its likely that they would have tried to put together a plausible narrative.
Jeremy was regarded as a bit of Nancy boy, so they say. It would have been hard for them to imagine him carrying out the shootings himself, so perhaps one of them just suggested that he probably hired a hitman, and MacDonald’s name was mentioned, just because the idea seemed plausible. Or, maybe they just said “hired killer” or words to that effect and Julie herself just thought it would probably be MacDonald.
Julie was a working class girl. She would have seen Jeremy’s relatives as “posh” and with an air of authority about them. She would have taken their suspicions very seriously. At any rate the likes of Roger Wilkes and more recently Bob Woffinden certainly did.
-
Here’s a suggestion based upon the way plausibility becomes an important consideration when it comes to building a case when real evidence lacking. My basic theory concerning Julie Mugford’s evidence is that she was far less imaginative than Jeremy’s supporters think.
Assuming that nobody doubts that the relatives suspected Jeremy before he fell out with Julie, it’s more than just likely that they communicated their suspicions to her and, given that they had suspicions, its likely that they would have tried to put together a plausible narrative.
Jeremy was regarded as a bit of Nancy boy, so they say. It would have been hard for them to imagine him carrying out the shootings himself, so perhaps one of them just suggested that he probably hired a hitman, and MacDonald’s name was mentioned, just because the idea seemed plausible. Or, maybe they just said “hired killer” or words to that effect and Julie herself just thought it would probably be MacDonald.
Julie was a working class girl. She would have seen Jeremy’s relatives as “posh” and with an air of authority about them. She would have taken their suspicions very seriously. At any rate the likes of Roger Wilkes and more recently Bob Woffinden certainly did.
What a good post,Martin. I,for one didn't believe that Julie Mugford had much between the ears,and yes,she would have been influenced by the relatives,,who weren't exactly close to Jeremys' family.
There's never any love lost between families where business is concerned. Believe me.
-
I think that the NOTW knew they'd be working with her in the future, most people began to become wise to the fact that Jeremy Bamber had actually odne the killings and that Julie had a story to tell, the NOTW wanted the story - so they kept her on side.
I don't recall Julie saying that she had never stayed in a hotel paid for by the NOTW so I don't think it will be a problem.
Also, even if the defence did manage to get Julie in the U.K (which I can't see them doing) I don't even think they'd know what to do with her.
Oh yes they would!
-
Oh yes they would!
I truly do wonder, NGB. I'm not sure Simon knows how to get her over. If it was blocked by a judge as has been suggested - then it means he tried and failed already.
But if Simon somehow managed to force her over - he wouldn't be able to show her any more likely to lie than the judge did in the original trial and whilst she's hear if she gives a press interview or two - it will all end up even worse for Bamber.
Simon McKay would only be able to cross examine Julie Mugford if the Court of Appeal allowed an application for her to be called as a witness. Simon can only make that application following a referral of the case to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC. Obviously currently we are some way from that happening. If leave is given I believe the evidence would be very helpful to the defence case. It would now be possible seriously to weaken Julie Mugford's credibility as a witness, in a way which would not have been possible in 2002.
Admin note: Sorry - I edited this post instead of replying to it.
-
With respect I think this is a misreading of the situation. Julie repeated what Jeremy told her and her statement runs as a resume of her life with him for the two years she had known him. Was there ever an occasion when Julie saw Jeremy's relatives privately-I very much doubt it as she was busy with teaching practice and they were hardly likely to bad-mouth Jeremy to his face in Julie's company. The five weeks following the murders Julie was with Jeremy and her friends at various locations as they travelled,ate out and made preparations for the funerals.
As for Julie being dim or words to that effect,I can assure you that Northern grammar schools in the 1980s following the O Level curriculum were no push-over,and Altrincham Grammar School for Girls was and still is placed in the higher echelons of those elite schools. Julie would have been pushed by her teachers and would have received an education of a very high standard.
-
With respect I think this is a misreading of the situation. Julie repeated what Jeremy told her and her statement runs as a resume of her life with him for the two years she had known him. Was there ever an occasion when Julie saw Jeremy's relatives privately-I very much doubt it as she was busy with teaching practice and they were hardly likely to bad-mouth Jeremy to his face in Julie's company. The five weeks following the murders Julie was with Jeremy and her friends at various locations as they travelled,ate out and made preparations for the funerals.
As for Julie being dim or words to that effect,I can assure you that Northern grammar schools in the 1980s following the O Level curriculum were no push-over,and Altrincham Grammar School for Girls was and still is placed in the higher echelons of those elite schools. Julie would have been pushed by her teachers and would have received an education of a very high standard.
We only have her word of what Jeremy supposedly told her, there is no concrete evidence that such conversations ever took place. Unless you can prove it of course, can you?
Sorry Steve, but her education has nothing to do with anything, has it? :) :) :) :)
-
We only have her word of what Jeremy supposedly told her, there is no concrete evidence that such conversations ever took place. Unless you can prove it of course, can you?
Sorry Steve, but her education has nothing to do with anything, has it? :) :) :) :)
To suggest that Julie had "nothing between the ears" is insulting:it's insulting to teachers,it doesn't add anything to the debate and is just plain wrong.
As for Julie's statement,she does mention that a glove came off in the fight with Nevill,which I'm not sure was ever released to the press,along with Jeremy's sustained wish to do away with his family mentioned in various contexts to witnesses from December 1984,who I put to you,cannot all be lying.
-
To suggest that Julie had "nothing between the ears" is insulting:it's insulting to teachers,it doesn't add anything to the debate and is just plain wrong.
As for Julie's statement,she does mention that a glove came off in the fight with Nevill,which I'm not sure was ever released to the press,along with Jeremy's sustained wish to do away with his family mentioned in various contexts to witnesses from December 1984,who I put to you,cannot all be lying.
Steve I have not suggested that all. Show me in my post where i am supposed to have suggested Julie had nothing between the ears please?
I am merely suggesting to you, that her education had nothing to do with the case what so ever. Her education did not stop her from burglary, cheque fraud and taking drugs.
Where is it documented that a glove came off? :) :) :) :)
-
Steve I have not suggested that all. Show me in my post where i am supposed to have suggested Julie had nothing between the ears please?
I am merely suggesting to you, that her education had nothing to do with the case what so ever. Her education did not stop her from burglary, cheque fraud and taking drugs.
Where is it documented that a glove came off? :) :) :) :)
#67 used words to that effect. I was answering a variety of points in one thread and whoever alleged it is wrong. Julie vouchsafed that a glove came off in the fight with Nevill which if made up,Julie was taking a risk as she had no way of knowing whether forensics could have verified this or not.
-
#67 used words to that effect. I was answering a variety of points in one thread and whoever alleged it is wrong. Julie vouchsafed that a glove came off in the fight with Nevill which if made up,Julie was taking a risk as she had no way of knowing whether forensics could have verified this or not.
Steve I wouldn't say such a thin, it is not in my nature....to be personal too about someone... I recognise that it was an ordeal for everyone and, it must have been very difficult to have to come to terms with it all....
Sometime we strive for answers when we get hurt and we hit out at those around us.... :) :) :)
-
We only have her word of what Jeremy supposedly told her, there is no concrete evidence that such conversations ever took place. Unless you can prove it of course, can you?
Sorry Steve, but her education has nothing to do with anything, has it? :) :) :) :)
The quality of the police and their investigating standards were then and now poor, this was in a sense a plea bargain information without material proof in exchange for not arresting her.
-
The quality of the police and their investigating standards were then and now poor, this was in a sense a plea bargain information without material proof in exchange for not arresting her.
Mertol :)
I have a great respect for our police force, unfortunately its the minority that spoil of the majority. Some time they get it wrong Mertol but, the majority of the time they get it right....They are only human....If they were not too tied up in paper work they could do what they are trained to do and that is policing....There is good and bad.....Good night Mertol :) :) :) :)
-
The question that needs to be put to anti members is an ultra clear one, did mugford have a moral right to that money? no human could profit from such events and have no thought to what they have done ,
-
The quality of the police and their investigating standards were then and now poor, this was in a sense a plea bargain information without material proof in exchange for not arresting her.
So poor and corrupt were police at this time that it led to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Pace). This was in response to public disquiet over serious MOJ's which had come to light (Birmingham 6 , Guildford 4 , Carl Bridgewater 4 ) which were provably based on false and fabricated evidence including forged confessions , beating confessions out of suspects etc . This sort of corruption was/is institutionalised in the police and bringing in new rules does not suddenly change cheating, lying thugs into upstanding public servants . It just shifts the goalposts and I believe that their are many police who are corrupt .
-
The question that needs to be put to anti members is an ultra clear one, did mugford have a moral right to that money? no human could profit from such events and have no thought to what they have done ,
Her payment was for the stress of having to testify in the witness box and the notoriety of becoming a public figure with the ramifications that brought for her career. I reiterate:she was a good and truthful witness who earned every penny of the £15,000 sum.
-
So poor and corrupt were police at this time that it led to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Pace). This was in response to public disquiet over serious MOJ's which had come to light (Birmingham 6 , Guildford 4 , Carl Bridgewater 4 ) which were provably based on false and fabricated evidence including forged confessions , beating confessions out of suspects etc . This sort of corruption was/is institutionalised in the police and bringing in new rules does not suddenly change cheating, lying thugs into upstanding public servants . It just shifts the goalposts and I believe that their are many police who are corrupt .
A local female police officer told me a few weeks ago there are good and bad cops, a wholesale disposal of the bad can start now for starters, waste the money on making tanks just get them out.
-
Her payment was for the stress of having to testify in the witness box and the notoriety of becoming a public figure with the ramifications that brought for her career. I reiterate:she was a good and truthful witness who earned every penny of the £15,000 sum.
stress is an illness i thought help/medication is the normal solution not financial reward you cant be all that stressed to recieve a cheque.
-
There are indeed,Gringo,some of them being worse than the criminals themselves.
I tell of a different story of Jeremys',which was posted by himself yesterday,Sunday,and it starts by saying that he's in the process of having a televised interview coming up.
He goes on to say that there are 3.5million electronic documents being held by himself and his team which includes material from all different judicial departments and investigations. No-one holds these documents in one place collectively,so putting the team in a very strong position.
The case files are made up of::: Home Office files,,,CPS files,,,Forensic Science Services files,,,Appeal Court files,,,all of Jeremys' files,,,all of Jeremys' Barristers files,,,Jeremys' solicitors files,,,IPCC files,,,CCRC files,,,The Dickinson Enquiry files,,,The Metropolitan ( Stokenchurch files ),,,Civil Case files,,,Judicial Reviews,,a copy of the the police Holmes2 computer files,,,media files,,,Correspondence files,,,research files,,,law reports,,,forensic expert files,,,photographs and material from Jeremys' prison files.
No-one else has all this material in one place.
Jeremy continues to say that by reading 500 pages each day for 365 days a year,it would take 19 years and 4 months to read everything once. More evidence is being discovered on a daily basis by Jeremy and his teams,both legal and admin.
-
Her payment was for the stress of having to testify in the witness box and the notoriety of becoming a public figure with the ramifications that brought for her career. I reiterate:she was a good and truthful witness who earned every penny of the £15,000 sum.
Witnesses aren't meant to "earn" anything steve .
-
She deserved the money,it was the way the system worked and the way the system still does work.
-
She deserved the money,it was the way the system worked and the way the system still does work.
Yeah,corrupt.You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.!
-
Yeah,corrupt.You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.!
No,not really..it was for the disruption to her career as the Inner London Education Authority suspended her from teaching,and if this isn't a cause of stress I don't know what would be. She taught for two further years in Britain before going on a world trip,where she met her future husband,and started a family in Canada at the same time as taking her chosen career up again,and engaging in charity work for the local community. She has stuck to her statement for 27 years and has never once been gainsaid by any of her British friends,unlike Jeremy's set who have mostly deserted him.
-
She deserved the money,it was the way the system worked and the way the system still does work.
She did not "deserve" the money . That is a bizarre thing to claim .
-
No,not really..it was for the disruption to her career as the Inner London Education Authority suspended her from teaching,and if this isn't a cause of stress I don't know what would be. She taught for two further years in Britain before going on a world trip,where she met her future husband,and started a family in Canada at the same time as taking her chosen career up again,and engaging in charity work for the local community. She has stuck to her statement for 27 years and has never once been gainsaid by any of her British friends,unlike Jeremy's set who have mostly deserted him.
So if it's all perfectly ok why don't the prosecution just admit this . Is it perhaps because you are alone in your view of this and everybody else understands why it seriously damages JM's credibility and with it the whole conviction .
-
If mugford gave that money to a worthy cause i would be in the guilty side, its one thing sinking that low to take the money,
-
Her payment was for the stress of having to testify in the witness box and the notoriety of becoming a public figure with the ramifications that brought for her career. I reiterate:she was a good and truthful witness who earned every penny of the £15,000 sum.
Rubbish. She had no stress. She was paid for selling her soul.
-
If mugford gave that money to a worthy cause i would be in the guilty side, its one thing sinking that low to take the money, Andy Warhol saeveryone will be famous for 15 min take that as you will.
True mertol, that was blood money...if she cared two jots about sheila and the twins...what about a charity for schizophrenics, or any children's charity. It was such a dreadful crime if commited by a sane person that what decent person would want the money..... most people wouldn't want to touch it....so who was the one who loved money, I wonder??
-
True mertol, that was blood money...if she cared two jots about sheila and the twins...what about a charity for schizophrenics, or any children's charity. It was such a dreadful crime if commited by a sane person that what decent person would want the money..... most people wouldn't want to touch it....so who was the one who loved money, I wonder??
I've always said she was the greedy and scheming one,Maggie. No thought for anyone else but herself I'm afraid and she wasn't fussy whose toes she trod on in getting her own way,as long as she had someone to blame ( Jeremy Muggins ) she was alright------------Jack.
-
If mugford gave that money to a worthy cause i would be in the guilty side, its one thing sinking that low to take the money,
So suddenly you'd accept ALL the other evidence against Bamber if Julie had given that money to charity?
-
So suddenly you'd accept ALL the other evidence against Bamber if Julie had given that money to charity?
Fickle,obstinate and dismissive of six other witnesses' testimonies.
-
Fickle,obstinate and dismissive of six other witnesses' testimonies.
Yeah.
I don't think that Mertol is making sense - he bangs on about not liking our legal system, about corruption.......but then says he would agree with Bambers conviction if Julie had given the ££ to charity.
-
Fickle,obstinate and dismissive of six other witnesses' testimonies.
Steve,,will you be watching Jeremys' forthcoming televised interview.? It'll be good you know.You can always turn the volume down if you don't like the sound of his voice.
-
without her statement the case would have been hard to proceed , the police were well aware of that , the press is perhaps the best way to expose things true or not, the press were ready and wanted the story everything in this case changes upon mugfords coming forward not before thus preventing the deaths but after , and that i find convienient.
-
Yeah.
I don't think that Mertol is making sense - he bangs on about not liking our legal system, about corruption.......but then says he would agree with Bambers conviction if Julie had given the ££ to charity.
Mat...mertol was saying quite clearly that if Julie had given her money to charity she would have shown she wasn't on the make. I dont really think that is hard to understand imo.
-
Mat...mertol was saying quite clearly that if Julie had given her money to charity she would have shown she wasn't on the make. I dont really think that is hard to understand imo.
I think it's strange that giving the money to charity could flip his opinion completely.
-
Yeah.
I don't think that Mertol is making sense - he bangs on about not liking our legal system, about corruption.......but then says he would agree with Bambers conviction if Julie had given the ££ to charity.
mat if anyone is telling me our country is a fine beacon of standards law and order they are wrong, the horrible amount of crime in our land is unacceptable its time a gun was placed at thugs heads telling them commit such crimes and you get a bullet, as this will not happen the murders go on till no one is left /
-
The silencer should have never made a court , jm has a lot to answer for, if i ever had a son or brother in the situation as jeremy i would do all in my power to get to the truth, the only stress she may have had is when she was dumped, its what followed that is in question.
-
mat if anyone is telling me our country is a fine beacon of standards law and order they are wrong, the horrible amount of crime in our land is unacceptable its time a gun was placed at thugs heads telling them commit such crimes and you get a bullet, as this will not happen the murders go on till no one is left /
Ok.
-
I think it's strange that giving the money to charity could flip his opinion completely.
Mat, I am on a truce with you but you are bullying Mertol. You are attacking Mertol for saying something he believes in...can't you see that, I personally think Mertol's argument is good and if you can't get it well??
-
Mat, I am on a truce with you but you are bullying Mertol. You are attacking Mertol for saying something he believes in...can't you see that, I personally think Mertol's argument is good and if you can't get it well??
I am bullying Mertol...............
Ok, Maggie.
-
Steve,,will you be watching Jeremys' forthcoming televised interview.? It'll be good you know.You can always turn the volume down if you don't like the sound of his voice.
I wouldn't give that double child murderer any air time at all,apart from filling his lungs with fresh Scottish air denied Nicholas and Daniel all those days it's plastered on the front of this website Jeremy has been incarcerated.
-
I am bullying Mertol...............
Ok, Maggie.
Good evening Matthew
I'm just retiring for the evening having part watched the tennis. I trust you're behaving and not causing anyone to ...how very dare you ;D ;D ;D.
Goodnight
x
-
Good evening Matthew
I'm just retiring for the evening having part watched the tennis. I trust you're behaving and not causing anyone to ...how very dare you ;D ;D ;D.
Goodnight
x
;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm not, what are you insinuating? How very dare you.... :)
Goodnight! x
-
So if it's all perfectly ok why don't the prosecution just admit this . Is it perhaps because you are alone in your view of this and everybody else understands why it seriously damages JM's credibility and with it the whole conviction .
I'm not so sure that it does damage her credibility to the extent that some people are suggesting.
I'm guessing that the argument is that JM would have had an insentive to give evidence against Jeremy as she would receive payment for her story if he was convicted?
It's certainly a good argument and as the deal was well known to both the defence and the prosecution at trial, the prosecution must have been extremely concerned that it could have been used by the defence to counter her evidence.
Whether a contract was signed or not, I don't know, but JM does have quite a lot going in her favour.
The fact that any deal was put together by a solicitor on her behalf distances JM from it to a certain degree.
The fact that JM went to the police and gave statements a long time before any story selling took place, could show that she acted before any potential insentive came about, particularly when you consider that her story never changed from her 8/9/85 statement onwards.
The fact that the judge stated Jeremy could be found guilty on the silencer evidence alone, makes JM's evidence less important, to the extent that I could see the CCRC simply saying that even without her evidence they don't belive the jury would have arrived at a different decision.
I wouldn't mind seeing a transcrript of JM's court evidence if one exists.
-
steve-uk Good Morning. Thought you should be aware that Scotland may invade England due to your proposals for all CatA prisoners. Better find somewhere else for them have you been to Scotland and had a bad holiday at sometime and this is why you have singled Scotland out :)
-
I wouldn't give that double child murderer any air time at all,apart from filling his lungs with fresh Scottish air denied Nicholas and Daniel all those days it's plastered on the front of this website Jeremy has been incarcerated.
Dear Steve,,,I'm surprised at you. I thought you might throw away those blinkers and at least see the other side of this case.Sensible people do,you know.
Some cases stand out more where you know who the culprit is,and believe me,I feel strongly about child killers/rapists,etc,,but this particular case needs more in-depth thought about what went wrong during the overall investigation as it doesn't sit right at all,and when something isn't straight forward,it needs thoroughly investigating,and sadly this didn't happen. Therefore JB's conviction was/is very unsafe.
-
steve-uk Good Morning. Thought you should be aware that Scotland may invade England due to your proposals for all CatA prisoners. Better find somewhere else for them have you been to Scotland and had a bad holiday at sometime and this is why you have singled Scotland out :)
No but lifers and incurables need the space away from the public gaze which Scotland as a country affords.
-
With respect I think this is a misreading of the situation. Julie repeated what Jeremy told her and her statement runs as a resume of her life with him for the two years she had known him. Was there ever an occasion when Julie saw Jeremy's relatives privately-I very much doubt it as she was busy with teaching practice and they were hardly likely to bad-mouth Jeremy to his face in Julie's company. The five weeks following the murders Julie was with Jeremy and her friends at various locations as they travelled,ate out and made preparations for the funerals.
As for Julie being dim or words to that effect,I can assure you that Northern grammar schools in the 1980s following the O Level curriculum were no push-over,and Altrincham Grammar School for Girls was and still is placed in the higher echelons of those elite schools. Julie would have been pushed by her teachers and would have received an education of a very high standard.
The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.
Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.
I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.
I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.
It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.
"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."
-
Morning steve I am on my way out just now but will talk to you about this when I get back. So beware of my wrath :)
-
The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.
Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.
I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.
I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.
It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.
"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."
An excellent post in my view.
-
Dear Steve,,,I'm surprised at you. I thought you might throw away those blinkers and at least see the other side of this case.Sensible people do,you know.
Some cases stand out more where you know who the culprit is,and believe me,I feel strongly about child killers/rapists,etc,,but this particular case needs more in-depth thought about what went wrong during the overall investigation as it doesn't sit right at all,and when something isn't straight forward,it needs thoroughly investigating,and sadly this didn't happen. Therefore JB's conviction was/is very unsafe.
There is no other side to the case unfortunately:Jeremy limited the suspects to two with the non-existent telephone call from Nevill,whom none of the Police manning the phones at the time recalled speaking to personally.
Jeremy is playing the same attention-seeking trick akin to when he used to balance a wine glass on his forehead in front of his adoptive parents,both of whom he slayed,along with his new rivals the twins and his sister,none of whom were blood relations.
There were several occasions when Jeremy could have gravitated away from the course he chose:his scuba diving career which was apparently closed to him when June allegedly dropped him as a baby,thus causing a weakness in the skull area,there was the relationship with Suzette Ford which tragically did not provide a family of his own to minister,and there was Julie,who doted on Jeremy and indulged him and would have made a good wife,in contrast to the Anji Greaves fly-by-night types.Some life chances where Jeremy may have been more sinned against than sinning,yet still he is bent on murder.
It's time for his natural parents to swallow hard, make the long journey up north,book into a hotel in Pocklington and meet their son for the first time in 50 years.
-
The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.
Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.
I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.
I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.
It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.
"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."
Well it's wrong because Julie was with her friends and Jeremy and his hangers-on and the relatives were on the other side and as far as I'm aware they never conversed apart from small talk at the funerals. Julie also mentions in her statement that Jeremy alluded to a glove coming off in the fight with Ralph(Nevill),albeit Jeremy mentions Matthew McDonald as the killer,and I'm not sure this detail was ever released to the press,neither am I sure as to when the details about the struggle with Nevill were released to the newspapers.
-
The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.
Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.
I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.
I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.
It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.
"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."
Well done again,Martin.
-
Hi steve-uk Just back from walking and thought about you on my travels. I have come to the conclusion that you are just trying to wind me suggesting all CatA prisoners are sent to Scotland to be housed. You and I know this is not possible and would not be allowed by the Scottish Parliament. Also you seem to know so much about Julie Mugford and I am thinking their is a personal connection. Now don't be getting cross it is just a thought as you are so defensive about her.
-
The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.
Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.
I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.
I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.
It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.
"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."
Really interesting observations Martin .
-
There is no other side to the case unfortunately:Jeremy limited the suspects to two with the non-existent telephone call from Nevill,whom none of the Police manning the phones at the time recalled speaking to personally.
Jeremy is playing the same attention-seeking trick akin to when he used to balance a wine glass on his forehead in front of his adoptive parents,both of whom he slayed,along with his new rivals the twins and his sister,none of whom were blood relations.
There were several occasions when Jeremy could have gravitated away from the course he chose:his scuba diving career which was apparently closed to him when June allegedly dropped him as a baby,thus causing a weakness in the skull area,there was the relationship with Suzette Ford which tragically did not provide a family of his own to minister,and there was Julie,who doted on Jeremy and indulged him and would have made a good wife,in contrast to the Anji Greaves fly-by-night types.Some life chances where Jeremy may have been more sinned against than sinning,yet still he is bent on murder.
It's time for his natural parents to swallow hard, make the long journey up north,book into a hotel in Pocklington and meet their son for the first time in 50 years.
Morning Steve_uk
I'm intrigued...What would be the purpose of JB's birth parents visting JB at HMP?
-
Morning Steve_uk
I'm intrigued...What would be the purpose of JB's birth parents visting JB at HMP?
It might give JB the opportunity to confess - blaiming it all on his birth parents of course!
-
Hi Nickos how are you today. Jeremy would have genes from his natural birth parents which to a certain extent would form part of his character. But the environment a child is brought up in determines so much to how his character is formed I am sure you have heard of the saying "Give me the child and I'll give you the man.
-
Hi Nickos how are you today. Jeremy would have genes from his natural birth parents which to a certain extent would form part of his character. But the environment a child is brought up in determines so much to how his character is formed I am sure you have heard of the saying "Give me the child and I'll give you the man.
Hi susie i,
I'm fine thanks x , how about you?
Yes, nature and nurture!
Nature - can of course produce "alternatives" to the original gene profile!
Nurture - a lot of wrong ingredients unfortunately went into JB's and SC's upbringing, creating some let’s say interesting individuals.
I wonder if an emotional, possibly confrontational, meeting between JB and his birth parents might trigger a confessional response in JB - who knows!!
-
Hi Nickos yes how a child is brought up can have such an effect on their behaviour as they get older. Whether Jeremy meeting his birth parents would have had a profound effect on him I'm not qualified to say april has a degree in psychology so she could answer that one. steve's suggestion to send Jeremy to a Scottish Island would make him feel he wished to confess is of course pure nonsense :)
-
Morning Steve_uk
I'm intrigued...What would be the purpose of JB's birth parents visting JB at HMP?
I think it might give Jeremy a perspective on life,where his roots lay and possibly even a second chance with his natural parents. What a twist of fate that his mother gave up Jeremy for adoption to save her husband's career-all because of the morals of the time of the Royals and their set,when subsequently we have seen how hypocritical those morals turned out to be with the likes of Charles,Fergie,Andrew,Diana..they were all at it. I don't know,but maybe Jeremy might finally turn a corner with some love from his natural mother and find a spark with his natural father,instead of those cold,aloof figures he was placed with,well-intentioned as they might have been.
-
Hi Nickos yes how a child is brought up can have such an effect on their behaviour as they get older. Whether Jeremy meeting his birth parents would have had a profound effect on him I'm not qualified to say april has a degree in psychology so she could answer that one. steve's suggestion to send Jeremy to a Scottish Island would make him feel he wished to confess is of course pure nonsense :)
Susan, there are so many variables attached to this one that it's difficult to know where to start. I've known of birth familys meeting with very happy outcomes, whereas others have been a disaster. In one instance the behaviour of the adopted child towards the birth parent was totally inappropriate but there was only 16 years between them and neither had been given guidance about the reactions and emotions that may result from their meeting.
I'm not even going to speculate on how Jeremy might feel about the prospect of meeting his birth parents, but in any case, its hypothetical and has, to my knowledge only been suggested by someone who seems to have little understanding of how delicate a situation it would be. What I am able to tell you is that it's my experience that adopted boys are less curious about their birth parents than adopted girls although I'm aware that it's hardly conclusive evidence.
-
Dismissing the sociologists' psychobabble of the previous posts,I'm afraid there isn't much left for Jeremy in the way of relationships I can see for him. He's had the brief fumbles,the sexual encounters with trainee Policewomen and the council tenants' women who are curious about the man and make a quick buck on the side when they sell their correspondence to the highest Sunday tabloid bidder. It's time for Jeremy to develop a chronic stable relationship with people who at least share the same DNA and to whom Jeremy feels he can confide in,and yes,this may well result in a confession. A Scottish island like Staffa with Fingal's Cave might well be the change of environment Jeremy needs,instead of the constant heat of the latest legal drama highlighted by the mass media for their own ends,who ultimately do not have Jeremy's welfare at heart.
-
Susan, there are so many variables attached to this one that it's difficult to know where to start. I've known of birth familys meeting with very happy outcomes, whereas others have been a disaster. In one instance the behaviour of the adopted child towards the birth parent was totally inappropriate but there was only 16 years between them and neither had been given guidance about the reactions and emotions that may result from their meeting.
I'm not even going to speculate on how Jeremy might feel about the prospect of meeting his birth parents, but in any case, its hypothetical and has, to my knowledge only been suggested by someone who seems to have little understanding of how delicate a situation it would be. What I am able to tell you is that it's my experience that adopted boys are less curious about their birth parents than adopted girls although I'm aware that it's hardly conclusive evidence.
I wonder why Sheila had only latterly decided to contact her birth mother,rather than sooner.
-
The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.
Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.
I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.
I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.
It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.
"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."
These are exactly my own thoughts also Martin!
-
Morning april trust you are well. Thanks for your thoughts on the Jeremy and his birth parents. I read that after Jeremy was convicted he did request to meet his natural parents but his Father made it quite clear that was not going to happen and he thought Jeremy was a horrible or words to that effect young man. Personnally I think he was out of order he and his wife were responsible for creating Jeremy and to pass the buck as they did and not accept any responsibility tells me quite a lot about them as people. I will never understand how a Mother can reject her child irrespective of what they had done. When Jeremy was convicted he was left in this world without anyone which I think is so sad everybody needs and deserves somebody. I did read that Jeremy had met with his step sisters not sure what happened there.
-
Morning Susan, I'm well, thank you.
Curious thing about Jeremy's birth parents. Whether or not they choose to acknowledge it, they DO have to live with the incontraversial fact that life for the son they gave up for adoption would have been entirely different had they not made that decision, so is it shame or guilt which prompts their declining to see Jeremy. I would have thought his siblings would have been curious to meet him, unless they are bound by "what would people say" and loyalty to their parents, they won't have the same constraints. Like you, I find it SO sad that he has nobody, adopted or natural, who he can call family.
-
The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.
Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.
I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.
I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.
It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.
"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."
I found this post quite resonant.
-
It might give JB the opportunity to confess - blaiming it all on his birth parents of course!
I don't see that as a possibility
If guilty,JB has no reason to confess. He on whole life so he won't get parole. Whilst there is any shred of doubt in his conviction ( assuming he's guilty ) he should keep quiet and continue his life in incarcerated comparative luxury.
If he were taken off whole life term,that changes things. If all other efforts were exhausted,he'd served his 30 years,there would be good reason to confess,even if your innocent. That way,however small,there is a hope of parole.
If he doesn't recognise his guilt,he'll stay in whatever. ( if he's innocent or guilty and all appeal avenues are exhausted )
IMO he's at the tipping point in his life.
Assuming he will not be successfully at appeal, one wonders if he is able to overturn the whole life term,and negotiate an exit to the satisfaction of all.
I am aware that would be very difficult,especially for the relations, but if you said to him that he'd be free aged 60, permanent Tag, 200 mile exclusion order and press gagged, I bet he'd take it.....
-
She deserved the money,it was the way the system worked and the way the system still does work.
She deserved to be slung in prison IMO. Unfortunately it is the way the system works, incentives are given for prosecution witness testimony, which can include financial reward, serious charges being dropped against them, and guilty people also getting away with murder.
If there is enough strong evidence for charges to be made which is likely to gain a conviction there should be no reason for deals to be made.
-
She deserved to be slung in prison IMO. Unfortunately it is the way the system works, incentives are given for prosecution witness testimony, which can include financial reward, serious charges being dropped against them, and guilty people also getting away with murder.
If there is enough strong evidence for charges to be made which is likely to gain a conviction there should be no reason for deals to be made.
This is a good point. Flip it on its' head. If in order to obtain prosecution witness testimony, there has to be an incentive of financial reward and an incentive of having serious charges being dropped, then what does that tell you about the strength of the evidence in general?
Throw in to the mix, the role of The Sun newspaper. If you have to call upon The Sun, to aid in paving the way for somebody being damned... what does that tell you?
Financial incentive
Immunity incentive
Tabloid damnation
-
I don't see that as a possibility
If guilty,JB has no reason to confess. He on whole life so he won't get parole. Whilst there is any shred of doubt in his conviction ( assuming he's guilty ) he should keep quiet and continue his life in incarcerated comparative luxury.
If he were taken off whole life term,that changes things. If all other efforts were exhausted,he'd served his 30 years,there would be good reason to confess,even if your innocent. That way,however small,there is a hope of parole.
If he doesn't recognise his guilt,he'll stay in whatever. ( if he's innocent or guilty and all appeal avenues are exhausted )
IMO he's at the tipping point in his life.
Assuming he will not be successfully at appeal, one wonders if he is able to overturn the whole life term,and negotiate an exit to the satisfaction of all.
I am aware that would be very difficult,especially for the relations, but if you said to him that he'd be free aged 60, permanent Tag, 200 mile exclusion order and press gagged, I bet he'd take it.....
Yes,Jeremy will die in prison if it means him fighting for the justice and freedom that he deserves. He is continually pleading his innocence and the only thing keeping him sane is the proof of thousands of files/documents he's compiled over the years,3.5 million to be precise.
Would anyone bother doing this if they were guilty.? I don't think so,they just sit back and take their punishment,or try and commit suicide,or even succeed.
Jeremy doesn't need to bargain or negotiate with anyone. Why.?
Just subpoena JM and make her tell the truth for once,give her a polygraph test,I bet she wouldn't be as willing as JB to have one.
-
She deserved to be slung in prison IMO. Unfortunately it is the way the system works, incentives are given for prosecution witness testimony, which can include financial reward, serious charges being dropped against them, and guilty people also getting away with murder.
If there is enough strong evidence for charges to be made which is likely to gain a conviction there should be no reason for deals to be made.
You misunderstand Julie,who chose a demanding career and has stuck to that demanding career,not to make a fast buck as her charity work in Canada is another testament to. Julie was a pretty young woman and it's easy to see why he was attracted to her. She had fallen in love with Jeremy as 20 year olds are wont to do. However the Jeremy she thought she knew possessed that clandestine lethal streak,which having observed for herself after the murders with Jeremy's behaviour towards Colin to name but one,set her on the appropriate course.
-
You misunderstand Julie,who chose a demanding career and has stuck to that demanding career,not to make a fast buck as her charity work in Canada is another testament to. Julie was a pretty young woman and it's easy to see why he was attracted to her. She had fallen in love with Jeremy as 20 year olds are wont to do. However the Jeremy she thought she knew possessed that clandestine lethal streak,which having observed for herself after the murders with Jeremy's behaviour towards Colin to name but one,set her on the appropriate course.
If,,as you believe,that Jeremy committed the murders,then why did he suddenly decide to drop JB at a crucial time when he'd need her on his side.? She didn't drop him,as many a woman WOULD have done if they'd realised what he'd done,but she was still willing to sleep with him,etc.etc.
I'd have ran a mile,,the first port of call being the police station if what he was purported to have said had been true.
-
Yes,Jeremy will die in prison if it means him fighting for the justice and freedom that he deserves. He is continually pleading his innocence and the only thing keeping him sane is the proof of thousands of files/documents he's compiled over the years,3.5 million to be precise.
Would anyone bother doing this if they were guilty.? I don't think so,they just sit back and take their punishment,or try and commit suicide,or even succeed.
Jeremy doesn't need to bargain or negotiate with anyone. Why.?
Just subpoena JM and make her tell the truth for once,give her a polygraph test,I bet she wouldn't be as willing as JB to have one.
Well,I suppose it passes the time of day.
-
If,,as you believe,that Jeremy committed the murders,then why did he suddenly decide to drop JB at a crucial time when he'd need her on his side.? She didn't drop him,as many a woman WOULD have done if they'd realised what he'd done,but she was still willing to sleep with him,etc.etc.
I'd have ran a mile,,the first port of call being the police station if what he was purported to have said had been true.
Because she was in love. It's what makes the world go round and in Julie's case makes her oblivious to Jeremy's faults however heinous to another person. Jeremy had become arrogant,he had been questioned by Taff Jones and let go and in Jeremy's mind that was the end of it. The carpets and bedding had been burned at White House Farm and the four murders and a suicide was still the official verdict. Jeremy had money coming to him,he had installed himself in the Maida Vale flat and he had Anji Greaves at the end of a telephone line. Why should he tie himself down at 24 years of age with Julie,when it would be his word against hers in the witness box? Jeremy paid Julie off with £400 and thought that was the end of the affair;he even helped her to move house so there was no animosity involved,just Jeremy at that stage of his life felt a new sense of freedom he had never experienced before with his parents gone and he was going to make the most of it.
-
Well,I suppose it passes the time of day.
Very weak in my opinion. It's derisive to cast off immense efforts, by using such a weak over used one-liner.
-
Well,I suppose it passes the time of day.
Passes the time of day.? Would you bother putting together 3.5 million documents if you were guilty.?
-
Very weak in my opinion. It's derisive to cast off immense efforts, by using such a weak over used one-liner.
I'm feeling very weak at the moment though.
I'm not deriding the immense efforts by using a weak one-liner.
I'm trying to forward the alternate way to spring JB.
Anyhow, faced with a life behind bars, he's made his bed.
He gone for the overturning the conviction route.
Maybe the contrition route ultimately may of got him out earlier.
Guilty or innocent, he's still behind bars. Surely you cannot dismiss any options?
-
Sometimes your posts are really weak Steve. I think you need to remove your head from where the sun doesn't shine.
-
Hi Lookout I have discussed this issue many times about Julie carrying on having an intimate relationship with Jeremy after she had identified the two little boys in the morgue and carrying on as normal knowing as she has said that Jeremy told her in advance he was going to murder his family. I have posted to steve on this point several times and the only answer he has come up with "Love is Blind"and she was frightened of Jeremy was another reason she did not go to the police.
-
Sometimes your posts are really weak Steve. I think you need to remove your head from where the sun doesn't shine.
Well your post I've quoted here is the weakest of any I've ever read on the Jeremy Bamber Forum. It adds nothing to the debate whatsoever,it counters with nothing,and is just one way of delivering personal invective.
-
Hi Lookout I have discussed this issue many times about Julie carrying on having an intimate relationship with Jeremy after she had identified the two little boys in the morgue and carrying on as normal knowing as she has said that Jeremy told her in advance he was going to murder his family. I have posted to steve on this point several times and the only answer he has come up with "Love is Blind"and she was frightened of Jeremy was another reason she did not go to the police.
She did argue this point with Jeremy many times at Blazers' restaurant in Blackheath and at other places but got no response. Jeremy felt nothing;unless you understand this you will never comprehend how one person could kill five people in cold blood. They were no more than mercy killing to him-don't you get it-in his own mind he was doing everyone a favour-and I might add the biggest favour he was doing to himself.
-
Well your post I've quoted here is the weakest of any I've ever read on the Jeremy Bamber Forum. It adds nothing to the debate whatsoever,it counters with nothing,and is just one way of delivering personal invective.
Ok john.
-
Hi steve just read your post and I think maybe I have had too much sun today or perhaps maybe a funny turn. Did Julie think Jeremy was doing her a favour killing all his family. Did she think she was going to be the next Lady of the Manor. Then she was dumped and all hell was let loose.
-
Because she was in love. It's what makes the world go round and in Julie's case makes her oblivious to Jeremy's faults however heinous to another person. Jeremy had become arrogant,he had been questioned by Taff Jones and let go and in Jeremy's mind that was the end of it. The carpets and bedding had been burned at White House Farm and the four murders and a suicide was still the official verdict. Jeremy had money coming to him,he had installed himself in the Maida Vale flat and he had Anji Greaves at the end of a telephone line. Why should he tie himself down at 24 years of age with Julie,when it would be his word against hers in the witness box? Jeremy paid Julie off with £400 and thought that was the end of the affair;he even helped her to move house so there was no animosity involved,just Jeremy at that stage of his life felt a new sense of freedom he had never experienced before with his parents gone and he was going to make the most of it.
Murder is a very serious accusation,and in this case,it was JM who ( not in as many words ) accused him of and had him convicted.Would she still have gone along with her tissue of lies if he hadn't have dropped her for someone else.? Would she still have continued sleeping with the man to whom she visited his nephews in the morgue,that he supposedly shot.? Would she still have been prepared to have married JB and had his children.? Was she so in love that she couldn't envisage more children being shot.?
I'm damn sure that anyone in their right mind, after seeing two dead children,who were supposedly shot by the man you were sleeping with,would have dobbed him in there and then out of sheer fear and not love for the man. How can anyone be in love with someone like that.? Oblivious my eye. It's because he didn't commit any murders and she knows it.
There may not have been animosity on JB's part,,but there certainly was as far as JM was concerned.
If anyone put on an act at the funeral,it was her. Hard as nails.
-
Hi lookout the moral of this story Julie was not cheap and could not be bought for £400 towards her holiday to Malta she was after bigger fish. In saying that she did cash the cheque before giving her many statements to the police against Jeremy.
-
Murder is a very serious accusation,and in this case,it was JM who ( not in as many words ) accused him of and had him convicted.Would she still have gone along with her tissue of lies if he hadn't have dropped her for someone else.? Would she still have continued sleeping with the man to whom she visited his nephews in the morgue,that he supposedly shot.? Would she still have been prepared to have married JB and had his children.? Was she so in love that she couldn't envisage more children being shot.?
I'm damn sure that anyone in their right mind, after seeing two dead children,who were supposedly shot by the man you were sleeping with,would have dobbed him in there and then out of sheer fear and not love for the man. How can anyone be in love with someone like that.? Oblivious my eye. It's because he didn't commit any murders and she knows it.
There may not have been animosity on JB's part,,but there certainly was as far as JM was concerned.
If anyone put on an act at the funeral,it was her. Hard as nails.
She wasn't hard as nails but as a teacher you have to give out an air of authority and control,as you do in many jobs. This was life in the harsh reality of the 1980s with the mass media telling us night and day that "there was no alternative" and many people including myself as a similar age to Julie then swallowed this mantra hook,line and sinker. Had she been a schemer she would not have continuously questioned Jeremy at every opportunity about the murders(Anji Greaves described this as "giving him mouth")and in these question and answer sessions Julie realized just what kind of a man Jeremy really was,a damaged sociopathic individual incapable after Suzette Ford left him of forming a relationship with any other person. Jeremy couldn't face other people being better than him in any way,he couldn't face anyone being happy;maybe it was the grief of Suzette's miscarriages that turned his mind into psychopathy and turned that last Saturday before the murders the joy of Colin's life,the twins,into "a millstone round your neck".
How anybody can say that about the greatest experience any human being can possibly receive,the joy of raising children and having them around shows to me the workings of Jeremy's mind,and I pity him now,no more,though do wish rehabilitation might take place in some quiet spot away from the media glare,if only I knew to whom Jeremy could unburden himself..
-
Hi steve just read your post and I think maybe I have had too much sun today or perhaps maybe a funny turn. Did Julie think Jeremy was doing her a favour killing all his family. Did she think she was going to be the next Lady of the Manor. Then she was dumped and all hell was let loose.
Not doing her a favour,but putting in his view two mentally ill women out of their misery,an ailing father and two disturbed twins who were a millstone round Colin's neck.
-
steve what you are saying now is Jeremy did not murder his family for his inheritance but merely to put them out of their misery a mercy killing is what you are now implying.
-
steve what you are saying now is Jeremy did not murder his family for his inheritance but merely to put them out of their misery a mercy killing is what you are now implying.
Yes that would be a fair summary. He was doing everyone a favour in his eyes,and he would finally gain the freedom money would bring,without having to run to his parents every five minutes in order to live the kind of lifestyle he aspired to.
-
Yes that would be a fair summary. He was doing everyone a favour in his eyes,and he would finally gain the freedom money would bring,without having to run to his parents every five minutes in order to live the kind of lifestyle he aspired to.
Steve,,you get worse with your theories. Mercy killing.? Don't you think he'd have gone after JM and shut her up too.? Isn't this what psychopaths do too.? Afterall,he may as well have been hung for a sheep as a lamb. He had ample time to see her off don't you think.?
-
Steve,,you get worse with your theories. Mercy killing.? Don't you think he'd have gone after JM and shut her up too.? Isn't this what psychopaths do too.? Afterall,he may as well have been hung for a sheep as a lamb. He had ample time to see her off don't you think.?
No because he'd done what he set out to do and felt an enormous burden had been lifted from him-the laborious farmwork which is 24/7 365 days a year and which did not come natural to him,and for once in his life he controlled the purse strings,exemplified by his feet on Nevill's desk as related by farm secretary Barbara Wilson.
Back in 1 hour.
-
Hi Lookout I don't agree with steve's theories but he makes them so eloquently you can't help but love him I think he really enjoys your posts he will be back in one hour.
-
I'm feeling very weak at the moment though.
I'm not deriding the immense efforts by using a weak one-liner.
I'm trying to forward the alternate way to spring JB.
Anyhow, faced with a life behind bars, he's made his bed.
He gone for the overturning the conviction route.
Maybe the contrition route ultimately may of got him out earlier.
Guilty or innocent, he's still behind bars. Surely you cannot dismiss any options?
Firstly, would TonyB admit to killing five people just to get out of prison, instead of going down the 'overturn the conviction route'. Put your self in the same position. Well would you? Secondly, showing contrition wouldn't matter, due to Home Office intervention circa '94.
If you're suggesting that a guilty JB should go down the contrition route, then why would you want him sprung anyway?
-
She did argue this point with Jeremy many times at Blazers' restaurant in Blackheath and at other places but got no response. Jeremy felt nothing;unless you understand this you will never comprehend how one person could kill five people in cold blood. They were no more than mercy killing to him-don't you get it-in his own mind he was doing everyone a favour-and I might add the biggest favour he was doing to himself.
Please describe (being as you have managed to get inside the head of Jeremy Bamber), just how he thought he was doing everyone a favour?
-
Please describe (being as you have managed to get inside the head of Jeremy Bamber), just how he thought he was doing everyone a favour?
Hi Caroline. WOW!! HOW spooky!!! As I read the quote, I found myself wondering what sort of mind can get into the mind of a supposed psychopath and understand it :o :o :o :o
-
Hi Caroline. WOW!! HOW spooky!!! As I read the quote, I found myself wondering what sort of mind can get into the mind of a supposed psychopath and understand it :o :o :o :o
Another psychopath,April. It takes one to know one.
-
Hi Caroline How are you today. steve did explain to me why he said Jeremy was doing the family a favour by taking their lives from them. Not quoting his exact words but you could read back on his posts if you have a free day. June was a religious maniac, Sheila had mental problems the two little boys were becoming a burden to Colin and he could not cope with them and Ralph was a frail old man.They are not his exact words but very close the only one that maybe different was June her problem was religion. This is why it was a mercy killing he was doing them a favour.
-
Hi Caroline How are you today. steve did explain to me why he said Jeremy was doing the family a favour by taking their lives from them. Not quoting his exact words but you could read back on his posts if you have a free day. June was a religious maniac, Sheila had mental problems the two little boys were becoming a burden to Colin and he could not cope with them and Ralph was a frail old man.They are not his exact words but very close the only one that maybe different was June her problem was religion. This is why it was a mercy killing he was doing them a favour.
Hi Susie, I cannot see how a fit man in his early 60's could suddenly have become a frail old man. There was little 'old' about Ralph from what we are told....mature maybe, one minute he's a strong tall man too tall and strong for Sheila to beat and the next he's a frail old man...seems to me he ages by the day in Steve's head...which is sort of logical, I guess but steve seems to have pressed the fast forward button. :o :o :o :o...I'll keep away from him. ;D
-
Hello Maggie how are you today. I think steve goes off into a world of his own when writing his posts this is why his theories change so much. He is like a "fair weather friend" :) Think he has really gone off me and as me on ignore as he will not reply to my posts :(
-
Hi Susie, I cannot see how a fit man in his early 60's could suddenly have become a frail old man. There was little 'old' about Ralph from what we are told....mature maybe, one minute he's a strong tall man too tall and strong for Sheila to beat and the next he's a frail old man...seems to me he ages by the day in Steve's head...which is sort of logical, I guess but steve seems to have pressed the fast forward button. :o :o :o :o...I'll keep away from him. ;D
Well don't ditch the facts when there are so few which can be established in this case in the first place. Nevill was off work from his magistrate's job through stress,though it seems true to character he was still pushing himself in his role as farmer. Maybe the workload did fall more on Jeremy those past few months,and Jeremy,who wasn't fond of farming at the best of times resented this and sensed that Nevill was finally growing old.
As for ignoring people,I don't as a rule,unless there are posts of no merit whatsoever which add nothing to the debate but just target invective at one's person. We have this forum as a means of communication,we have the right to free speech and freedom of expression,but we should use it wisely.
-
Well don't ditch the facts when there are so few which can be established in this case in the first place. Nevill was off work from his magistrate's job through stress,though it seems true to character he was still pushing himself in his role as farmer. Maybe the workload did fall more on Jeremy those past few months,and Jeremy,who wasn't fond of farming at the best of times resented this and sensed that Nevill was finally growing old.
As for ignoring people,I don't as a rule,unless there are posts of no merit whatsoever which add nothing to the debate but just target invective at one's person. We have this forum as a means of communication,we have the right to free speech and freedom of expression,but we should use it wisely.
That's strange? Did you ever meet Jeremy to establish this fact? Because it is quite contrary to the person I know, who has met Jeremy and said that knew a lot about tractors and could not stop talking about farming. Even now he says when he gets out he would like to have a small farm. I sometimes wonder where you dig this rubbish up from Steve? ;D
-
That's strange? Did you ever meet Jeremy to establish this fact? Because it is quite contrary to the person I know, who has met Jeremy and said that knew a lot about tractors and could not stop talking about farming. Even now he says when he gets out he would like to have a small farm. I sometimes wonder where you dig this rubbish up from Steve? ;D
It's most likely another gem from the pages of Rodger Wilkes! ;)
-
Well don't ditch the facts when there are so few which can be established in this case in the first place. Nevill was off work from his magistrate's job through stress,though it seems true to character he was still pushing himself in his role as farmer. Maybe the workload did fall more on Jeremy those past few months,and Jeremy,who wasn't fond of farming at the best of times resented this and sensed that Nevill was finally growing old.
As for ignoring people,I don't as a rule,unless there are posts of no merit whatsoever which add nothing to the debate but just target invective at one's person. We have this forum as a means of communication,we have the right to free speech and freedom of expression,but we should use it wisely.
Of course we should steve but I do think you use too much poetic licence. We really don't know much about Ralph's state of health, he may have been stressed because of Sheila's illness and the worry about the twins, it may have been because of the threats against himself and his family and we are pretty sure these were true. It may have been because he feared Jeremy but frankly there is no proof of that at all. If he was mentally stressed he was not necessarily physically impeded and he was a relatively fit man, he lived a physically healthy life and his exercise working on the farm would probably have kept his back strong. So he was far from what we think of as a frail old man imo
-
That's strange? Did you ever meet Jeremy to establish this fact? Because it is quite contrary to the person I know, who has met Jeremy and said that knew a lot about tractors and could not stop talking about farming. Even now he says when he gets out he would like to have a small farm. I sometimes wonder where you dig this rubbish up from Steve? ;D
Were these conversations before or after the murders? From the books I have read it's evident to me that Jeremy was a fish out of water as far as farming was concerned,and several times there are references to Jeremy saying he would "pack it all in" after his parents died. The only reason Jeremy went back on the farm that last year was because he had snooped around Nevill's den and read the will which made it plain he would inherit the farm only as long as the trustees were satisfied with his efforts. This ties in with Julie's statement to Police that Jeremy wouldn't walk away from it all because "I have too much to lose".
-
Hi Maggie I am so hurt as that is my posts steve is referring to and I try so hard but can't get it right. I think my posts are just as relevant to the forum as his most of what I post up comes out of his posts so he is not saying much about himself. But as I adore him I will forgive him. :(
-
Of course we should steve but I do think you use too much poetic licence. We really don't know much about Ralph's state of health, he may have been stressed because of Sheila's illness and the worry about the twins, it may have been because of the threats against himself and his family and we are pretty sure these were true. It may have been because he feared Jeremy but frankly there is no proof of that at all. If he was mentally stressed he was not necessarily physically impeded and he was a relatively fit man, he lived a physically healthy life and his exercise working on the farm would probably have kept his back strong. So he was far from what we think of as a frail old man imo
We have the testimony of farm secretary Barbara Wilson about "the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen" coupled with the "I must never turn my back on that young man" for goodness sake the man was foretelling his own death..
-
We have the testimony of farm secretary Barbara Wilson about "the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen" coupled with the "I must never turn my back on that young man" for goodness sake the man was foretelling his own death..
Only if you believe he was psychic.
-
Of course we should steve but I do think you use too much poetic licence. We really don't know much about Ralph's state of health, he may have been stressed because of Sheila's illness and the worry about the twins, it may have been because of the threats against himself and his family and we are pretty sure these were true. It may have been because he feared Jeremy but frankly there is no proof of that at all. If he was mentally stressed he was not necessarily physically impeded and he was a relatively fit man, he lived a physically healthy life and his exercise working on the farm would probably have kept his back strong. So he was far from what we think of as a frail old man imo
Hi Maggie, I have to admit to not knowing much about the threats to the family but I presume Jeremy would have known about these threats?
-
Hi Maggie, I have to admit to not knowing much about the threats to the family but I presume Jeremy would have known about these threats?
Caroline hi. That my depend on the nature of the threat and if Nevill felt it appropriate to share it's nature with Jeremy, who, if we accept Steve's opinion, he didn't trust. However, if it was serious enough for a panic alarm to be installed I can't see how Jeremy didn't know.
-
Were these conversations before or after the murders? From the books I have read it's evident to me that Jeremy was a fish out of water as far as farming was concerned,and several times there are references to Jeremy saying he would "pack it all in" after his parents died. The only reason Jeremy went back on the farm that last year was because he had snooped around Nevill's den and read the will which made it plain he would inherit the farm only as long as the trustees were satisfied with his efforts. This ties in with Julie's statement to Police that Jeremy wouldn't walk away from it all because "I have too much to lose".
I'm not sure it is relevent to ask whether this conversation was before or after the murders. Since all your so called character witnesses for the prosecution stated all these things after the murders, but obviously they apparently heard JB say them before the merders. The point I am making is that I know someone personally and not from any book. (Have you made your judgment of him without even meeting him? A bit unfair wouldn't you say Steve?) So I would give my witness who I have spoken to in the flesh before those faceless persons from some over imaginative author intent only on selling his books. I can add to that someone else I know who gives exactly the same testimony of JB's character as the other person I know.
-
I'm not sure it is relevent to ask whether this conversation was before or after the murders. Since all your so called character witnesses for the prosecution stated all these things after the murders, but obviously they apparently heard JB say them before the merders. The point I am making is that I know someone personally and not from any book. (Have you made your judgment of him without even meeting him? A bit unfair wouldn't you say Steve?) So I would give my witness who I have spoken to in the flesh before those faceless persons from some over imaginative author intent only on selling his books. I can add to that someone else I know who gives exactly the same testimony of JB's character as the other person I know.
Well Harold Shipman was rumoured to be a good doctor,I'm sure Sion Jenkins was a good Deputy Headteacher but I still have my doubts about him. I can understand why you may feel loyalty to a friend of a friend in this new clique-ridden society of ours but I'm afraid it's no proof of anything.
-
I'm not sure it is relevent to ask whether this conversation was before or after the murders. Since all your so called character witnesses for the prosecution stated all these things after the murders, but obviously they apparently heard JB say them before the merders. The point I am making is that I know someone personally and not from any book. (Have you made your judgment of him without even meeting him? A bit unfair wouldn't you say Steve?) So I would give my witness who I have spoken to in the flesh before those faceless persons from some over imaginative author intent only on selling his books. I can add to that someone else I know who gives exactly the same testimony of JB's character as the other person I know.
Lugg, hi. Steve seems to believe that "poetic license" add colour to his work, which is fine in fiction but in this case, IMO, renders any truth unreliable, unbelievable and totally incredible. It also make me question those authors he's so fond of quoting IE House of Fraser in Colchester. A glaring mistake on someones' part, certainly OR poetic license for which could be substituted, an attempt to deceive. How many other inputs of poetic license has the same author used?
-
Lugg, hi. Steve seems to believe that "poetic license" add colour to his work, which is fine in fiction but in this case, IMO, renders any truth unreliable, unbelievable and totally incredible. It also make me question those authors he's so fond of quoting IE House of Fraser in Colchester. A glaring mistake on someones' part, certainly OR poetic license for which could be substituted, an attempt to deceive. How many other inputs of poetic license has the same author used?
Well okay it wasn't House of Fraser,but it was a high quality men's outfitters. Instead of picking on one trivial detail how about trying to work out the scenario which occured in the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985 at White House Farm?
-
Well okay it wasn't House of Fraser,but it was a high quality men's outfitters. Instead of picking on one trivial detail how about trying to work out the scenario which occured in the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985 at White House Farm?
It wasn't so much the trivial detail which bothered me, Steve. It was that an author purporting to give us facts, has given instead, an inaccuracy. Which has to beg the question of how many more he has given us and how misleading this is for you, who clearly rely on what he says as being the truth.
-
We have the testimony of farm secretary Barbara Wilson about "the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen" coupled with the "I must never turn my back on that young man" for goodness sake the man was foretelling his own death..
This particular phrase has been discussed before and rather than it having an ominous meaning, it most likely meant that Ralph wanted to support and stand by Jeremy.
-
It wasn't so much the trivial detail which bothered me, Steve. It was that an author purporting to give us facts, has given instead, an inaccuracy. Which has to beg the question of how many more he has given us and how misleading this is for you, who clearly rely on what he says as being the truth.
Well if I told you Jeremy ordered pink champagne after the funerals at a restaurant in Colchester,that he was loud and slapped the waitresses' bottoms then you wouldn't believe me either..
-
Hi HMEssex yes I agree this statement has been flogged to death steve does more repeats than ITV :) do wish we could get our spell check back my spelling is AWFUL :)
-
Seriously steph, Susan Ingham is NOT John Lamberton....NO WAY!! :o :o :o :o :o
-
This particular phrase has been discussed before and rather than it having an ominous meaning, it most likely meant that Ralph wanted to support and stand by Jeremy.
Well if you believe that you might as well offer Sion Jenkins a job at Halfords selling tent pegs..
-
Well if I told you Jeremy ordered pink champagne after the funerals at a restaurant in Colchester,that he was loud and slapped the waitresses' bottoms then you wouldn't believe me either..
I would believe it was possible....people react in different ways to trauma, funerals etc...I would think the one thing he wanted was a drink ASAP what an ordeal to have to go through. Beyond that there is always a possibility Jeremy was guilty, was celebrating, there always has to be an element of doubt however small and whichever side imo.
-
Well if I told you Jeremy ordered pink champagne after the funerals at a restaurant in Colchester,that he was loud and slapped the waitresses' bottoms then you wouldn't believe me either..
I would certainly question the agenda of whoever gave that information to the author.
-
We have the testimony of farm secretary Barbara Wilson about "the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen" coupled with the "I must never turn my back on that young man" for goodness sake the man was foretelling his own death..
Steve, what's your interpretation of this? Another Wilson classic.. but not as popular with some posters as the 'never turn my back' line.
-
There we are Steve,spit the bones out of that. ( above )
-
Well if you believe that you might as well offer Sion Jenkins a job at Halfords selling tent pegs..
;D
Perhaps you would like a job in Waterstones' (fiction dept)
-
Steve, what's your interpretation of this? Another Wilson classic.. but not as popular with some posters as the 'never turn my back' line.
But Barbara Wilson did testify for the Prosecution didn't she? And how Jeremy's behaviour had changed after the death of his parents,with his feet up on the desk in Nevill's den barking orders at her.
This just confirms my belief that Jeremy killed all five members of his family. It's not a shock to him at all as he has prepared himself for this moment over the past year. He fakes vomiting in front of Police,whilst ready for a hearty breakfast only a few hours later..
-
But Barbara Wilson did testify for the Prosecution didn't she? And how Jeremy's behaviour had changed after the death of his parents,with his feet up on the desk in Nevill's den barking orders at her.
This just confirms my belief that Jeremy killed all five members of his family. It's not a shock to him at all as he has prepared himself for this moment over the past year. He fakes vomiting in front of Police,whilst ready for a hearty breakfast only a few hours later..
What dross.
Where have I said Barbara Wilson didn't testify for the prosecution? Can anyone tell me when this excerpt of Babara Wilson's testimony became available? Has it always been available or was it edited out?
I find your comment about Bamber having faked vomiting rather pathetic, actually bordering upon wickedness by your self. Same for the puerile cheap shot scored by your use of the cliched and deliberately manipulated out of context 'hearty breakfast'.
I do not know what your agenda is or why you have one but you disturb me at times.
-
What dross.
Where have I said Barbara Wilson didn't testify for the prosecution? Can anyone tell me when this excerpt of Babara Wilson's testimony became available? Has it always been available or was it edited out?
I find your comment about Bamber having faked vomiting rather pathetic, actually bordering upon wickedness by your self. Same for the puerile cheap shot scored by your use of the cliched and deliberately manipulated out of context 'hearty breakfast'.
I do not know what your agenda is or why you have one but you disturb me at times.
I answered the question in a way you didn't like,so don't take the huff..
-
Hi Maggie I thought I was Jackie Preece now I am John Lamberton wow is that promotion or what will have to think about that. :) Joined night school now for basic speling lessons :)
-
What dross.
Where have I said Barbara Wilson didn't testify for the prosecution? Can anyone tell me when this excerpt of Babara Wilson's testimony became available? Has it always been available or was it edited out?
I find your comment about Bamber having faked vomiting rather pathetic, actually bordering upon wickedness by your self. Same for the puerile cheap shot scored by your use of the cliched and deliberately manipulated out of context 'hearty breakfast'.
I do not know what your agenda is or why you have one but you disturb me at times.
PPI, you're not alone. At best I find distasteful much of what Steve says. At worst, I find it disturbing. I see no necessity to turn the knife he has already pushed in as far as the hilt, nor to manipulate every statement, mostly gleaned from facticious origins, to his own ends.
-
PPI, you're not alone. At best I find distasteful much of what Steve says. At worst, I find it disturbing. I see no necessity to turn the knife he has already pushed in as far as the hilt, nor to manipulate every statement, mostly gleaned from facticious origins, to his own ends.
I assume you mean fictitious.. Give me a scenario whereby Sheila fires a .22anschutz rifle 25 times,reloads twice,prevents Nevill from completing his telephone call to Jeremy, engages in a fight with him,shoots herself,goes upstairs to wash ritualistically,goes back into the master bedroom to be with her mother..I'm waiting for a timeline and these things to be explained..
-
But Barbara Wilson did testify for the Prosecution didn't she? And how Jeremy's behaviour had changed after the death of his parents,with his feet up on the desk in Nevill's den barking orders at her.
This just confirms my belief that Jeremy killed all five members of his family. It's not a shock to him at all as he has prepared himself for this moment over the past year. He fakes vomiting in front of Police,whilst ready for a hearty breakfast only a few hours later..
Steve,c'mon. It was no hearty breakfast that Jeremy had. Short of taking the cheese off the trap,all there was in the 'fridge were a couple of rashers of bacon ( bachelors don't buy food,they eat out or at mum and dads ) It was the police who were with him who suggested he eat something after throwing up what was left of his previous evenings' meal.
Somehow it developed into a " slap-up " breakfast,,,,,,yeah.! Well the cops would say that,wouldn't they,then immediately into the newspapers. They did a Mackenzie.
-
I assume you mean fictitious.. Give me a scenario whereby Sheila fires a .22anschutz rifle 25 times,reloads twice,prevents Nevill from completing his telephone call to Jeremy, engages in a fight with him,shoots herself,goes upstairs to wash ritualistically,goes back into the master bedroom to be with her mother..I'm waiting for a timeline and these things to be explained..
Maybe one should try and establish who the defence believes was still alive at the time of the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy.
By the content of the alleged telephone call it must be accepted the defence believes at least Nevill and Sheila were still alive.
Was June still alive at the time of the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy?
Were the twins still alive at the time of the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy?
or
Was everyone already dead at the time of the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy?
-
I assume you mean fictitious.. Give me a scenario whereby Sheila fires a .22anschutz rifle 25 times,reloads twice,prevents Nevill from completing his telephone call to Jeremy, engages in a fight with him,shoots herself,goes upstairs to wash ritualistically,goes back into the master bedroom to be with her mother..I'm waiting for a timeline and these things to be explained..
No Steve. I mean FACTicious. A spurious, manufactured word, I know, but it fits the bill. There are facts within it, but I would HATE to guarantee that the same could be said for the stories fed to the author by young men jealous of Jeremy's "cruel handsomeness" his easy way of attracting women and the money I'll bet he enjoyed flashing around. OR how about the girls for whom it may have been a badge of honour to say she'd had a quickie up against the wall with the now infamous Jeremy Bamber, who knows, she may even get to see her name in print.......if she's not married. You're not the only one who asks questions, Steve.
I'm not going to try and give you a scenario for what happened that night. It looks as if you've done it, anyway. Hand on heart, unlike you, I have NO idea, and as none of us were there, none of us can know. I'm inclined to see Sheila in an almost blind trance, having the strength of Goliath, but not seeing who she's attacking or firing at., but what the sequence might have been, I'm not able to say.......and like all other suggestions, it's only a theory.
-
I assume you mean fictitious.. Give me a scenario whereby Sheila fires a .22anschutz rifle 25 times,reloads twice,prevents Nevill from completing his telephone call to Jeremy, engages in a fight with him,shoots herself,goes upstairs to wash ritualistically,goes back into the master bedroom to be with her mother..I'm waiting for a timeline and these things to be explained..
Like april1 says, no one knows the exact sequence of events and will never know.
Going by phone logs we know Ralph and Sheila were alive, and going by this so were the others?
No one says Sheila washed after she shot herself but after she shot the family, therefore before she shot herself.
-
I assume you mean fictitious.. Give me a scenario whereby Sheila fires a .22anschutz rifle 25 times,reloads twice,prevents Nevill from completing his telephone call to Jeremy, engages in a fight with him,shoots herself,goes upstairs to wash ritualistically,goes back into the master bedroom to be with her mother..I'm waiting for a timeline and these things to be explained..
Why? Who on here can possibly provide a timeline without having witnessed events as they unfolded? You do not know what measures Nevill may have instigated in order to deal with the situation unfolding. Or at what time, which actual occurrences developed. Or at which point anybody was taken by surprise. Or whether events immediately preceding the incident had given the impression that further developments would not even ensue at all. You swallow the official version of events hook line and sinker and then demand defence explanations based upon this. It never seems to occur to you that you may have been fed a duff version, sanitised or manipulated, for the purpose of achieving the prosecution's aims.
Jeremy's behaviour had changed after the death of his parents,with his feet up on the desk in Nevill's den barking orders at her.
Jeremy putting his feet up on the desk and barking orders could still have occurred if his family had been wiped out in a car crash, as opposed to having been murdered by him or by his sister. It is an irrelevance. it has no bearing on what took place in the small hours or what took place when the TFG smashed the external door open.
You're obsessed with these hackneyed anecdotes. To me, it looks like what has happened is that when police decided to gun for Bamber, they had so little to go on, they went back over every incident of anything and changed its nuance to implicate Bamber. So what was a snatched meal after having been up since 3am and having nothing but bile on his stomach, became a hearty breakfast because it suited the prosecution to portray it in such a fashion.
Essex Police could have been tutored by Thomas Cromwell.
-
I answered the question in a way you didn't like,so don't take the huff..
Unfortunately Steve it appears that you didn't answer his question at all? In fact you just ignored it as far as I can see?
-
Steve,c'mon. It was no hearty breakfast that Jeremy had. Short of taking the cheese off the trap,all there was in the 'fridge were a couple of rashers of bacon ( bachelors don't buy food,they eat out or at mum and dads ) It was the police who were with him who suggested he eat something after throwing up what was left of his previous evenings' meal.
Somehow it developed into a " slap-up " breakfast,,,,,,yeah.! Well the cops would say that,wouldn't they,then immediately into the newspapers. They did a Mackenzie.
The police advised JB to eat something. Then the next thing they do is to interpret what he ate in such a way so as to fool people like Steve into thinking he had a hearty breakfast. But thankfully we are not all that gullible so as to each a hearty meal of such untruths as Steve. ;)
-
Unfortunately Steve it appears that you didn't answer his question at all? In fact you just ignored it as far as I can see?
The excerpt was from an interview with DI Dickinson, so that would be early 90's? It did therefore not form part of an 'edited' statement prior to trial.
-
Why? Who on here can possibly provide a timeline without having witnessed events as they unfolded? You do not know what measures Nevill may have instigated in order to deal with the situation unfolding. Or at what time, which actual occurrences developed. Or at which point anybody was taken by surprise. Or whether events immediately preceding the incident had given the impression that further developments would not even ensue at all. You swallow the official version of events hook line and sinker and then demand defence explanations based upon this. It never seems to occur to you that you may have been fed a duff version, sanitised or manipulated, for the purpose of achieving the prosecution's aims.
Jeremy putting his feet up on the desk and barking orders could still have occurred if his family had been wiped out in a car crash, as opposed to having been murdered by him or by his sister. It is an irrelevance. it has no bearing on what took place in the small hours or what took place when the TFG smashed the external door open.
You're obsessed with these hackneyed anecdotes. To me, it looks like what has happened is that when police decided to gun for Bamber, they had so little to go on, they went back over every incident of anything and changed its nuance to implicate Bamber. So what was a snatched meal after having been up since 3am and having nothing but bile on his stomach, became a hearty breakfast because it suited the prosecution to portray it in such a fashion.
Essex Police could have been tutored by Thomas Cromwell.
But Roch we can all speculate like Steve does.
-
But Roch we can all speculate like Steve does.
Yes. I'm not saying that defence based posters should not speculate a scenario. But Steve seems to be building up to silly crescendos, laying down false assertions based upon a highly selective analysis and a one track approach. As if he was deliberately viewing the case through the keyhole of DS Jones... or similar.
-
Yes. I'm not saying that defence based posters should not speculate a scenario. But Steve seems to be building up to silly crescendos, laying down false assertions based upon a highly selective analysis and a one track approach. As if he was deliberately viewing the case through the keyhole of DS Jones... or similar.
Or - more to the point - Rodger Wilkes!!
-
Ye Gods,a bloody cockroach now. You know how many of those critters are in Australia.? Enormous,they are and get in the house through ventilators and any other space,and before you know it,they're prolific,no matter how you cover up everything. A cicada would be better. They're huge too,but beautiful when hatched.
-
Well okay it wasn't House of Fraser,but it was a high quality men's outfitters. Instead of picking on one trivial detail how about trying to work out the scenario which occured in the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985 at White House Farm?
What possible use would that be given that none of us were there?
-
Yes. I'm not saying that defence based posters should not speculate a scenario. But Steve seems to be building up to silly crescendos, laying down false assertions based upon a highly selective analysis and a one track approach. As if he was deliberately viewing the case through the keyhole of DS Jones... or similar.
Just confirming that you did mean KEYhole
-
Just confirming that you did mean KEYhole
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What possible use would that be given that none of us were there?
H.O.F..? What was the initial, F.?
-
H.O.F..? What was the initial, F.?
What would you like it to be, lookout ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I just splurted my drink everywhere! ;D
-
H.O.F..? What was the initial, F.?
LOL Lookout, why was that a question to me? But I think it must mean House of 'Fraser'?
-
I just splurted my drink everywhere! ;D
So did I when I read your post ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
LOL Lookout, why was that a question to me? But I think it must mean House of 'Fraser'?
Quite correct, Caroline. Thankyou for restoring sanity :) :) :)
-
Quite correct, Caroline. Thankyou for restoring sanity :) :) :)
That's the first time anyone has ever credited me with that! :)
-
LOL Lookout, why was that a question to me? But I think it must mean House of 'Fraser'?
Yes,I wondered at first what the initials stood for,so I thought I'd add my own thoughts. Apologies if I've offended anyone. It's what becomes of living near the capital of where Ken Dodd lives.
-
Yes,I wondered at first what the initials stood for,so I thought I'd add my own thoughts. Apologies if I've offended anyone. It's what becomes of living near the capital of where Ken Dodd lives.
You live in Knotty Ash Lookout? ;D
-
You live in Knotty Ash Lookout? ;D
No Caroline,but across the Mersey on the Cheshire side.
-
Yes,I wondered at first what the initials stood for,so I thought I'd add my own thoughts. Apologies if I've offended anyone. It's what becomes of living near the capital of where Ken Dodd lives.
Glad that's sorted! I mean, what possible word could 'F' represent other than Fraser?! :o
-
Just noticed the date, in 2 days it will be 27 years since JB was arrested!
-
Just noticed the date, in 2 days it will be 27 years since JB was arrested!
Yes,it is indeed,Caroline. Poor blighter. I bet he's recorded every day since,,which is more than I can remember over these years. It hasn't felt like 27 years to me,,but I bet it has to Jeremy.
-
Caroline hi. That my depend on the nature of the threat and if Nevill felt it appropriate to share it's nature with Jeremy, who, if we accept Steve's opinion, he didn't trust. However, if it was serious enough for a panic alarm to be installed I can't see how Jeremy didn't know.
That being the case, if JB were planning to kill the family, surely making it look as though the threats had come to fruition would have been a much better plan. No need for the confusion of the phone calls, just wait for the scene to be discovered. Also if a panic alarm was fitted I wonder why no one used it?
-
That being the case, if JB were planning to kill the family, surely making it look as though the threats had come to fruition would have been a much better plan. No need for the confusion of the phone calls, just wait for the scene to be discovered. Also if a panic alarm was fitted I wonder why no one used it?
Hi Caroline,,my guess is the reason why Neville didn't use the panic alarm is because it was Sheila he was dealing with,so he thought he could overcome that,until she grabbed the rifle,of course,in which case,Neville never stood a chance.
You can bet your life,given the " hearsay " that was supposedly said to be believed, by Jeremy,,,that Neville wouldn't have hesitated using the alarm if he'd felt in any danger.
The same if it had been a stranger ( the infamous " hitman " ),a chance burglary,or any stranger,then Neville would have used the alarm.
To me,there's a reason for the alarm to have been fitted,latterly. Why not years prior.? It was a more or less an isolated place housing a middle-aged/elderly couple. I wonder what the real reason was to have suddenly decided.?
-
Morning lookout hope you are well. I have often wondered why Ralph did not use the panic button it was I believe fitted in the kitchen if he felt his life was in danger why not just hit the button. If Jeremy was making it up about the phone calls why bother implicating himself by saying this he could have carried out the murders left the premises making sure he left no evidence to implicate himself and gone home to bed and waited. Very confusing indeed.
-
Morning lookout hope you are well. I have often wondered why Ralph did not use the panic button it was I believe fitted in the kitchen if he felt his life was in danger why not just hit the button. If Jeremy was making it up about the phone calls why bother implicating himself by saying this he could have carried out the murders left the premises making sure he left no evidence to implicate himself and gone home to bed and waited. Very confusing indeed.
Hi Susan.Yes,I am well,thankyou,hope you are too.
If your daughter was staying with you,the last thing that you'd ever think about would be the fact that anyone was in any danger.
Guns around for protection,a panic alarm for instant access to the police station,two or three telephones,a couple of dogs kept outside,what more would anyone want,to feel safe.?
Instead,nobody entered the house,as the killer was already in-situ. A father would hardly hit the panic button if his daughter was ranting,but as I'd mentioned,once Sheila had hold of a rifle,there'd have been no reasoning with her,,and this,to my mind,is what happened.
-
clearly ralph never got a chance to hit the panic button.
-
In a house that size would there only be one panic button, I would have thought there would have been more than one? Where was the panic button situated?
-
Morning OnceSaid The panic button was located in the kitchen and as far as I'm aware the only one.
-
Morning OnceSaid The panic button was located in the kitchen and as far as I'm aware the only one.
Why did not Nevill press it then? Why would he choose rather to phone JB than first press the panic button?
-
Lugg maybe Ralph did not realise what danger he was in till it was too late.
-
Lugg maybe Ralph did not realise what danger he was in till it was too late.
Morning Susan,
Exactly, no one knows what the situation was at the time of the phone call - it has been said many times, but perhaps Neville was more concerned for Sheila's safety and didn't want the authorities involved. Previously Sheila was taken into psychiatric care after the episode at her flat and had only been home a few months. Perhaps Neville wanted to avoid calling police thinking he and Jeremy might be able to calm her down - official intervention might have meant Sheila being taken back to hospital and could have had consequences for her as a mother to the twins. They were also the kind of people that liked to keep their business private and as a magistrate he wouldn't want the gossip!
-
Morning Susan,
Exactly, no one knows what the situation was at the time of the phone call - it has been said many times, but perhaps Neville was more concerned for Sheila's safety and didn't want the authorities involved. Previously Sheila was taken into psychiatric care after the episode at her flat and had only been home a few months. Perhaps Neville wanted to avoid calling police thinking he and Jeremy might be able to calm her down - official intervention might have meant Sheila being taken back to hospital and could have had consequences for her as a mother to the twins. They were also the kind of people that liked to keep their business private and as a magistrate he wouldn't want the gossip!
But he was killed in the kitchen. The panic button was right there, perhaps even next to him.
-
Hi Caroline love the new picture of you and Alfie what a looker (alfie I mean) just kidding both of you. With regard the panic button I can only think that who ever had the gun Ralph knew the person and would not think his life was in danger so he would not think it was necessary to hit the panic button. Off for my daily caffeine as I have just completed a long walk and need something :)
-
Hi Caroline love the new picture of you and Alfie what a looker (alfie I mean) just kidding both of you. With regard the panic button I can only think that who ever had the gun Ralph knew the person and would not think his life was in danger so he would not think it was necessary to hit the panic button. Off for my daily caffeine as I have just completed a long walk and need something :)
I'm not sure but I seem to recall the panic button was connected and, had something to do with the phone...
I think both Alfie and Caroline are cute....btw! :) :) :) :)
-
Patti I seem to think a connection between the panic button and the phone existed but cannot remember what it was but I know somebody who will know and her name begins with a B :)
-
But he was killed in the kitchen. The panic button was right there, perhaps even next to him.
Unless someone can say exactly where it was, if it was working and the biggy - what was going on in Neville's head at the time - it's a question (unfortunately) no one can answer. On the other hand, perhaps he did press it and for whatever reason, it didn't work OR maybe it did and it is simply something else buried under evidence yet unseen.
-
I'm not sure but I seem to recall the panic button was connected and, had something to do with the phone...
I think both Alfie and Caroline are cute....btw! :) :) :) :)
Aww shucks!! :)
-
Patti I seem to think a connection between the panic button and the phone existed but cannot remember what it was but I know somebody who will know and her name begins with a B :)
I'll take a look to see If I can find anything.......MS B wont look lolol :) :) :) :)
-
I'll take a look to see If I can find anything.......MS B wont look lolol :) :) :) :)
There was a discussion a few months back about the PB but I don't think it was ever proven that there was one - 'working' that is!
-
Hi Caroline quite recently Mr. Hartley Jam who knows WHF very well told us the panic button is still in the kitchen and as far as I know still works :) vidvic would know when he comes on if it is still working.
-
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY.
Caroline, that hairy boy of yours is just gorgeous. Re the PB. It may still be in situ, but I have my doubts that it's still connected. The family it was put in place to protect is no longer in need of that protection so I imagine the connection with the police station would be severed. Don't believe it was ever clarified re the reason for it's installation??
-
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY.
Caroline, that hairy boy of yours is just gorgeous. Re the PB. It may still be in situ, but I have my doubts that it's still connected. The family it was put in place to protect is no longer in need of that protection so I imagine the connection with the police station would be severed. Don't believe it was ever clarified re the reason for it's installation??
Thanks April and yes, he is and the dogs not bad either! ;D ;D.
I was also thinking that a PB from 1985 would be somewhat out of date now?
-
But he was killed in the kitchen. The panic button was right there, perhaps even next to him.
Yes,one explanation being that as Ralph(Nevill) ran downstairs under attack from Jeremy he reached neither panic alarm nor telephone. He rested his bloodied left hand on the kitchen worktop yet was met with a further hail of bullets from Jeremy in that area,hence the large amount of blood found deposited on the floor there.
-
Yes,one explanation being that as Ralph(Nevill) ran downstairs under attack from Jeremy he reached neither panic alarm nor telephone. He rested his bloodied left hand on the kitchen worktop yet was met with a further hail of bullets from Jeremy in that area,hence the large amount of blood found deposited on the floor there.
Correction,Steve,,,Sheila made her way downstairs behind her father, as she prodded the nozzle of the rifle to the back of his neck, like a cattle prod. Hence the " unexplained " markings.
-
Correction,Steve,,,Sheila made her way downstairs behind her father, as she prodded the nozzle of the rifle to the back of his neck, like a cattle prod. Hence the " unexplained " markings.
Or should that be muzzle.?
-
Correction,Steve,,,Sheila made her way downstairs behind her father, as she prodded the nozzle of the rifle to the back of his neck, like a cattle prod. Hence the " unexplained " markings.
I don't see this scenario-firstly Nevill's primary concern would be for the safety of the twins ,secondly June would already have been shot,yet Nevill himself would have been fairly robust at this stage,yet no struggle on the landing,only in the kitchen,thirdly the burns speak of vindictiveness,as do the crimes in general. How about Jeremy heating up the rifle barrel in the Aga,using the range to burn some of his bloodstained clothing,then branding Nevill to show just who was now boss?
-
I don't see this scenario-firstly Nevill's primary concern would be for the safety of the twins ,secondly June would already have been shot,yet Nevill himself would have been fairly robust at this stage,yet no struggle on the landing,only in the kitchen,thirdly the burns speak of vindictiveness,as do the crimes in general. How about Jeremy heating up the rifle barrel in the Aga,using the range to burn some of his bloodstained clothing,then branding Nevill to show just who was now boss?
There'd have been no need/no time to have heated the rifle butt on the Aga. No need because of the nature of the shootings,which were frenzied and would have created a certain amount of heat on the butt anyway. No time because in between Sheilas' outbursts,it would soon have been showing dawn breaking,and schizophrenics are like vampires when it comes to daylight,as they spend most evenings staying awake. Sheila was a very bad sleeper,and usually kicked off at 2,to 2.30am,according to the neighbours who lived in Maida Vale,,and who'd experienced her screaming loudly in the early hours.
-
No clothing would have been found in the AGA,not even the remnants or ash to indicate that anything had been burned.
Anyway,,why would Jeremy feel the need to burn his clothes,especially as he was well-covered in a wet-suit.?
-
Hi lookout I mentioned months ago that maybe Sheila had burned her blood stained clothes in the Aga and now that steve thinks this could be credible for Jeremy to have done this same could have applied to Sheila. We did discuss as well that Sheila smoked large cigars (no I don't know the brand) but we wondered if it was possible for a lit cigar to make the marks. What do you think lookout.
-
There'd have been no need/no time to have heated the rifle butt on the Aga. No need because of the nature of the shootings,which were frenzied and would have created a certain amount of heat on the butt anyway. No time because in between Sheilas' outbursts,it would soon have been showing dawn breaking,and schizophrenics are like vampires when it comes to daylight,as they spend most evenings staying awake. Sheila was a very bad sleeper,and usually kicked off at 2,to 2.30am,according to the neighbours who lived in Maida Vale,,and who'd experienced her screaming loudly in the early hours.
Yes she screamed,but had she done so at White House Farm the twins would have woken up. She screamed at Maida Vale and banged her head and fists against the wall,but never once did she take a kitchen knife and threaten any other person. It would be Nevill on the telephone who would calm her down,or on occasion appear in person,but not once would he consider calling for Jeremy's assistance,as Jeremy was another cause for concern.
-
Hi lookout I mentioned months ago that maybe Sheila had burned her blood stained clothes in the Aga and now that steve thinks this could be credible for Jeremy to have done this same could have applied to Sheila. We did discuss as well that Sheila smoked large cigars (no I don't know the brand) but we wondered if it was possible for a lit cigar to make the marks. What do you think lookout.
Hi Susan,,yes I mentioned cigar burns a few months back,but I think it fell on deaf ears,,or blind eyes in this case. Her cigars were probably Havannas,large ones,not the ladylike cheroots. If there'd been any remains of any in an ash tray,,the police would probably have overlooked it,thinking it may have been Nevilles'. Also,the " unexplained " marks on Nevilles' forearm would have been Sheilas' hard grip outlining her nails. Nobody took any scrapings from underneath her nails as far as I can see,either. Or the broken toe-nail.How did it break,I wonder.? A backlash from the rifle.? We don't know,as nothing was made of it. That was found in the kitchen. One thing for sure,she hadn't stubbed it.! It had been broken right off. You can't sustain anything like that with just walking about.
Sheila could possibly have burned something,but her outdoor clothes were soaking in the buckets
-
Yes she screamed,but had she done so at White House Farm the twins would have woken up. She screamed at Maida Vale and banged her head and fists against the wall,but never once did she take a kitchen knife and threaten any other person. It would be Nevill on the telephone who would calm her down,or on occasion appear in person,but not once would he consider calling for Jeremy's assistance,as Jeremy was another cause for concern.
How do you know he didn't calm her? He may have calmed her thrice during the night for all you know. Yet again, another attempt to impose your specific rationale, upon a desperate and irrational situation unfolding.
-
Morning OnceSaid The panic button was located in the kitchen and as far as I'm aware the only one.
Thank you Susan :)
-
Yes she screamed,but had she done so at White House Farm the twins would have woken up. She screamed at Maida Vale and banged her head and fists against the wall,but never once did she take a kitchen knife and threaten any other person. It would be Nevill on the telephone who would calm her down,or on occasion appear in person,but not once would he consider calling for Jeremy's assistance,as Jeremy was another cause for concern.
If they'd become accustomed to hearing screams in the night, it's doubtful that they'd have stirred.
-
Yes she screamed,but had she done so at White House Farm the twins would have woken up. She screamed at Maida Vale and banged her head and fists against the wall,but never once did she take a kitchen knife and threaten any other person. It would be Nevill on the telephone who would calm her down,or on occasion appear in person,but not once would he consider calling for Jeremy's assistance,as Jeremy was another cause for concern.
Sheila may have screamed at WHF,we don't know,though if she had have done,and ( shock/awe ) swaw her brother murdering the family,,her screams would have wakened the dead and she'd have made an attempt to run out,,or even shoot him dead too.!
In Sheilas' state of mind,,nobody would have got past her I'm afraid,,and to be sure,the assailant would have needed hospital treatment. She would have beaten Jeremy,hands down. You can when you're armed with a rifle.
Jeremys' only crime was not taking enough notice/interest of what was going on within the family. He was too wrapped up in Julie to bother about anyone.
-
If they'd become accustomed to hearing screams in the night, it's doubtful that they'd have stirred.
True april and also that old farmhouse would have thick stone walls. Would doubt if the twins in their bedroom would hear Sheila screaming downstairs.
We know 'Freddie' feared for his life when Sheila was psychotic in Maida Vale flat.
We dont know if Sheila had threatened anyone with anything leading up to that August night.
-
True april and also that old farmhouse would have thick stone walls. Would doubt if the twins in their bedroom would hear Sheila screaming downstairs.
We know 'Freddie' feared for his life when Sheila was psychotic in Maida Vale flat.
We dont know if Sheila had threatened anyone with anything leading up to that August night.
Hi Maggie,,we do know that Sheilas' mental health had deteriorated according to Dr Ferguson,when she left St Andrews in the March. To be perfectly honest,I would say with hand on heart,that the doctors were positively worried,,as they didn't know as much then as they do now. For starters,she'd have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The things she told Ferguson should have set alarm bells off,,and we know what those were.
-
Yes she screamed,but had she done so at White House Farm the twins would have woken up. She screamed at Maida Vale and banged her head and fists against the wall,but never once did she take a kitchen knife and threaten any other person. It would be Nevill on the telephone who would calm her down,or on occasion appear in person,but not once would he consider calling for Jeremy's assistance,as Jeremy was another cause for concern.
I doubt if anyone had screamed or shouted that the boys would have been awoken by the noise. This slaughter was not done in silence but yet the children remained asleep and thankfully were asleep when they were killed.
Who is to say that Sheila never once lifted a knife or anything else that could have been used as a weapon, or threatened any other person? SC was ill, anything is possible IMO.
If SC was brandishing the gun, and unlike other occassions, he was unable to calm her down, it makes sense that he would call Jeremy, as Jeremy was one of the few who really knew what Sheila was like when she had an episode.
-
How do you know he didn't calm her? He may have calmed her thrice during the night for all you know. Yet again, another attempt to impose your specific rationale, upon a desperate and irrational situation unfolding.
You see I don't accept the Defence's telephone call in the first place,so it's again building one hypothesis on another,if you can put yourself in the shoes of the Prosecution for one tiny moment..
There's just no way that Sheila was the type who would go berserk or go crazy or whatever words you want to describe it with a gun. It was Jeremy who loaded the gun with a magazine don't you see,because he knew that people would say Sheila could never have performed that action,but Jeremy could not predict exactly how much ammunition he would need to kill five people in a rifle whose purpose was to kill vermin.
I don't accept the suggestion that somehow Nevill manages to calm Sheila down,then she kicks off again. It's quite clear from the way the bullet cases are scattered that Nevill is shot on the landing yet manages to make his way down to the kitchen, whoever you think the identity of his assailant is,and in these circumstances everyone's natural thoughts are to telephone the Police. Why wake Jeremy up anyway in the middle of the night when he might after all not even pick up the receiver?
It's not just at the White House Farm end that the Jeremy supporters' scenario breaks down. We have Jeremy calmly flicking through the Yellow Pages for ten minutes,as well as telephoning Julie(we won't go into the exact timing of that now as that represents another headache) as we are supposed to believe his words to the Police: "what's taking you so much time..my father sounded terrified when he called" yet Jeremy retracts this at trial which along with other inconsistencies in his evidence make his version of events incredible and the jury's verdict of beyond reasonable doubt a correct one.
-
Steve,,if Jeremy had committed the murders,believe you me,he'd have planned his speeches to sound the same whoever he was questioned by. Liars and murderers never lose their thread.They have memories like an elephant,,and that's why Jeremys' story of events changed.Not because he'd committed murder,but because he hadn't.
-
Sheila may have screamed at WHF,we don't know,though if she had have done,and ( shock/awe ) swaw her brother murdering the family,,her screams would have wakened the dead and she'd have made an attempt to run out,,or even shoot him dead too.!
In Sheilas' state of mind,,nobody would have got past her I'm afraid,,and to be sure,the assailant would have needed hospital treatment. She would have beaten Jeremy,hands down. You can when you're armed with a rifle.
Jeremys' only crime was not taking enough notice/interest of what was going on within the family. He was too wrapped up in Julie to bother about anyone.
It appears that Sheila didn't scream? If she didn't scream then that would have possibly meant that she was doing the killing perhaps?
-
Sheila may have screamed at WHF,we don't know,though if she had have done,and ( shock/awe ) swaw her brother murdering the family,,her screams would have wakened the dead and she'd have made an attempt to run out,,or even shoot him dead too.!
In Sheilas' state of mind,,nobody would have got past her I'm afraid,,and to be sure,the assailant would have needed hospital treatment. She would have beaten Jeremy,hands down. You can when you're armed with a rifle.
Jeremys' only crime was not taking enough notice/interest of what was going on within the family. He was too wrapped up in Julie to bother about anyone.
He knew about the terms of Nevill's will alright,and he knew enough to want a new car when he had smashed his old one up,he knew enough of Sheila to tell Doris Foakes "I'm not sharing any of my money with my sister" and he knew enough of June to screw her letter to be opened after her death up into his glove compartment saying to Julie "I'm glad she's dead".
We just don't know how wrapped up in Julie he was. Was he on the rebound from Suzette and was he grief-stricken at her three miscarriages? Was the thought "let's make babies" on his mind every time he took Julie to bed,was this an infantile remark symptomatic of the workings of his mind or was this a side-sweep at a possible infertile Nevill..
My opinion in retrospect is that he used Julie-he used her for sex at Goldsmiths,he used her to access the cannabis market making up some of the income he spent living beyond his means,,he tied her into the murders with the telephone calls and used her as a sounding board,he used her for emotional reassurance as an ersatz mother and like the car he had wrecked when he found no further use for her he dumped her and bought a new model in the form of Anji Greaves.
-
Steve,,if Jeremy had committed the murders,believe you me,he'd have planned his speeches to sound the same whoever he was questioned by. Liars and murderers never lose their thread.They have memories like an elephant,,and that's why Jeremys' story of events changed.Not because he'd committed murder,but because he hadn't.
I agree lookout, a clear unfaltering story is usually a practiced one. A shocked and traumatised person would struggle with a timetable of events as their brain would be muddled. Surely Im not the only person whos given a statement while shocked only to think later that what I said was wrong and facts needed changing. It can be very confusing.
-
Lugg, all this cannabis Bamber smokes and he doesn't get the munchies once, no mention of scoffing a packet of chocolate biscuits anywhere !!!!
-
Steve,,if Jeremy had committed the murders,believe you me,he'd have planned his speeches to sound the same whoever he was questioned by. Liars and murderers never lose their thread.They have memories like an elephant,,and that's why Jeremys' story of events changed.Not because he'd committed murder,but because he hadn't.
No lookout he was an adoptee whose parents provided the love and care of sorts but where he never felt particularly comfortable. True many young people take a year out and travel the world but upon return Jeremy preferred working at a Little Chef on the A12 rather than the career which had been mapped out for him almost from birth.
The psychiatric testing he took in prison suggested that he was in the lowest 10% of ability on one of the tests,yet he knew on which side his bread was buttered and as he told Julie when she asked why he didn't just leave he replied: "I have too much to lose". It was during this time that Jeremy had time to think about planning the murders,whilst outwardly giving the appearance of someone who had settled down to the farming lifestyle,one must never forget that he was ploughing the fields with an ulterior motive,a corn carter with malice aforethought.
-
He knew about the terms of Nevill's will alright,and he knew enough to want a new car when he had smashed his old one up,he knew enough of Sheila to tell Doris Foakes "I'm not sharing any of my money with my sister" and he knew enough of June to screw her letter to be opened after her death up into his glove compartment saying to Julie "I'm glad she's dead".
We just don't know how wrapped up in Julie he was. Was he on the rebound from Suzette and was he grief-stricken at her three miscarriages? Was the thought "let's make babies" on his mind every time he took Julie to bed,was this an infantile remark symptomatic of the workings of his mind or was this a side-sweep at a possible infertile Nevill..
My opinion in retrospect is that he used Julie-he used her for sex at Goldsmiths,he used her to access the cannabis market making up some of the income he spent living beyond his means,,he tied her into the murders with the telephone calls and used her as a sounding board,he used her for emotional reassurance as an ersatz mother and like the car he had wrecked when he found no further use for her he dumped her and bought a new model in the form of Anji Greaves.
Well for someone planning on committing the perfect murder he certainly had a very big mouth. Telling everybody in sight that he was going to kill his family. Makes you wonder if he really did want to be sent to prison. What seems to me to be the right judgment on all these so called witnesses is that the prosecution had gone out and found everyone who disliked JB. That ti my mind is the logical way to deal with this mountain of all too plausible hearsay. For that is what is plainly is. Hearsay.
-
No lookout he was an adoptee whose parents provided the love and care of sorts but where he never felt particularly comfortable. True many young people take a year out and travel the world but upon return Jeremy preferred working at a Little Chef on the A12 rather than the career which had been mapped out for him almost from birth.
The psychiatric testing he took in prison suggested that he was in the lowest 10% of ability on one of the tests,yet he knew on which side his bread was buttered and as he told Julie when she asked why he didn't just leave he replied: "I have too much to lose". It was during this time that Jeremy had time to think about planning the murders,whilst outwardly giving the appearance of someone who had settled down to the farming lifestyle,one must never forget that he was ploughing the fields with an ulterior motive,a corn carter with malice aforethought.
Steve,of course he was comfortable with his parents.June thought the world of him,,,most likely because he was less trouble than his sister,and the fact that he was an adoptee doesn't and shouldn't come into it as I feel very strongly in them being singled out as some sort of " has-beens ". Some adoptees are by far better than birth children,who,I might add,go through, and say exactly the same things as Jeremy was supposed to have said.
The murders weren't planned by anyone,,least of all by Jeremy. It was Sheila who had all the issues.
Anyway,you've just admitted that Jeremy only came out at 10%,,which certainly isn't enough to plan and carry out 5 murders,is it.? You need brains,and back in 1985,I'm afraid Jeremy lacked.
-
True april and also that old farmhouse would have thick stone walls. Would doubt if the twins in their bedroom would hear Sheila screaming downstairs.
We know 'Freddie' feared for his life when Sheila was psychotic in Maida Vale flat.
We dont know if Sheila had threatened anyone with anything leading up to that August night.
We do know;she hadn't.
-
I doubt if anyone had screamed or shouted that the boys would have been awoken by the noise. This slaughter was not done in silence but yet the children remained asleep and thankfully were asleep when they were killed.
Who is to say that Sheila never once lifted a knife or anything else that could have been used as a weapon, or threatened any other person? SC was ill, anything is possible IMO.
If SC was brandishing the gun, and unlike other occassions, he was unable to calm her down, it makes sense that he would call Jeremy, as Jeremy was one of the few who really knew what Sheila was like when she had an episode.
No Sheila and Jeremy kept their distance from each other and didn't have much in common. They went to separate schools for most of their lives and Sheila had lived in London from the age of sixteen. Jeremy told the Police that morning "I don't like her and she doesn't like me.." Under these circumstances I find it hard to believe that Jeremy was the one Nevill turned to in a crisis.
-
You see I don't accept the Defence's telephone call in the first place,so it's again building one hypothesis on another,if you can put yourself in the shoes of the Prosecution for one tiny moment..
I can and do regularly place my self in the shoes of the prosecution, hence my percentage stance which is roughly born out in my posts
There's just no way that Sheila was the type who would go berserk or go crazy or whatever words you want to describe it with a gun. It was Jeremy who loaded the gun with a magazine don't you see,because he knew that people would say Sheila could never have performed that action,but Jeremy could not predict exactly how much ammunition he would need to kill five people in a rifle whose purpose was to kill vermin.
It's nonsense to suggest that Sheila would not go mad with a light weight easy to use gun. You, Steve_UK cannot know what implements Sheila would or would not go mad with. Then there's the possibility that this is not a one gun crime but multiple weapon crime. That hasn't yet been cleared up enough to my satisfaction. If more than one weapon was used in the incident then you can kiss goodbye to me wearing any prosecution shoes, even if they happen to be Jimmy Choos.
I don't accept the suggestion that somehow Nevill manages to calm Sheila down,then she kicks off again. It's quite clear from the way the bullet cases are scattered that Nevill is shot on the landing yet manages to make his way down to the kitchen, whoever you think the identity of his assailant is,and in these circumstances everyone's natural thoughts are to telephone the Police. Why wake Jeremy up anyway in the middle of the night when he might after all not even pick up the receiver?
You might not accept the suggestion but on what grounds? You have absolutley no idea what took place during the evening, where jeremy Bamber does not portray Sheila as berserk but distant. Very inconvenient for the likes of you, just as his later blaming of the raid team is. Neither fit whatsoever with Jeremy portraying Sheila as berserk or a nutter. Well actually, the distant portrayal might very well be a genuine and apt description of a prelude to unforeseen mayhem. Why wake Jeremy up in the middle of the night? Have you ever been in such a dire, desperate situation in the small hours. How do you know exactly who you would turn to or in what order. Everyone's natural instincts? Next time you are facing the prospect of a fight to the death with your daughter, please be kind enough to simultaneously record your 'natural instincts' for prosperity.
It's not just at the White House Farm end that the Jeremy supporters' scenario breaks down. We have Jeremy calmly flicking through the Yellow Pages for ten minutes,as well as telephoning Julie(we won't go into the exact timing of that now as that represents another headache) as we are supposed to believe his words to the Police: "what's taking you so much time..my father sounded terrified when he called" yet Jeremy retracts this at trial which along with other inconsistencies in his evidence make his version of events incredible and the jury's verdict of beyond reasonable doubt a correct one.
Jeremy flicking through the yellow pages actually fits in with David Boutflour's original assessment and the assessment of a non material witness, namely that Jeremy "wouldn't have the gumption" to do this. He's not the sharpest tool in the box when awoke in the middle of the night and doesn't phone 999. Perhaps he had never envisaged receiving such a strange call from his father, nor envisaged the multiple murder of his family occurring while he slept. Perhaps his father had never phoned him before in this manner. perhaps he was momentarily thrown off-kilter. Perhaps he was still stoned.
-
He knew about the terms of Nevill's will alright,and he knew enough to want a new car when he had smashed his old one up,he knew enough of Sheila to tell Doris Foakes "I'm not sharing any of my money with my sister" and he knew enough of June to screw her letter to be opened after her death up into his glove compartment saying to Julie "I'm glad she's dead".
We just don't know how wrapped up in Julie he was. Was he on the rebound from Suzette and was he grief-stricken at her three miscarriages? Was the thought "let's make babies" on his mind every time he took Julie to bed,was this an infantile remark symptomatic of the workings of his mind or was this a side-sweep at a possible infertile Nevill..
My opinion in retrospect is that he used Julie-he used her for sex at Goldsmiths,he used her to access the cannabis market making up some of the income he spent living beyond his means,,he tied her into the murders with the telephone calls and used her as a sounding board,he used her for emotional reassurance as an ersatz mother and like the car he had wrecked when he found no further use for her he dumped her and bought a new model in the form of Anji Greaves.
It's easy enough to claim on one's insurance after a car accident, and he only wanted a kit car, not a Bentley. My ex told his family doctor that he had an allergy to his brother!! I wouldn't rule out that emotionally, Jeremy longed for a blood relative which a child would have been.......but it hardly fits with your claim that he's a psychopath. As for him using Julie. She certainly doesn't fit my picture of an innocent virgin. Are you suggesting he forced her. It may have been on of their favourite games, who knows? I'm inclined to think that as far as cannibis went, it was Julie who showed Jeremy the ropes. She certainly didn't seem to need any assistance in passing dud cheques, so perhaps it was she who suggested that they "tested" the security at the caravan site.
-
We do know;she hadn't.
How do we know as the close family who would have experienced it are dead as we know.
-
No Sheila and Jeremy kept their distance from each other and didn't have much in common. They went to separate schools for most of their lives and Sheila had lived in London from the age of sixteen. Jeremy told the Police that morning "I don't like her and she doesn't like me.." Under these circumstances I find it hard to believe that Jeremy was the one Nevill turned to in a crisis.
You find it hard to believe that he would turn to his son? I give up! It's like talking to a wall!
-
Well for someone planning on committing the perfect murder he certainly had a very big mouth. Telling everybody in sight that he was going to kill his family. Makes you wonder if he really did want to be sent to prison. What seems to me to be the right judgment on all these so called witnesses is that the prosecution had gone out and found everyone who disliked JB. That ti my mind is the logical way to deal with this mountain of all too plausible hearsay. For that is what is plainly is. Hearsay.
He's never actually confessed,so I reject that he's "telling everybody in sight that he was going to kill his family". In my opinion however it was not sheer coincidence that the only times the whole family were under the one roof,namely Christmas 1984 and August 1985 Jeremy can hardly contain himself,as his need for excitement either from natural events or substance abuse takes precedence over his exercising of caution.
-
Maggie all we have on the TV just Now is REPEATS :)
-
Steve,of course he was comfortable with his parents.June thought the world of him,,,most likely because he was less trouble than his sister,and the fact that he was an adoptee doesn't and shouldn't come into it as I feel very strongly in them being singled out as some sort of " has-beens ". Some adoptees are by far better than birth children,who,I might add,go through, and say exactly the same things as Jeremy was supposed to have said.
The murders weren't planned by anyone,,least of all by Jeremy. It was Sheila who had all the issues.
Anyway,you've just admitted that Jeremy only came out at 10%,,which certainly isn't enough to plan and carry out 5 murders,is it.? You need brains,and back in 1985,I'm afraid Jeremy lacked.
Well I'd give more credence to your judgement of a person's intellectual capacities had you not described Julie as "not having much between the ears",but the point of the murders is that they had been planned over a period of at least a year,so Jeremy however slow he was had time to get the details right.
-
I can and do regularly place my self in the shoes of the prosecution, hence my percentage stance which is roughly born out in my posts
It's nonsense to suggest that Sheila would not go mad with a light weight easy to use gun. You, Steve_UK cannot know what implements Sheila would or would not go mad with. Then there's the possibility that this is not a one gun crime but multiple weapon crime. That hasn't yet been cleared up enough to my satisfaction. If more than one weapon was used in the incident then you can kiss goodbye to me wearing any prosecution shoes, even if they happen to be Jimmy Choos.
You might not accept the suggestion but on what grounds? You have absolutley no idea what took place during the evening, where jeremy Bamber does not portray Sheila as berserk but distant. Very inconvenient for the likes of you, just as his later blaming of the raid team is. Neither fit whatsoever with Jeremy portraying Sheila as berserk or a nutter. Well actually, the distant portrayal might very well be a genuine and apt description of a prelude to unforeseen mayhem. Why wake Jeremy up in the middle of the night? Have you ever been in such a dire, desperate situation in the small hours. How do you know exactly who you would turn to or in what order. Everyone's natural instincts? Next time you are facing the prospect of a fight to the death with your daughter, please be kind enough to simultaneously record your 'natural instincts' for prosperity.
Jeremy flicking through the yellow pages actually fits in with David Boutflour's original assessment and the assessment of a non material witness, namely that Jeremy "wouldn't have the gumption" to do this. He's not the sharpest tool in the box when awoke in the middle of the night and doesn't phone 999. Perhaps he had never envisaged receiving such a strange call from his father, nor envisaged the multiple murder of his family occurring while he slept. Perhaps his father had never phoned him before in this manner. perhaps he was momentarily thrown off-kilter. Perhaps he was still stoned.
He was stoned at the time of the murders:Ann Eaton noted his dilated pupils on the morning of the murders at Goldhanger. The gun may well have been lightweight and easy to use-I'm sure that's the manufacturers want to portray in their literature,but this particular gun was stiff and may well have jammed during the murders. You also disregard the reloading requirement,with of course all Sheila's nails intact.
-
Well I'd give more credence to your judgement of a person's intellectual capacities had you not described Julie as "not having much between the ears",but the point of the murders is that they had been planned over a period of at least a year,so Jeremy however slow he was had time to get the details right.
Is that what Julie told you,that the murders had been planned " over a period of a year ".?
-
You find it hard to believe that he would turn to his son? I give up! It's like talking to a wall!
Caroline have you read the evidence:"I must never turn my back on that young man..the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen..if he buys (that gun) we'll all have to be on our guard..
I'm afraid the Defence has been wantonly misled by an evil charmer,who sometimes forgets his lines.
-
Well I'd give more credence to your judgement of a person's intellectual capacities had you not described Julie as "not having much between the ears",but the point of the murders is that they had been planned over a period of at least a year,so Jeremy however slow he was had time to get the details right.
.Now you are making out Jeremy has a learning difficulty!! These psychiatric tests breakdown different parts of understanding. He may have some other really high percentages in other area. I have never seen this report where did you read it.
-
No lookout he was an adoptee whose parents provided the love and care of sorts but where he never felt particularly comfortable. True many young people take a year out and travel the world but upon return Jeremy preferred working at a Little Chef on the A12 rather than the career which had been mapped out for him almost from birth.
The psychiatric testing he took in prison suggested that he was in the lowest 10% of ability on one of the tests,yet he knew on which side his bread was buttered and as he told Julie when she asked why he didn't just leave he replied: "I have too much to lose". It was during this time that Jeremy had time to think about planning the murders,whilst outwardly giving the appearance of someone who had settled down to the farming lifestyle,one must never forget that he was ploughing the fields with an ulterior motive,a corn carter with malice aforethought.
From what I recall, falling into the lowest 10% intellectually, would put him, without doubt, into the realms of someone incapable of planning the route from D'arcy to Tiptree, let alone 5 murders.
-
Is that what Julie told you,that the murders had been planned " over a period of a year ".?
Yes Lookout, 'always' when he was in his tractor! :)
-
Caroline have you read the evidence:"I must never turn my back on that young man..the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen..if he buys (that gun) we'll all have to be on our guard..
I'm afriad the Defence has been wantonly misled by an evil charmer,who sometimes forgets his lines.
That's not evidence!
-
Well it was one test in which he fell into the lowest 10%..the other test he fared better at. I don't set much store by the tests but it's just something to think about. It may have been Scott Lomax's book where I got the information but I don't have it at home right now.
-
Caroline have you read the evidence:"I must never turn my back on that young man..the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen..if he buys (that gun) we'll all have to be on our guard..
I'm afraid the Defence has been wantonly misled by an evil charmer,who sometimes forgets his lines.
Neville meant that he would never let Jeremy down,,,but added nothing about the shooting season,,those are your words.
-
Well it was one test in which he fell into the lowest 10%..the other test he fared better at. I don't set much store by the tests but it's just something to think about. It may have been Scott Lomax's book where I got the information but I don't have it at home right now.
But you don't know what the test was set to measure? You really can't use it as a debate point if you don't know what point it's making! For all you know, it could have been a test to measure his capacity to learn languages or visio spatial capabilities. It can't be something to think about if we all we know is that is was a test!!
-
Caroline have you read the evidence:"I must never turn my back on that young man..the shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen..if he buys (that gun) we'll all have to be on our guard..
I'm afraid the Defence has been wantonly misled by an evil charmer,who sometimes forgets his lines.
You are taking all those lines out of context, in the same way that you bend, manipulate, contradict and grab unauthenticated sound bites to fit what you're saying at the time. It seems you still can't make up your mind whether you would like Jeremy to be a psychopath or a soul so lost and longing for someone of his own blood that he's hoping to impregnate Julie eveytime he has sex with her.
-
He was stoned at the time of the murders:Ann Eaton noted his dilated pupils on the morning of the murders at Goldhanger. The gun may well have been lightweight and easy to use-I'm sure that's the manufacturers want to portray in their literature,but this particular gun was stiff and may well have jammed during the murders. You also disregard the reloading requirement,with of course all Sheila's nails intact.
I have taken the liberty of amending your post (replacing the missing latter bracket on the end quote).
What kind of drugs was he known to be using prior to the killings? Cannabis does not dilate pupils. It turns them in to 'piss holes in the snow'
-
I have taken the liberty of amending your post (replacing the missing latter bracket on the end quote).
What kind of drugs was he known to be using prior to the killings? Cannabis does not dilate pupils. It turns them in to 'piss holes in the snow'
what drugs/narcotics did jeremy use? and did he have a history of being impulsive or having rage o
utburts?
-
I have taken the liberty of amending your post (replacing the missing latter bracket on the end quote).
What kind of drugs was he known to be using prior to the killings? Cannabis does not dilate pupils. It turns them in to 'piss holes in the snow'
I wouldn't know,but I stand by Ann Eaton's remarks about Jeremy's dilated pupils. I also stand by the "shooting season is coming up" remarks, whether or not they were made on a separate occasion from the "I must never turn my back on that young man" comments,it is patently clear to any sensible impartial observer what the import of these comments are,and I would urge the Jeremy supporters to acknowledge them.
-
what drugs/narcotics did jeremy use? and did he have a history of being impulsive or having rage o
utburts?
Paris, hi. As far as I know, he just had the odd spliff. Steve would have us believe he was into cocaine, but much of what he says, regarding Jeremy is, IMO, spurious. Unlike Sheila, Jeremy doesn't seem to have suffered outbursts.
-
I wouldn't know,but I stand by Ann Eaton's remarks about Jeremy's dilated pupils. I also stand by the "shooting season is coming up" remarks, whether or not they were made on a separate occasion from the "I must never turn my back on that young man" comments,it is patently clear to any sensible impartial observer what the import of these comments are,and I would urge the Jeremy supporters to acknowledge them.
Those remarks can mean what ever you want them to mean, and we know what you want them to mean.
-
I wouldn't know,but I stand by Ann Eaton's remarks about Jeremy's dilated pupils. I also stand by the "shooting season is coming up" remarks, whether or not they were made on a separate occasion from the "I must never turn my back on that young man" comments,it is patently clear to any sensible impartial observer what the import of these comments are,and I would urge the Jeremy supporters to acknowledge them.
It's certainly clear how much gravity you attribute to the alleged 'never turn my back' comment. Here is your second ever post on the forum: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=profile;u=878;area=showposts;start=945 (second from the bottom).
What about the remark that nobody on the jury got to hear about... 'all people are bad and should be killed'? (attributed to Sheila Caffell). If you 'stand by' Ann Eaton's recollections, do you also 'stand by' that one?
-
I wouldn't know,but I stand by Ann Eaton's remarks about Jeremy's dilated pupils. I also stand by the "shooting season is coming up" remarks, whether or not they were made on a separate occasion from the "I must never turn my back on that young man" comments,it is patently clear to any sensible impartial observer what the import of these comments are,and I would urge the Jeremy supporters to acknowledge them.
And Sorry,Steve,I don't buy your remarks either.
-
It's certainly clear how much gravity you attribute to the alleged 'never turn my back' comment. What about the remark that nobody on the jury got to hear about... 'all people are bad and should be killed'? (attributed to Sheila Caffell). If you 'stand by' Ann Eaton's recollections, do you also 'stand by' that one?
Sheila may have regarded herself as a white witch,who is quite harmless. I never said it wasn't theoretically possible that Sheila couldn't have killed them,it's just that I,unlike most people on this site,try to weigh up the evidence and for me the most telling evidence is Julie's statement backed up by the one other time the whole family were together on one roof and Charles Marsden's statement therefrom.
-
It's a pity folks didn't have anything better to do that nit-pick,,such as Anne Eaton did.
There are many reasons for having dilated pupils for Gods' sake.Why should it be directed towards drugs.?
Maybe Anne Eaton should have been told about Sheilas habit.!
-
Sheila may have regarded herself as a white witch,who is quite harmless. I never said it wasn't theoretically possible that Sheila couldn't have killed them,it's just that I,unlike most people on this site,try to weigh up the evidence and for me the most telling evidence is Julie's statement backed up by the one other time the whole family were together on one roof and Charles Marsden's statement therefrom.
So when Sheila is believed by either CAE or Babs Wilson to have uttered that remark, it is just cast aside as a trifling irrelevance that didn't need to be 'weighed up' (as you put it) by a jury?
It never occurs to you that Julie's statement could be made to fit? Moulded? Evolved?
-
So when Sheila is believed by either CAE or Babs Wilson to have uttered that remark, it is just cast aside as a trifling irrelevance that didn't need to be 'weighed up' (as you put it) by a jury?
It never occurs to you that Julie's statement could be made to fit? Moulded? Evolved?
It seems to me that Steve can apply valid innocent explanations for every word uttered by everybody OTHER than Jeremy, whose words, in his opinion ONLY imply guilt.
-
And Sorry,Steve,I don't buy your remarks either.
The actual remarks were: "Barbara(Wilson):we'll have to find a new hiding place for the key to the safe".."will you promise me to look after the farm and make sure that everything carries on as normal?Make sure things don't get messed up,that sort of thing?"
Mrs Wilson was stunned."Yes",she said quietly,"of course".
"Promise me"
"Promise"
Seizing the moment,she confronted him. "What's wrong?"she asked."Are you seriously ill?"
Nevill Bamber's voice sank to a whisper."No",he replied."But I don't think I've got long".
"What do you mean. If you're not ill,what's wrong?"
Nevill Bamber drew on his cigarette,swallowed deeply and blew a cloud of smoke above his head. "There's so much to tell Barbara",he murmured."But I can't bother you with all that. It's not your burden But if anything were to happen to me,you will promise me you'll do that?"
"Yes,of course I will"
"Of course" he added,"the shooting season's coming up". Nevill Bamber just sat and looked at her. Then he said,"Living on a farm is a dangerous business and one never knows what's going to happen..." His voice tailed off and he looked away.
"Do you have a premonition?"asked Barbara Wilson.
"Well perhaps. But one never knows. I could go out one day shooting and you never know,do you? These things do happen. You can never tell."(Blood Relations Chapter 3)
Here Nevill is perusing various thoughts in his mind. He is worried about Sheila having come out of hospital,but I always thought that Nevill ostensibly left Sheila to June,as June supported her financially with her dividend from Osea Park,but it was Nevill whom the burden fell upon most as the emotional support Sheila required was draining for Nevill as he spent hours talking to her reassuringly on the other end of the telephone.
However I think Nevill's real anxieties are directed at Jeremy. Had Nevill been sceptical that last year of his son's Damascene conversion to the farming industry? Had Nevill detected that Jeremy's behaviour was a little too perfect,a little too exemplary for comfort? Had Nevill caught that malicious stare out of the corner of his eye in one of Jeremy's unguarded moments? The reference to the shooting season with its implication of guns,the "I must never turn my back on that young man" remark,coupled with the new gun he was planning to buy making Nevill ill at ease,all points to Jeremy,however much the Defence wish it were not so. Nevill was foretelling his own death,he saw his own mortality and how life had passed him by,with money to show for it but his health failing. June had always lived in the past and closed her eyes to the permissive society and its effects. But Nevill knew his own vulnerability,he knew the demands of young adults,and his prescience that neither he nor June could help either child in modern Britain,nor relate to a spurious Jeremy whom he had caught rummaging around the safe and of whom he was fearful, tortured him
-
The actual remarks were: "Barbara(Wilson):we'll have to find a new hiding place for the key to the safe".."will you promise me to look after the farm and make sure that everything carries on as normal?Make sure things don't get messed up,that sort of thing?"
Mrs Wilson was stunned."Yes",she said quietly,"of course".
"Promise me"
"Promise"
Seizing the moment,she confronted him. "What's wrong?"she asked."Are you seriously ill?"
Nevill Bamber's voice sank to a whisper."No",he replied."But I don't think I've got long".
"What do you mean. If you're not ill,what's wrong?"
Nevill Bamber drew on his cigarette,swallowed deeply and blew a cloud of smoke above his head. "There's so much to tell Barbara",he murmured."But I can't bother you with all that. It's not your burden But if anything were to happen to me,you will promise me you'll do that?"
"Yes,of course I will"
"Of course" he added,"the shooting season's coming up". Nevill Bamber just sat and looked at her. Then he said,"Living on a farm is a dangerous business and one never knows what's going to happen..." His voice tailed off and he looked away.
"Do you have a premonition?"asked Barbara Wilson.
"Well perhaps. But one never knows. I could go out one day shooting and you never know,do you? These things do happen. You can never tell."(Blood Relations Chapter 3)
Here Nevill is perusing various thoughts in his mind. He is worried about Sheila having come out of hospital,but I always thought that Nevill ostensibly left Sheila to June,as June supported her financially with her dividend from Osea Park,but it was Nevill whom the burden fell upon most as the emotional support Sheila required was draining for Nevill as he spent hours talking to her reassuringly on the other end of the telephone.
However I think Nevill's real anxieties are directed at Jeremy. Had Nevill been sceptical that last year of his son's Damascene conversion to the farming industry? Had Nevill detected that Jeremy's behaviour was a little too perfect,a little too exemplary for comfort? Had Nevill caught that malicious stare out of the corner of his eye in one of Jeremy's unguarded moments? The reference to the shooting season with its implication of guns,the "I must never turn my back on that young man" remark,coupled with the new gun he was planning to buy making Nevill fearful,all points to Jeremy,however much the Defence wish it were not so. Nevill was foretelling his own death,he saw his own mortality and how life had passed him by,wth money to show for it but his health failing. June had always lived in the past and closed her eyes to the permissive society and its effects. But Nevill knew his own vulnerability,he knew the demands of young adults,and his prescience that neither he nor June could help neither child in modern Britain,nor relate to a spurious Jeremy whom he had caught rummaging around the safe and whom he was fearful, tortured him
Perhaps you should give this a whirl:
(http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/169490000/169499471.JPG)
-
The actual remarks were: "Barbara(Wilson):we'll have to find a new hiding place for the key to the safe".."will you promise me to look after the farm and make sure that everything carries on as normal?Make sure things don't get messed up,that sort of thing?"
Mrs Wilson was stunned."Yes",she said quietly,"of course".
"Promise me"
"Promise"
Seizing the moment,she confronted him. "What's wrong?"she asked."Are you seriously ill?"
Nevill Bamber's voice sank to a whisper."No",he replied."But I don't think I've got long".
"What do you mean. If you're not ill,what's wrong?"
Nevill Bamber drew on his cigarette,swallowed deeply and blew a cloud of smoke above his head. "There's so much to tell Barbara",he murmured."But I can't bother you with all that. It's not your burden But if anything were to happen to me,you will promise me you'll do that?"
"Yes,of course I will"
"Of course" he added,"the shooting season's coming up". Nevill Bamber just sat and looked at her. Then he said,"Living on a farm is a dangerous business and one never knows what's going to happen..." His voice tailed off and he looked away.
"Do you have a premonition?"asked Barbara Wilson.
"Well perhaps. But one never knows. I could go out one day shooting and you never know,do you? These things do happen. You can never tell."(Blood Relations Chapter 3)
Here Nevill is perusing various thoughts in his mind. He is worried about Sheila having come out of hospital,but I always thought that Nevill ostensibly left Sheila to June,as June supported her financially with her dividend from Osea Park,but it was Nevill whom the burden fell upon most as the emotional support Sheila required was draining for Nevill as he spent hours talking to her reassuringly on the other end of the telephone.
However I think Nevill's real anxieties are directed at Jeremy. Had Nevill been sceptical that last year of his son's Damascene conversion to the farming industry? Had Nevill detected that Jeremy's behaviour was a little too perfect,a little too exemplary for comfort? Had Nevill caught that malicious stare out of the corner of his eye in one of Jeremy's unguarded moments? The reference to the shooting season with its implication of guns,the "I must never turn my back on that young man" remark,coupled with the new gun he was planning to buy making Nevill ill at ease,all points to Jeremy,however much the Defence wish it were not so. Nevill was foretelling his own death,he saw his own mortality and how life had passed him by,with money to show for it but his health failing. June had always lived in the past and closed her eyes to the permissive society and its effects. But Nevill knew his own vulnerability,he knew the demands of young adults,and his prescience that neither he nor June could help neither child in modern Britain,nor relate to a spurious Jeremy whom he had caught rummaging around the safe and whom he was fearful, tortured him
Nevill might have been thinking of something entirely different to what you are implying? Not once does he mention JB. Why put words into his mouth. It reads like a novel and that is how people should interpret it as far I am concerned. It is her story and hers alone. No independent witnesses. No corroboration.
-
It's a pity folks didn't have anything better to do that nit-pick,,such as Anne Eaton did.
There are many reasons for having dilated pupils for Gods' sake.Why should it be directed towards drugs.?
Maybe Anne Eaton should have been told about Sheilas habit.!
Hi lookout, Maybe someone should tell Anne Eaton and Steve that a symptom of low blood sugar or hypoglyceamia is dilated pupils. Having been up half the night and having had dreadful trauma with neither food or drink till the infamous brakfast of a few rashers of bacon, ut would be expected that Jeremy would be suffering from low blood sugar.
-
The actual remarks were: "Barbara(Wilson):we'll have to find a new hiding place for the key to the safe".."will you promise me to look after the farm and make sure that everything carries on as normal?Make sure things don't get messed up,that sort of thing?"
Mrs Wilson was stunned."Yes",she said quietly,"of course".
"Promise me"
"Promise"
Seizing the moment,she confronted him. "What's wrong?"she asked."Are you seriously ill?"
Nevill Bamber's voice sank to a whisper."No",he replied."But I don't think I've got long".
"What do you mean. If you're not ill,what's wrong?"
Nevill Bamber drew on his cigarette,swallowed deeply and blew a cloud of smoke above his head. "There's so much to tell Barbara",he murmured."But I can't bother you with all that. It's not your burden But if anything were to happen to me,you will promise me you'll do that?"
"Yes,of course I will"
"Of course" he added,"the shooting season's coming up". Nevill Bamber just sat and looked at her. Then he said,"Living on a farm is a dangerous business and one never knows what's going to happen..." His voice tailed off and he looked away.
"Do you have a premonition?"asked Barbara Wilson.
"Well perhaps. But one never knows. I could go out one day shooting and you never know,do you? These things do happen. You can never tell."(Blood Relations Chapter 3)
Here Nevill is perusing various thoughts in his mind. He is worried about Sheila having come out of hospital,but I always thought that Nevill ostensibly left Sheila to June,as June supported her financially with her dividend from Osea Park,but it was Nevill whom the burden fell upon most as the emotional support Sheila required was draining for Nevill as he spent hours talking to her reassuringly on the other end of the telephone.
However I think Nevill's real anxieties are directed at Jeremy. Had Nevill been sceptical that last year of his son's Damascene conversion to the farming industry? Had Nevill detected that Jeremy's behaviour was a little too perfect,a little too exemplary for comfort? Had Nevill caught that malicious stare out of the corner of his eye in one of Jeremy's unguarded moments? The reference to the shooting season with its implication of guns,the "I must never turn my back on that young man" remark,coupled with the new gun he was planning to buy making Nevill ill at ease,all points to Jeremy,however much the Defence wish it were not so. Nevill was foretelling his own death,he saw his own mortality and how life had passed him by,with money to show for it but his health failing. June had always lived in the past and closed her eyes to the permissive society and its effects. But Nevill knew his own vulnerability,he knew the demands of young adults,and his prescience that neither he nor June could help either child in modern Britain,nor relate to a spurious Jeremy whom he had caught rummaging around the safe and of whom he was fearful, tortured him
Don't tell me .... Rodger Wilkes? :)
-
Perhaps you should give this a whirl:
(http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/169490000/169499471.JPG)
Have read this Roch. Some really interesting stuff in it, I think.
-
Nevill might have been thinking of something entirely different to what you are implying? Not once does he mention JB. Why put words into his mouth. It reads like a novel and that is how people should interpret it as far I am concerned. It is her story and hers alone. No independent witnesses. No corroboration.
Well Lugg that's another unreliable witness to strike off the list and the Defence are getting through a good many aren't they..Barbara Wilson,Julie Mugford,Ann Eaton,Robert Boutflour,Charles Marsden,James Richards,Doris Foakes,Liz Rimington..
You'd better buy a new biro..but of course,you've got Jeremy's word haven't you? Thank heavens for that..
-
Well Lugg that's another unreliable witness to strike off the list and the Defence are getting through a good many aren't they..Barbara Wilson,Julie Mugford,Ann Eaton,Robert Boutflour,Charles Marsden,James Richards,Doris Foakes,Liz Rimington..
You'd better buy a new biro..but of course,you've got Jeremy's word haven't you? Thank heavens for that..
Well Steve. Anyone can see that it is your own interpretation that brings JB into that conversation. Yet he is not mentioned once.
-
Steve, do you have a response to post 303?
-
Is anyone on this thread directly quoting from a novel ?
-
Nevill might have been thinking of something entirely different to what you are implying? Not once does he mention JB. Why put words into his mouth. It reads like a novel and that is how people should interpret it as far I am concerned. It is her story and hers alone. No independent witnesses. No corroboration.
Lugg, Barbara Wilson made 14 statements and not once did she mention THAT conversation with Neville, nor was it part of her testimony in court! It was later after all the media hype and JB had become a pariah that she turned! Before this, she had only good things to say about him!
-
Is anyone on this thread directly quoting from a novel ?
Yes, Steve is. It reads like an Agatha Cristie mystery. Of course we always have Wilkes' word. He surely hasn't money as a motive for writing his book. ::)
-
Well Lugg that's another unreliable witness to strike off the list and the Defence are getting through a good many aren't they..Barbara Wilson,Julie Mugford,Ann Eaton,Robert Boutflour,Charles Marsden,James Richards,Doris Foakes,Liz Rimington..
You'd better buy a new biro..but of course,you've got Jeremy's word haven't you? Thank heavens for that..
Except that Barbara Wilson didn't mention anything of the sort until AFTER the trial - in fact I believe it was a statement made prior to the first appeal and it was never mentioned in court!
-
Yes, Steve is. It reads like an Agatha Cristie mystery.
.........adulterated by Barbara Cartland ;D ;D ;D
-
.........adulterated by Barbara Cartland ;D ;D ;D
Unfortunately it's much worse April - it's RODGER WILKES!!
-
.........adulterated by Barbara Cartland ;D ;D ;D
She felt his hot breath on her neck as he ripped the thin silk from.................... ;D
-
Is anyone on this thread directly quoting from a novel ?
Not once have I quoted anything from a novel,,,,simply because I haven't read any of them,and don't intend doing so either. I've never done anything " by the book " and I certainly don't intend to start now.
-
The gentle breeze muffled the sound of a ladies bicycle racing down Pages Lane, a startled rabbit the only witness to this audacious get away, how lucky, only hours earlier he would have been blasted to death if Bruce the Labrador hadn't intervened. The moon peeped from behind a cloud......
-
The gentle breeze muffled the sound of a ladies bicycle racing down Pages Lane, a startled rabbit the only witness to this audacious get away, how lucky, only hours earlier he would have been blasted to death if Bruce the Labrador hadn't intervened. The moon peeped from behind a cloud......
And projected a " trick of the light " at the window-------------
-
She felt his hot breath on her neck as he ripped the thin silk from.................... ;D
[/quote)
............and crushed her trembling body to his many chest!!!!! Ohhhh! Be still, my beating heart :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
My mistake re Wilson's recollection about NB's remarks having been put before a jury. Nevertheless, weighing up such remarks as those attributed to Sheila are simply be cast aside by Steve as 'believing she was a white witch'.
However nowadays, as any professional who works with vulnerable or high risk people would tell you, if such a person makes claims about death or killing... and then goes on to carry them out, there would be hell to pay, possibly via a serious case review. Which would demand an explanation as to what actions had been taken regarding the original comments having been made.
So Steve's dismissive, white witch throw away comment, in my mind, belies a malevolence on his part in respect of the defence / Jeremy Bamber.
-
My mistake re Wilson's recollection about NB's remarks having been put before a jury. Nevertheless, weighing up such remarks as those made by Sheila are simply be cast aside by Steve as 'believing she was a white witch'.
However nowadays, as any professional who works with vulnerable or high risk people would tell you, if such a person makes claims about death or killing... and then goes on to carry them out, there would be hell to pay, possibly via a serious case review. Which would demand to an explanation as to what actions had been taken regarding the original comments having been made.
So Steve's dismissive, white witch throw away comment, in my mind, belies a malevolence on his part in respect of the defence / Jeremy Bamber.
I don't think there are many 'white witches' who would make such a comment and if it were said by Sheila, it was clearly a result of her illness. Steve plays down anything which might suggest Sheila had the potential to express violence but readily highlights any little anecdote that emphasises JB as a villain.
-
Roch, in reply to your post 323. The irony here is that if there had been anyone to bring it to the notice of the authorities, there might have been a serious case review. There was a problem, IMO, created by sending Sheila to a private clinic. Had she been under the NHS, she may have been considered ill enough for section. Then there appeared to be a breakdown in communication between the private clinic and her NHS doctor when her meds were seriously reduced. Possibly, as a result of the tragedy, relief was sighed and lessons were learned.
-
Steve plays down anything which might suggest Sheila had the potential to express violence but readily highlights any little anecdote that emphasises JB as a villain.
Which is carried out to such an extent that members could be forgiven in suspecting some kind of malevolence is at play. I will add the caveat that many posters seem far to easy on JB, in my opinion.
-
Steve, do you have a response to post 303?
I never said Sheila was incapable physically of wielding a gun,though I'd be surprised if she could reload. I don't reject Julie's statement;maybe it should be posted again from within the annals of this site. It reads as an account of Julie's like with Jeremy over that past year and even Geoffrey Rivin QC and Edmund Lawson QC gloomily had to admit it "had the ring of truth about it".
-
I never said Sheila was incapable physically of wielding a gun,though I'd be surprised if she could reload. I don't reject Julie's statement;maybe it should be posted again from within the annals of this site. It reads as an account of Julie's like with Jeremy over that past year and even Geoffrey Rivin QC and Edmund Lawson QC gloomily had to admit it "had the ring of truth about it".
With respect Steve, you are missing my main point, although I was technically incorrect in my assertion that Babs Wilson's remarks attributed to Nevil were heard at trial.
Do you agree with the following (in accordance with your own approach):
That if a person with the presentation and historic severe mental health issues of Sheila, but in this day and age, made a remark to the effect that all people are bad and should be killed, then was involved in an incident in which they and their family were killed, the respective authorities, in weighing up the evidence, would simply remark... oh well, she though she was a white witch... nothing to be concerned about there then?
-
Except that Barbara Wilson didn't mention anything of the sort until AFTER the trial - in fact I believe it was a statement made prior to the first appeal and it was never mentioned in court!
The lawyers' advice was that it was hearsay evidence and therefore would be rejected. Barbara,as you allude to,did testify in court however. Jeremy's behaviour she described as "a bit arrogant,a bit nasty..". He wanted a complete clear out of Nevill's den as he didn't want anything left to remind him of his father."He wasn't saying it as if he was upset",Barbara Wilson asserted. Geoffrey Rivlin QC challenged her in cross-examination,suggesting that she had misinterpreted Jeremy's manner. But Mrs. Wilson was in no doubt as to Jeremy's feelings:
"When someone comes upstairs,sits in a chair with his feet on the desk and swivels round and tells me in the manner he told me to clear things out",she retorted,"I am not mistaken".
Barbara had reproached herself for not acting on Nevill's fears,but she was now determined on redress. Of course she had mixed feelings for Jeremy,who had often treated her with politeness,but as Barbara had mulled things over in her mind she became certain that the reference to guns applied to Jeremy. Jeremy's obsession with the financial aspect of the deaths and the valuable antiques in the house led Barbara all the more to link Nevill's changing the place of the key to the safe with Jeremy snooping around looking for the provisions of his father's will.
-
With respect Steve, you are missing my main point, although I was technically incorrect in my assertion that babs Wilson's remarks attributed to Nevil were heard at trial.
Do you agree with the following (in accordance with your own approach):
That if a person with the presentation and historic severe mental health issues of Sheila, but in this day and age, made remark to the effect that all people are bad and should be killed, then was involved in an incident in which they and their family were killed, the respective authorities, in weighing up the evidence, would simply remark... oh well, she though she was a white witch... nothing to be concerned about there then?
You would still have to weigh up all the evidence,and then put it before a jury,as was done. We're back to the four murders and a suicide theory versus five murders,and I have to put it to you that the evidence of Dr. Herbert Leon Macdonell,the Isaac Newton of ballistics and blood spatter, that Sheila was murdered,leaves the Jeremy supporters out on a limb.
-
You would still have to weigh up all the evidence,and then put it before a jury,as was done. We're back to the four murders and a suicide theory versus five murders,and I have to put it to you that the evidence of Dr. Herbert Leon Macdonell,the Isaac Newton of ballistics and blood spatter, that Sheila was murdered,leaves the Jeremy supporters out on a limb.
You're ducking the question. There's no way on earth in today's age, that the remarks attributed to SC would be overlooked as a mere coincidence. (I don't believe they were overlooked back in '85 either. Just buried. Which is dispicable). As for MacDonnell, I'd like to see his opinion now with all known lab blow ups at his disposal.
-
The lawyers' advice was that it was hearsay evidence and therefore would be rejected. Barbara,as you allude to,did testify in court however. Jeremy's behaviour she described as "a bit arrogant,a bit nasty..". He wanted a complete clear out of Nevill's den as he didn't want anything left to remind him of his father."He wasn't saying it as if he was upset",Barbara Wilson asserted. Geoffrey Rivlin QC challenged her in cross-examination,suggesting that she had misinterpreted Jeremy's manner. But Mrs. Wilson was in no doubt as to Jeremy's feelings:
"When someone comes upstairs,sits in a chair with his feet on the desk and swivels round and tells me in the manner he told me to clear things out",she retorted,"I am not mistaken".
Barbara had reproached herself for not acting on Nevill's fears,but she was now determined on redress. Of course she had mixed feelings for Jeremy,who had often treated her with politeness,but as Barbara had mulled things over in her mind she became certain that the reference to guns applied to Jeremy. Jeremy's obsession with the financial aspect of the deaths and the valuable antiques in the house led Barbara all the more to link Nevill's changing the place of the key to the safe with Jeremy snooping around looking for the provisions of his father's will.
Steve, this must be (again) from Rodger! Rodger needs to check his facts! Barbara Wilson didn't say anything derogatory about JB until years after the trial. Why didn't she say the above in at least one of her 14 statements in 1985?
-
I will add the caveat that many posters seem far to easy on JB, in my opinion.
How so?
-
Steve, this must be (again) from Rodger! Rodger needs to check his facts! Barbara Wilson didn't say anything derogatory about JB until years after the trial. Why didn't she say the above in at least one of her 14 statements in 1985?
She did,but it was technically regarded as hearsay and so not heard at trial. Did I read somewhere the rules might have been changed since to allow such testimony?
-
How so?
In my opinion, because he is currently convicted as being the mass murderer of 5 members of his family, including 2 small children. Regardless of how much posters may think he is innocent, nobody know 100% that he is, therefore to a certain extent must have respect for the crimes he has been convicted of and therefore what that necessitates.
Also, although I am not from the area, from what i have seen and read there does seem to be numerous examples of where JB has come across as a thoroughly objectionable character, coupled with his poor treatment of some of the most ardent JB supporters, Mike included.
-
She did,but it was technically regarded as hearsay and so not heard at trial. Did I read somewhere the rules might have been changed since to allow such testimony?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hearsay/
-
She did,but it was technically regarded as hearsay and so not heard at trial. Did I read somewhere the rules might have been changed since to allow such testimony?
No she didn't, it was at the 89 appeal that the testimony was disallowed as hearsay - NOT at the trial!
-
In my opinion, because he is currently convicted as being the mass murderer of 5 members of his family, including 2 small children. Regardless of how much posters may think he is innocent, nobody know 100% that he is, therefore to a certain extent must have respect for the crimes he has been convicted of and therefore what that necessitates.
Also, although I am not from the area, from what i have seen and read there does seem to be numerous examples of where JB has come across as a thoroughly objectionable character, coupled with his poor treatment of some of the most ardent JB supporters, Mike included.
Well, that depends on whether you believe the man to be guilty or that he has spent 27 years in prison as an innocent man. Of course no one can be 100% certain and I don't think there is a poster on here that doesn't have respect for the crime. However, as far as him being 'thoroughly objectionable' is concerned, I fail to see how that would matter or make a difference to the miscarriage of justice issue. I have no concern for his character other than to question his guilt and personally, I believe that he is not guilty. I have no knowledge of his relationship with Mike but Mike is happy to still fight his corner regardless of whatever relationship they now have. But by the same token, I am sure that JB has had his fair share of disingenuous 'supporters' along the way and is in a precarious position where I imagine it is difficult to know who to trust and how far.
-
Well, that depends on whether you believe the man to be guilty or that he has spent 27 years in prison as an innocent man. Of course no one can be 100% certain and I don't think there is a poster on here that doesn't have respect for the crime. However, as far as him being 'thoroughly objectionable' is concerned, I fail to see how that would matter or make a difference to the miscarriage of justice issue. I have no concern for his character other than to question his guilt and personally, I believe that he is not guilty. I have no knowledge of his relationship with Mike but Mike is happy to still fight his corner regardless of whatever relationship they now have. But by the same token, I am sure that JB has had his fair share of disingenuous 'supporters' along the way and is in a precarious position where I imagine it is difficult to know who to trust and how far.
I agree.
I have posted this before because in this case there are 2 such diametrically opposite viewpoints one that he is a cold blooded murderer of 5 members of his family for no other reason than greed, OR that he is the victim of arguably the most appalling miscarriage of justice in history, where he has been completely and utterly knowingly stitched up by those who are paid to protect us.
This is why emotions often run high between people on opposite sides of the divide.
I came to this forum thinking JB was innocent, and although my belief in his innocence has dropped somewhat since i have been here, i still await (in hope) the compelling evidence which proves his case as i still do believe him to be innocent.
From a legal perspective i believe that the defence made a number of key errors at JBs trial, allowing the prosecution to prove JBs guilt at a far lower threshold than they should have had to.
-
Morning Caroline hope you are well. I think that was an excellent post you made about Jeremy. Whether Jeremy was arrogant, good looking bad looking makes no difference whatsoever to the case guilty or not guilty. Some of the posters spend more time telling us what a bad vain greedy person he was lets try and deal in the facts that we have and make our own decisions.
-
Morning vidvic hope you are well today. Yesterday we were talking about the panic button at WHF and I thought you would know if it was located in the kitchen and the only one in the house and has it since been disconnected.
-
The lawyers' advice was that it was hearsay evidence and therefore would be rejected. Barbara,as you allude to,did testify in court however. Jeremy's behaviour she described as "a bit arrogant,a bit nasty..". He wanted a complete clear out of Nevill's den as he didn't want anything left to remind him of his father."He wasn't saying it as if he was upset",Barbara Wilson asserted. Geoffrey Rivlin QC challenged her in cross-examination,suggesting that she had misinterpreted Jeremy's manner. But Mrs. Wilson was in no doubt as to Jeremy's feelings:
"When someone comes upstairs,sits in a chair with his feet on the desk and swivels round and tells me in the manner he told me to clear things out",she retorted,"I am not mistaken".
Barbara had reproached herself for not acting on Nevill's fears,but she was now determined on redress. Of course she had mixed feelings for Jeremy,who had often treated her with politeness,but as Barbara had mulled things over in her mind she became certain that the reference to guns applied to Jeremy. Jeremy's obsession with the financial aspect of the deaths and the valuable antiques in the house led Barbara all the more to link Nevill's changing the place of the key to the safe with Jeremy snooping around looking for the provisions of his father's will.
There you go then. You mocked me for rejecting her "evidence" and even the lawyers were of the same mind as mine. Why are you using "hearsay" to support your case? Let's see some "real" evidence and real documentation Steve.
-
There you go then. You mocked me for rejecting her "evidence" and even the lawyers were of the same mind as mine. Why are you using "hearsay" to support your case? Let's see some "real" evidence and real documentation Steve.
Lugg, the point is that the Barbara Wilson statement was NOT made during the course of the investigation in 1985/86 - she made this statement years later in preparation for the appeal where it was NOT included because (and Steve had this bit right) it was considered hearsay!!
-
Lugg, the point is that the Barbara Wilson statement was NOT made during the course of the investigation in 1985/86 - she made this statement years later in preparation for the appeal where it was NOT included because (and Steve had this bit right) it was considered hearsay!!
Yes but Steve mockingly said 'oh we can get rid of all the witnesses can we?' or words to that effect. I was just demonstrating that I wasn't far off when I said it was hearsay, because even the lawyers considering her evidence saw it that way as well.
-
Yes but Steve mockingly said 'oh we can get rid of all the witnesses can we?' or words to that effect. I was just demonstrating that I wasn't far off when I said it was hearsay, because even the lawyers considering her evidence saw it that way as well.
Steve always says things like that when he can't argue the point at hand. Steve shouldn't rely on Rodger Wilkes for his info because clearly the man hasn't done his homework and his book is misleading. BW made 14 statements before the trial and didn't mention any of these supposed conversations with Neville in any of them, it was only after JB had been vilified by the media that she joined in on the onslaught!