Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: vidvic on December 14, 2012, 01:03:PM
-
I'll give you all a really good example of how things can be twisted against the relatives....
John and Peter Eaton are brothers whose relationship was decidedly 'Frosty'....
John owned a piece of land that lay between land owned between Nevill's land and Peter's.
John unexpectedly placed this land for sale and I think there may have been some preliminary planning permission for development, certainly this was the concern of Nevill and Peter, that it would affect their farming.
Peter couldn't raise sufficient funds in the time required to buy it himself, so Nevill agreed to buy it and then sell it back to Peter once he had the funds.
Nevill didn't loan Peter the money, he simply bought the land and they had a private handshake on buying it back.....
This was not an uncommon occurance within the 'family'. The Boutflours, Eatons and the Bambers. Ann and David bought a piece of land for Pam & June under the same 'deal'. Whoever had the spare cash would buy the land and they'd divvy it up at a later date...
At the point of the murders, the Eatons didn't OWE the Bambers anything, although Jeremy now owned a piece of land which was far more valuable to Peter than it was to Jeremy.
John knew that Nevill and Peter were very keen not to let the land be developed and he charged Nevill over the odds for it. They had an argument and John punched Nevill.
"Proof that Eaton punched Nevill.." Mike Tesko declares, deliberately misleading forum members to believe this to be Peter. The first twist....
In a letter from Bamber to Tesko, Bamber tells Mike that the reason he was 'stiched up' by the relatives was because on 9th August, Bamber told Ann that he'd need the money back and that's why they planted the silencer....
Firstly, at that point, Bamber didn't know the deal even existed. 2. This is less than 48hrs after the murders and would be seen as a highly aggresive action against the man Bamber asked to run HIS OWN farm, 3. There was no money to repay. It was now simply Bamber's land....
The amount of money spent on the land was 30k-40k......
"Secret land deal....." cries Mike.....
Next we hear that the Eatons were bankrupt......
Then we hear that Bamber owned 'much of their farm'.....
In later posts it becomes hundreds of thousands......
Then we hear that Ann sold her own farm to move into WHF....
Then we hear that Peter gained the land for free after the murders.....
And where do these lies come from? Mr Jeremy Bamber, aided by his willing elf.
-
So do you know for absolute certain that Jeremy was the killer.?
-
So do you know for absolute certain that Jeremy was the killer.?
How about commenting on what you've just read.
Of course I don't. There's only one person in the world who knows that and that's Bamber, but I know 100% that he was lying in a letter to Mike and I know 100% that he's lied about other things too, either him or Mike. So when I 100% know that he's told lies, but declares his innocence by making things up, then that leads me to believe in his guilt.
-
How about commenting on what you've just read.
Of course I don't. There's only one person in the world who knows that and that's Bamber, but I know 100% that he was lying in a letter to Mike and I know 100% that he's lied about other things too, either him or Mike. So when I 100% know that he's told lies, but declares his innocence by making things up, then that leads me to believe in his guilt.
Hi Vic
I have always been under the impression that it was John who had the altercation with Nevill at the pub. Can I ask if you have seen this letter from JB to Mike regarding the land on the 9th August? :) :) :) :)
-
I'll give you all a really good example of how things can be twisted against the relatives....
John and Peter Eaton are brothers whose relationship was decidedly 'Frosty'....
John owned a piece of land that lay between land owned between Nevill's land and Peter's.
John unexpectedly placed this land for sale and I think there may have been some preliminary planning permission for development, certainly this was the concern of Nevill and Peter, that it would affect their farming.
Peter couldn't raise sufficient funds in the time required to buy it himself, so Nevill agreed to buy it and then sell it back to Peter once he had the funds.
Nevill didn't loan Peter the money, he simply bought the land and they had a private handshake on buying it back.....
This was not an uncommon occurance within the 'family'. The Boutflours, Eatons and the Bambers. Ann and David bought a piece of land for Pam & June under the same 'deal'. Whoever had the spare cash would buy the land and they'd divvy it up at a later date...
At the point of the murders, the Eatons didn't OWE the Bambers anything, although Jeremy now owned a piece of land which was far more valuable to Peter than it was to Jeremy.
John knew that Nevill and Peter were very keen not to let the land be developed and he charged Nevill over the odds for it. They had an argument and John punched Nevill.
"Proof that Eaton punched Nevill.." Mike Tesko declares, deliberately misleading forum members to believe this to be Peter. The first twist....
In a letter from Bamber to Tesko, Bamber tells Mike that the reason he was 'stiched up' by the relatives was because on 9th August, Bamber told Ann that he'd need the money back and that's why they planted the silencer....
Firstly, at that point, Bamber didn't know the deal even existed. 2. This is less than 48hrs after the murders and would be seen as a highly aggresive action against the man Bamber asked to run HIS OWN farm, 3. There was no money to repay. It was now simply Bamber's land....
The amount of money spent on the land was 30k-40k......
"Secret land deal....." cries Mike.....
Next we hear that the Eatons were bankrupt......
Then we hear that Bamber owned 'much of their farm'.....
In later posts it becomes hundreds of thousands......
Then we hear that Ann sold her own farm to move into WHF....
Then we hear that Peter gained the land for free after the murders.....
And where do these lies come from? Mr Jeremy Bamber, aided by his willing elf.
Thanks for sharing that with us vidvic. Must say met the family on numerous occasions at bhhpa well respect by other members.
-
I do not agree that only Bamber knows. I have to say, that I get a bit irritated when I read that. In a scenario where something went wrong with the raid - Bamber is clearly not the only person who knows.
I also think that it is a mistake to prop up a dodgy exhibit, which is what you are doing, for the sake of backing up friends. Let's see some lie detector tests (as per the ones used by the authorities) arranged for all the 'honest' people on the other side of this case to Bamber.
Tell me now Vic, that all of the people you support, would be prepared to answer pertinent questions relating to the silencer, while wired up to a polygraph, such as the ones being trialed by various UK authorities.
Also, what are you and the people you support, so frightned of in placing the police under severe scrutiny to see if they have indeed deceived everyone about what took place at WHF?
WHY?
I'm not talking about relying upon police investigating police. I'm talking about full, frank, specific questions coming from the relatives in relation to all of the anomalies. Appeals for full disclosure.
-
How about commenting on what you've just read.
Of course I don't. There's only one person in the world who knows that and that's Bamber, but I know 100% that he was lying in a letter to Mike and I know 100% that he's lied about other things too, either him or Mike. So when I 100% know that he's told lies, but declares his innocence by making things up, then that leads me to believe in his guilt.
Ive had the very same information passed onto me vidvic by people who worked with him? But sadly again i cannot discuss these are people who worked with him.
-
Hi Ralph how are you my fine friend. I agree very good of vidvic to share all that information with us and I am sure the family are good people who maybe have had a bad press that was not called for.
-
How about commenting on what you've just read.
Of course I don't. There's only one person in the world who knows that and that's Bamber, but I know 100% that he was lying in a letter to Mike and I know 100% that he's lied about other things too, either him or Mike. So when I 100% know that he's told lies, but declares his innocence by making things up, then that leads me to believe in his guilt.
Being a liar doesnt always mean that someone is quilty of a crime , but what may lead to a quilt is if someone is manipulative and im led to believe by other people that JB is the master of manipulation
-
Being a liar doesnt always mean that someone is quilty of a crime , but what may lead to a quilt is if someone is manipulative and im led to believe by other people that JB is the master of manipulation
That may be the case. I am minded to suspect that his reputation is at least in part deserved. However, how can he manipulate rifle sightings at the upstairs windows of WHF? How can he manipulate such info from being withheld? How can he manipulate the fact that the first two pages of the faxed logs were written on different paper to the rest?
How many arch manipulators tell their girlfriend, about murdering their family, as part of a cunning and diabolical plan to secure inheritance? A school-child could formulate a more water-tight plan?
How many relatives say would say NOTHING about staggering glaring withheld anomalies?
It's all bullshit.
-
Hi BG some people tell lies out of fear some out of genuine confusion. If Jeremy was the Master of manipulation he did not work his magic on the Jury members. Wonder how many of them were female. But from what I have read his attitude was all wrong I think he was convinced he would walk free and was enjoying the attention. Bet he would do things differently now though.
-
Thank you for the very plausible explanation Vidvic re: the land deal.So,one then has to wonder why Nevill did not disclose this innocent land deal with June? Nevill sure does sound as if he was a lovely kind man,God rest his soul.
Since you are wanting to put all the anomalies to bed regarding the relatives,could I take the opportunity to ask you the following?
When DB allegedly found a silencer in the under stairs cupboard in the days following the murders,Basil Cocks made a statement saying that he was present.BC,in his statement,refers to the farmhouse being covered in fingerprinting dust.How can this be so,when the fingerprinting of the farmhouse was not undertaken until sometime in September?
-
I do not agree that only Bamber knows. I have to say, that I get a bit irritated when I read that. In a scenario where something went wrong with the raid - Bamber is clearly not the only person who knows.
I am well aware that many on here believe that something 'went wrong with the raid' but that is just a theory at this point. What is irrefutable is that Bamber himself put Sheila in the frame for the murders and I've not seen any evidence whatsoever that I find compelling to make me believe that Sheila wasn't dead before 3.50am.
I also think that it is a mistake to prop up a dodgy exhibit, which is what you are doing, for the sake of backing up friends. Let's see some lie detector tests (as per the ones used by the authorities) arranged for all the 'honest' people on the other side of this case to Bamber.
I have given an example of how the relatives names have been blackened by incorrect stories being published on this forum. I didn't mention the silencer. For 27 years the family have been accused of various trickery. They gave their evidence at court under cross examination, gave statements for enquiries, gave evidence at appeal under cross examination and have been scrutinised on the internet. In fact, they've had to answer far more questions than Bamber ever has!
Tell me now Vic, that all of the people you support, would be prepared to answer pertinent questions relating to the silencer, while wired up to a polygraph, such as the ones being trialed by various UK authorities.
Also, what are you and the people you support, so frightned of in placing the police under severe scrutiny to see if they have indeed deceived everyone about what took place at WHF?
I have no idea why you feel the family should seek any answers from anyone. The police have also been under scrutiny for 27 years and various members of the police have been asked very specific questions, even on television, in that time.
WHY?
I'm not talking about relying upon police investigating police. I'm talking about full, frank, specific questions coming from the relatives in relation to all of the anomalies. Appeals for full disclosure.
How about some more specific questions being answered by Bamber? Or do you simply want to continually place the family on trial? Maybe until you get the result you want......
-
Thank you for the very plausible explanation Vidvic re: the land deal.So,one then has to wonder why Nevill did not disclose this innocent land deal with June? Nevill sure does sound as if he was a lovely kind man,God rest his soul.
Since you are wanting to put all the anomalies to bed regarding the relatives,could I take the opportunity to ask you the following?
When DB allegedly found a silencer in the under stairs cupboard in the days following the murders,Basil Cocks made a statement saying that he was present.BC,in his statement,refers to the farmhouse being covered in fingerprinting dust.How can this be so,when the fingerprinting of the farmhouse was not undertaken until sometime in September?
A very interesting point Tyler, because I believe this to be another piece of misinformation. I believe there was a fingerprint examination at WHF in the 48hrs after the murders and this was referred to at the trial. I think they went back in september to get some more, but carpet fibres and fingerprinting was done on the 8th/9th August. It was even referred to in 2002 at the appeal. Again, the source of this misinformation was from Bamber to Mike Tesko in a letter in 2009.
-
Neville was a shrewd businessman,,whose prerogative it was, was to keep a lot of his business,both family and financial,under wraps because he knew that if he told anyone,even June,it would innocently spill out at some point and create what was already,an undercurrent of unpleasantness . Therefore I don't think anyone,even Jeremy, knew of any land deals,,and because of this,a lot of confusion lay in the background as to who would be entitled to what,thus causing bitterness within the family and towards Jeremy.
Neville didn't envisage his life ending like it did,,or he'd have possibly explained to Jeremy his intentions of dividing the land. Obviously the reading of the will didn't go down too well among the beneficiaries as it rumbled on even years after Jeremy had been imprisoned,so how he could be called greedy when he didn't even receive a brass farthing,I don't know.
Jeremy has been damned to Kingdom come,and it would seem that there are no holds barred when it comes to atrocious insults towards him on a daily basis,,when nobody knows for absolute certainty that he was indeed the murderer,,so it works both ways when the relatives come into play.
I could retaliate by saying some of the posts aimed at Jeremys' " guilt " are truly unacceptable.
What when we see the moment in black and white,that he's been found innocent.?
-
A very interesting point Tyler, because I believe this to be another piece of misinformation. I believe there was a fingerprint examination at WHF in the 48hrs after the murders and this was referred to at the trial. I think they went back in september to get some more, but carpet fibres and fingerprinting was done on the 8th/9th August. It was even referred to in 2002 at the appeal. Again, the source of this misinformation was from Bamber to Mike Tesko in a letter in 2009.
Does any documentary evidence exist, to prove that WHF was fingerprinted earlier than September? What a coincidence that the telephone message from DB regarding a silencer find logged on 11th September, is just a few days after WHF was fingerprinted, which itself coincides with Basil Cock's statement regarding fingerprint dust. So we have three things in the documentary records that all correlate to a September finding for the silencer.
And when was the first mention in prosecution witness statements, regarding the find of the silencer? Might it have been September?
-
Does any documentary evidence exist, to prove that WHF was fingerprinted earlier than September? What a coincidence that the telephone message from DB regarding a silencer find logged on 11th September, is just a few days after WHF was fingerprinted, which itself coincides with Basil Cock's statement regarding fingerprint dust. So we have three things in the documentary records that all correlate to a September finding for the silencer.
And when was the first mention in prosecution witness statements, regarding the find of the silencer? Might it have been September?
The only documented evidence is from R v Bamber ;)
267. The second ground of complaint is that whilst the Defence were made fully aware that Scene of Crime officers carried out a thorough examination of the scene on the 8 and 9 September, the terms of reference for the search of the scene were not disclosed to them and in particular they were not told that specific attention was paid to entry and exit marks at White House Farm. The examination had not revealed any scratch marks on the bathroom window. Our attention was drawn to a case diary kept by Mr Ainsley in which was recorded under 8 September:
"Scenes of Crime to visit 9 Head Street under the command of DI Cook and White House Farm under the command of DCI Wright and to carry out a full, thorough Scene of Crime examination, fingerprints and scientific in particular in relation to entry and exit marks at White House Farm". :) :) :)
268. The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.
-
How about some more specific questions being answered by Bamber? Or do you simply want to continually place the family on trial? Maybe until you get the result you want......
Vic, maybe a deal could be done. Let the main prosecution witnesses come up with a list of polygraph questions for Bamber to answer. Let Bamber come up with a list of questions for the main prosecution witnesses to answer.
I can imagine now what would be said if he passed his and they failed theres. He's a psychopath so what did we expect? The tests are fallible so it's possible for truthful people to fail them, hey presto - it's back to Bamber again.
All roads lead to bamber because YOU decide there isn't enough compelling evidence regarding what went wrong with the raid and SC's time of death. You've got some nerve coming out with that when we consider how much has been withheld and all the dirty tactics to get around its' disclosure, NONE of which you care one jot about.
You are not a truthseeker in my opinion and neither are they. When I see yours and their protestations regarding the withheld evidence, I might consider giving a bit more credence.
-
Hi patti if no scratch marks were found on the window 8th 9th September the ones found on the lst Oct must have been done after the murders. I seem to think Jeremy did say he entered the house at a later date for documents.
-
Hi patti if no scratch marks were found on the window 8th 9th September the ones found on the lst Oct must have been done after the murders. I seem to think Jeremy did say he entered the house at a later date for documents.
Hi Susan that is clear evidence that I have mentioned in the past....in between those times you have Cook taking the window catch on the 29th of September....exhibit RWC/8 so none of it adds up.
Elliot claims he took the scratched catch.....well he claims to have seen it on the 1st of October. Simply not true....it was taken by RWC on the 29th September.......was this catch a replacement that Elliot was looking at?????????????????????
-
Hi Patti I get more confused by the day over this case. :(
-
Hi Patti I get more confused by the day over this case. :(
Lol.............
8th to 9th September forensics did an extensive examination of WHF
16th of September we have JB entering the bathroom/toilet window 1st floor at WHT
29th September RWC takes bathroom/toilet window catch from 1st floor RWC/8
1st October Elliot's forensic team do a further forensic examination and takes same bathroom/window catch as RWC....
How can he? Sorry to confuse..... ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Vic, maybe a deal could be done. Let the main prosecution witnesses come up with a list of polygraph questions for Bamber to answer. Let Bamber come up with a list of questions for the main prosecution witnesses to answer.
I can imagine now what would be said if he passed his and they failed theres. He's a psychopath so what did we expect? The tests are fallible so it's possible for truthful people to fail them, hey presto - it's back to Bamber again.
All roads lead to bamber because YOU decide there isn't enough compelling evidence regarding what went wrong with the raid and SC's time of death. You've got some nerve coming out with that when we consider how much has been withheld and all the dirty tactics to get around its' disclosure, NONE of which you care one jot about.
You are not a truthseeker in my opinion and neither are they. When I see yours and their protestations regarding the withheld evidence, I might consider giving a bit more credence.
Thank you for the insult Roch. I don't deserve that and neither do they. I truly hope that your honesty is never questioned by someone so desperate to be proven right as yourself.
-
Thank you for the insult Roch. I don't deserve that and neither do they. I truly hope that your honesty is never questioned by someone so desperate to be proven right as yourself.
I don't want to insult anyone Vic. But I'm not taken in by this whiter than white honesty card being played by you on here, on their part.
It doesn't fit with what is now known and it doesn't fit with the level of controversy in the case.
I accept the point about me being proven right, I can get a bit animated on that score. I do apologise if i have caused offence. I do see the family as victims but I think the truth is also far more complex.
-
I don't want to insult anyone either. The next time my lovely window cleaner comes to clean my bedroom room window I must make sure I have some clothes on. I shall be sending him some fruit at the hospital tomorrow hahahahaha ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
I don't want to insult anyone either. The next time my lovely window cleaner comes to clean my bedroom room window I must make sure I have some clothes on. I shall be sending him some fruit at the hospital tomorrow hahahahaha ;) ;) ;) ;)
Mine doesn't have a ladder, Patti. He has a very long pole with a thing on the end ;D ;D
-
Hi april I have a pole with a thing on the end but it aint for cleaning windows :) :) :)
-
Hi april I have a pole with a thing on the end but it aint for cleaning windows :) :) :)
Funny that, Patti. So have I ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti just ignore april think she is loosing the plot. Patti has ladders :)
-
Jesus. Roch got out of the wrong side of the bed.
-
I don't want to insult anyone Vic. But I'm not taken in by this whiter than white honesty card being played by you on here, on their part.
It doesn't fit with what is now known and it doesn't fit with the level of controversy in the case.
I accept the point about me being proven right, I can get a bit animated on that score. I do apologise if i have caused offence. I do see the family as victims but I think the truth is also far more complex.
I dont wish to offend or insult either,but re: Basil Cocks statement,either Basil Cocks was lying or the remaining relatives were. You (Vic) passed off this 'misinformation' as being a lie told by Jeremy.Anything that puts the relatives in a bad light is always put down to Jeremy lying. And yet Patti has posted the evidence..........fingerprinting was carried out in September! What did BC have to gain by lying? Nothing as far as I can see.As Roch pointed out,ALL evidence points to the finding of a silencer in the under stairs cupboard at whf as having occurred in September.And suspiciously at a time when the relatives were getting nowhere in trying to convince EP that Jeremy was the culprit!
-
Me again........sorry!
Vic,how can you say that you have seen no evidence on this forum that convinces you that Sheila did not die before 03.30 am? I admit I am no expert,but the crime scene photographs that show how EP had moved her arm in between shots,clearly show and prove that poor Sheila was not in a state of rigor mortis,yet the other victims were?
How can this be,if Sheila died before 03.30am and the photos were not taken until 9 or 10 oclock the next morning?
-
Jesus. Roch got out of the wrong side of the bed.
Because folk tell the truth doesn't mean that they got out of the wrong side of the bed,now does it.?
-
I don't want to insult anyone Vic. But I'm not taken in by this whiter than white honesty card being played by you on here, on their part.
It doesn't fit with what is now known and it doesn't fit with the level of controversy in the case.
I accept the point about me being proven right, I can get a bit animated on that score. I do apologise if i have caused offence. I do see the family as victims but I think the truth is also far more complex.
Let's look at the KNOWN facts of this case.
1) Whether JB is innocent or guilty, ALL of the relatives are VICTIMS in this crime as 3 generations of a family were wiped out in a terrible manner. This means that my starting point with respect to the relatives is always one of sympathy to start with after what they have been through.
2) Just imagine for 1 minute that JB is guilty, or at least the relatives are 100% convinced that he is guilty. How do you think the relatives feel when 27 years after the horrific events they still have to relive the awful memories of that tragic day. Not a day goes by on this forum without somebody posting negatively about the relatives and besmirching them in some way.
3) I think it is pretty much accepted by most people that the police investigation was not great. However, all of us posters on this forum do not know the extent of what information is being witheld. Sure it would be great if everything was disclosed, but there might be completely genuine reasons why some is not, which has no bearing at all on JB's innocence or guilt.
4) To me if there are some photos which are being witheld because they show police officers 'larking around' or being disresepctful, whereas on the one hand this is wrong, it is a secondary issue and I have no desire to see such photos. The ONLY evidence I would like to see which has not been disclosed is any evidence which points towards JBs guilt or innocence. Currently as far as im aware, given that we dont know what has not been disclosed, we don't know if such evidence exists.
5) Finally, numerous posters and posts on this forum have been made about the relatives ' conspiring together to frame JB' and 'knowing he is innocent' and ' doing everything they can to ensure he never gets out, even tho they know he is innocent'. NOWHERE is there ANY compelling evidence that any of this is true. To me making any such statements is massively disrespectful to the relatives, particularly given that there is no evidence any of it is true.
Moving forwards, of course I want to debate and see people debate whether JB is guilty or innocent and debate which way the evidence points. However, personally I think posters need to be and should be very very careful with what they post. Of course it is fine to think JB is innocent and debate evidence issues relating to this (I personally still think he is prob innocent). BUT just because posters have a belief JB is innocent, doesn't mean they have to blacken the names of the relatives an accuse them of all kinds of conspiracies, with NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE. Remember they are victims too and have been for 27 years.
It is entirely possible that JB is innocent and the relatives do not know this and currently 100% believe him guilty therefore are obviously extremely negative towards him.
Only if new evidence came out that portrayed the relatives in a new negative light would I look to criticise or attack them on the forum, as currently with no evidence to the contrary they are victims of a horrific crime and are still having their names dragged through the mud 27 years later.
-
Hi april I have a pole with a thing on the end but it aint for cleaning windows :) :) :)
Hi susan you and patti are the such lovely people, sorry i could not reply earlier i have just got back from work tother side of crystal peaks what us window cleaners have to put up with?
-
Very well said Petey.
-
Let's look at the KNOWN facts of this case.
1) Whether JB is innocent or guilty, ALL of the relatives are VICTIMS in this crime as 3 generations of a family were wiped out in a terrible manner. This means that my starting point with respect to the relatives is always one of sympathy to start with after what they have been through.
2) Just imagine for 1 minute that JB is guilty, or at least the relatives are 100% convinced that he is guilty. How do you think the relatives feel when 27 years after the horrific events they still have to relive the awful memories of that tragic day. Not a day goes by on this forum without somebody posting negatively about the relatives and besmirching them in some way.
3) I think it is pretty much accepted by most people that the police investigation was not great. However, all of us posters on this forum do not know the extent of what information is being witheld. Sure it would be great if everything was disclosed, but there might be completely genuine reasons why some is not, which has no bearing at all on JB's innocence or guilt.
4) To me if there are some photos which are being witheld because they show police officers 'larking around' or being disresepctful, whereas on the one hand this is wrong, it is a secondary issue and I have no desire to see such photos. The ONLY evidence I would like to see which has not been disclosed is any evidence which points towards JBs guilt or innocence. Currently as far as im aware, given that we dont know what has not been disclosed, we don't know if such evidence exists.
5) Finally, numerous posters and posts on this forum have been made about the relatives ' conspiring together to frame JB' and 'knowing he is innocent' and ' doing everything they can to ensure he never gets out, even tho they know he is innocent'. NOWHERE is there ANY compelling evidence that any of this is true. To me making any such statements is massively disrespectful to the relatives, particularly given that there is no evidence any of it is true.
Moving forwards, of course I want to debate and see people debate whether JB is guilty or innocent and debate which way the evidence points. However, personally I think posters need to be and should be very very careful with what they post. Of course it is fine to think JB is innocent and debate evidence issues relating to this (I personally still think he is prob innocent). BUT just because posters have a belief JB is innocent, doesn't mean they have to blacken the names of the relatives an accuse them of all kinds of conspiracies, with NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE. Remember they are victims too and have been for 27 years.
It is entirely possible that JB is innocent and the relatives do not know this and currently 100% believe him guilty therefore are obviously extremely negative towards him.
Only if new evidence came out that portrayed the relatives in a new negative light would I look to criticise or attack them on the forum, as currently with no evidence to the contrary they are victims of a horrific crime and are still having their names dragged through the mud 27 years later.
Great post, Petey. Its refreshing to see that members that believe Bamber guilty and innocent are speaking out against the awful rubbish posted about the relatives on here. I can't even fathom how some posters can think that the best way to spend their day is to attack people they do not know on the internet - I am all for debate but there are four members of this forum (One is now banned) that have made posts about the relatives time and time again based on their own gut feeling....it's bizzare, unethical.
-
Hi my friend Ralph have you got ladders or a pole with a thing on the end. Hope Patti did not put you in A& E whilst you were cleaning her bedroom windows. :) :) :)
-
Hi Petey, I do hope that your post was not aimed at me?
I have no intention of blackening the names of anyone.For instance,my husband knows Peter Eaton,has worked at the farm, and found him to be a pleasant,friendly,kind and hospitable man.
I am simply questioning the anomalies in the evidence and witness statements........in order to "get to the bottom" of this case..........and that is all!
-
Hi april I have a pole with a thing on the end but it aint for cleaning windows :) :) :)
Sorry, Susan, replied to patti instead of you. Brain went awol thinking about poles with things on ends ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi my friend Ralph have you got ladders or a pole with a thing on the end. Hope Patti did not put you in A& E whilst you were cleaning her bedroom windows. :) :) :)
Ladders susan and i have booked patti in for every day
-
Hi tyler I am sure petey could not be aiming his post at you I have always found your posts very respectful to other people's feelings and you just try to seek the truth.
-
Ralph :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Jesus. Roch got out of the wrong side of the bed.
No I did not. My views on the case are vastly different to yours and I regard the silencer evidence as bogus. I and people on my side, are not shouting the odds while hiding behind a mountain of withheld or destroyed evidence. You and your side are.
-
Let's look at the KNOWN facts of this case.
1) Whether JB is innocent or guilty, ALL of the relatives are VICTIMS in this crime as 3 generations of a family were wiped out in a terrible manner. This means that my starting point with respect to the relatives is always one of sympathy to start with after what they have been through.
2) Just imagine for 1 minute that JB is guilty, or at least the relatives are 100% convinced that he is guilty. How do you think the relatives feel when 27 years after the horrific events they still have to relive the awful memories of that tragic day. Not a day goes by on this forum without somebody posting negatively about the relatives and besmirching them in some way.
3) I think it is pretty much accepted by most people that the police investigation was not great. However, all of us posters on this forum do not know the extent of what information is being witheld. Sure it would be great if everything was disclosed, but there might be completely genuine reasons why some is not, which has no bearing at all on JB's innocence or guilt.
4) To me if there are some photos which are being witheld because they show police officers 'larking around' or being disresepctful, whereas on the one hand this is wrong, it is a secondary issue and I have no desire to see such photos. The ONLY evidence I would like to see which has not been disclosed is any evidence which points towards JBs guilt or innocence. Currently as far as im aware, given that we dont know what has not been disclosed, we don't know if such evidence exists.
5) Finally, numerous posters and posts on this forum have been made about the relatives ' conspiring together to frame JB' and 'knowing he is innocent' and ' doing everything they can to ensure he never gets out, even tho they know he is innocent'. NOWHERE is there ANY compelling evidence that any of this is true. To me making any such statements is massively disrespectful to the relatives, particularly given that there is no evidence any of it is true.
Moving forwards, of course I want to debate and see people debate whether JB is guilty or innocent and debate which way the evidence points. However, personally I think posters need to be and should be very very careful with what they post. Of course it is fine to think JB is innocent and debate evidence issues relating to this (I personally still think he is prob innocent). BUT just because posters have a belief JB is innocent, doesn't mean they have to blacken the names of the relatives an accuse them of all kinds of conspiracies, with NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE. Remember they are victims too and have been for 27 years.
It is entirely possible that JB is innocent and the relatives do not know this and currently 100% believe him guilty therefore are obviously extremely negative towards him.
Only if new evidence came out that portrayed the relatives in a new negative light would I look to criticise or attack them on the forum, as currently with no evidence to the contrary they are victims of a horrific crime and are still having their names dragged through the mud 27 years later.
Petey, if it is "entirely possible that JB is innocent" why have the family NEVER looked at that possibility? Why have they never tried to help their nephew prove it? I believe that during an interview it was said of Jeremy that he is only carrying on with his quest to get at them. I wonder, if this is true, why they believe themselves, after 27years, to be Jeremy's prime focus and the only reason he's trying to prove his innocence.
Re information withheld. I feel certain that both sides wonder what is being hidden. If it has no bearing on innocence or guilt what's the problem with revealing it. Should it conclusively prove guilt, so be it........but I imagine it doesn't or it would have been used to do just that.
I fully concur with you that none of us here can possibly imagine what it must be like to have ones family taken in such a violent manner.
-
Hi Petey, I do hope that your post was not aimed at me?
I have no intention of blackening the names of anyone.For instance,my husband knows Peter Eaton,has worked at the farm, and found him to be a pleasant,friendly,kind and hospitable man.
I am simply questioning the anomalies in the evidence and witness statements........in order to "get to the bottom" of this case..........and that is all!
Why would my post be aimed at you?
It was a generic post and I quoted a previous post made by Roch.
If you meet the criteria I set out in my post, then yes it is aimed at you. If not, then no it is not.
-
Hi tyler I am sure petey could not be aiming his post at you I have always found your posts very respectful to other people's feelings and you just try to seek the truth.
Ah bless you Susan!
I do, in fact,believe that the relatives really do believe that Jeremy is guilty.And I believe that they desperately searched for evidence to back up their beliefs........but to no avail.
Of coarse they deserve our sympathy for the terrible tragedy that befell them,but they (rightly or wrongly) involved themselves in the case and therefore now,for ever more,will be debated within the case.How can they not? They were prosecution witnesses!Since many of us believe that a massive miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case,then unfortunately the inconsistencies in the relatives statements need to be debated.Just as they are with JB'S,JM'S,EP'S etc.
-
Petey, if it is "entirely possible that JB is innocent" why have the family NEVER looked at that possibility?
It is only my personal opinion that it is entirely possible that JB is innocent. The relatives may be 100% convinced by what they heard in court that JB is 100% guilty. I couldn't possibly answer for them of their beliefs.Why have they never tried to help their nephew prove it? I believe that during an interview it was said of Jeremy that he is only carrying on with his quest to get at them. I wonder, if this is true, why they believe themselves, after 27years, to be Jeremy's prime focus and the only reason he's trying to prove his innocence.
Re information withheld. I feel certain that both sides wonder what is being hidden. If it has no bearing on innocence or guilt what's the problem with revealing it.It may be photos showing police behaving disrespectfully or detailed photos of wounds suffered by the twins etc none of which would be beneficial to be revealed. Should it conclusively prove guilt, so be it........but I imagine it doesn't or it would have been used to do just that.
I fully concur with you that none of us here can possibly imagine what it must be like to have ones family taken in such a violent manner.
-
Why would my post be aimed at you?
It was a generic post and I quoted a previous post made by Roch.
If you meet the criteria I set out in my post, then yes it is aimed at you. If not, then no it is not.
I think that your post was quite balanced Petey. There is absolutely no evidence that the relatives acted in a criminal way and they have indeed received so much flak that they do not deserve. No one it seems think of the children of the relatives and that such a terrible event that happened 27 years ago must have traumatised them in an unimaginable way. This in turn put even greater pressure onto the parents of those children. Remember these children used to play with Sheila's twins.
However, having said that I do think that Tyler has asked some very pertinent questions regarding the case.
-
Let's look at the KNOWN facts of this case.
1) Whether JB is innocent or guilty, ALL of the relatives are VICTIMS in this crime as 3 generations of a family were wiped out in a terrible manner. This means that my starting point with respect to the relatives is always one of sympathy to start with after what they have been through.
2) Just imagine for 1 minute that JB is guilty, or at least the relatives are 100% convinced that he is guilty. How do you think the relatives feel when 27 years after the horrific events they still have to relive the awful memories of that tragic day. Not a day goes by on this forum without somebody posting negatively about the relatives and besmirching them in some way.
3) I think it is pretty much accepted by most people that the police investigation was not great. However, all of us posters on this forum do not know the extent of what information is being witheld. Sure it would be great if everything was disclosed, but there might be completely genuine reasons why some is not, which has no bearing at all on JB's innocence or guilt.
4) To me if there are some photos which are being witheld because they show police officers 'larking around' or being disresepctful, whereas on the one hand this is wrong, it is a secondary issue and I have no desire to see such photos. The ONLY evidence I would like to see which has not been disclosed is any evidence which points towards JBs guilt or innocence. Currently as far as im aware, given that we dont know what has not been disclosed, we don't know if such evidence exists.
5) Finally, numerous posters and posts on this forum have been made about the relatives ' conspiring together to frame JB' and 'knowing he is innocent' and ' doing everything they can to ensure he never gets out, even tho they know he is innocent'. NOWHERE is there ANY compelling evidence that any of this is true. To me making any such statements is massively disrespectful to the relatives, particularly given that there is no evidence any of it is true.
Moving forwards, of course I want to debate and see people debate whether JB is guilty or innocent and debate which way the evidence points. However, personally I think posters need to be and should be very very careful with what they post. Of course it is fine to think JB is innocent and debate evidence issues relating to this (I personally still think he is prob innocent). BUT just because posters have a belief JB is innocent, doesn't mean they have to blacken the names of the relatives an accuse them of all kinds of conspiracies, with NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE. Remember they are victims too and have been for 27 years.
It is entirely possible that JB is innocent and the relatives do not know this and currently 100% believe him guilty therefore are obviously extremely negative towards him.
Only if new evidence came out that portrayed the relatives in a new negative light would I look to criticise or attack them on the forum, as currently with no evidence to the contrary they are victims of a horrific crime and are still having their names dragged through the mud 27 years later.
Wanting to believe JB guilty and not thinking him guilty ,one must be as much as possible neutral , but how can you believe both ? there is either one right, then none of its true , well may be some of it, because we would not really know what to do if such alternate data surfaced,
-
Let's look at the KNOWN facts of this case.
1) Whether JB is innocent or guilty, ALL of the relatives are VICTIMS in this crime as 3 generations of a family were wiped out in a terrible manner. This means that my starting point with respect to the relatives is always one of sympathy to start with after what they have been through.
2) Just imagine for 1 minute that JB is guilty, or at least the relatives are 100% convinced that he is guilty. How do you think the relatives feel when 27 years after the horrific events they still have to relive the awful memories of that tragic day. Not a day goes by on this forum without somebody posting negatively about the relatives and besmirching them in some way.
3) I think it is pretty much accepted by most people that the police investigation was not great. However, all of us posters on this forum do not know the extent of what information is being witheld. Sure it would be great if everything was disclosed, but there might be completely genuine reasons why some is not, which has no bearing at all on JB's innocence or guilt.
4) To me if there are some photos which are being witheld because they show police officers 'larking around' or being disresepctful, whereas on the one hand this is wrong, it is a secondary issue and I have no desire to see such photos. The ONLY evidence I would like to see which has not been disclosed is any evidence which points towards JBs guilt or innocence. Currently as far as im aware, given that we dont know what has not been disclosed, we don't know if such evidence exists.
5) Finally, numerous posters and posts on this forum have been made about the relatives ' conspiring together to frame JB' and 'knowing he is innocent' and ' doing everything they can to ensure he never gets out, even tho they know he is innocent'. NOWHERE is there ANY compelling evidence that any of this is true. To me making any such statements is massively disrespectful to the relatives, particularly given that there is no evidence any of it is true.
Moving forwards, of course I want to debate and see people debate whether JB is guilty or innocent and debate which way the evidence points. However, personally I think posters need to be and should be very very careful with what they post. Of course it is fine to think JB is innocent and debate evidence issues relating to this (I personally still think he is prob innocent). BUT just because posters have a belief JB is innocent, doesn't mean they have to blacken the names of the relatives an accuse them of all kinds of conspiracies, with NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE. Remember they are victims too and have been for 27 years.
It is entirely possible that JB is innocent and the relatives do not know this and currently 100% believe him guilty therefore are obviously extremely negative towards him.
Only if new evidence came out that portrayed the relatives in a new negative light would I look to criticise or attack them on the forum, as currently with no evidence to the contrary they are victims of a horrific crime and are still having their names dragged through the mud 27 years later.
Petey there are a whole raft of KNOWN discrepancies regarding the silencer evidence. The relatives allegedly FOUND the silencer. The silencer along with other, arguably hearsay testimony, convicted JB.
The case is notoriously controversial for having been subjected to significant non disclosure and withholding of evidence and the employment of exemptions to get around disclosure. How likely is it, that absolutely none of this un disclosed material, whether secreted away by means other than PII or whether under the PII umbrella, is NOT exculpatory?
-
Petey there are a whole raft of KNOWN discrepancies regarding the silencer evidence. The relatives allegedly FOUND the silencer. The silencer along with other, arguably hearsay testimony, convicted JB.
The case is notoriously controversial for having been subjected to significant non disclosure and withholding of evidence and the employment of exemptions to get around disclosure. How likely is it, that absolutely none of this un disclosed material, whether secreted away by means other than PII or whether under the PII umbrella, is NOT exculpatory?
The silencer evidence did NOT convict JB. Of course it was a factor in at trial, but other perhaps more compelling (because it was believed) evidence came from Julie. Also the judge said that if the court did not believe Neville had made a call to JB then that alone could be enough to convict him.
I have no idea the relative weight of material not disclosed through PII. I do know there are justifiable reasons for not dislosing some forms of evidence (eg graphic photos of injuries to twins or any of the other victims, photos of Sheila where she is in a state of undress etc) Equally although not justifiable, there are understandable reasons why evidence such as police officers behaving disrespectfully would not be disclosed, especially if this had no regard to guilt or innocence.
The overall gist of my original post is that on this forum, the relatives are continually treated in an absolute appalling manner by a number of posters given that they are also victims of this crime. It is one thing questionning evidence they have provided and debating this, but quite another claiming they are part of a conspiracy to stitch up JB and ensure he remains in jail even tho they know he is innocent.
-
The silencer evidence did NOT convict JB. Of course it was a factor in at trial, but other perhaps more compelling (because it was believed) evidence came from Julie. Also the judge said that if the court did not believe Neville had made a call to JB then that alone could be enough to convict him.
I have no idea the relative weight of material not disclosed through PII. I do know there are justifiable reasons for not dislosing some forms of evidence (eg graphic photos of injuries to twins or any of the other victims, photos of Sheila where she is in a state of undress etc) Equally although not justifiable, there are understandable reasons why evidence such as police officers behaving disrespectfully would not be disclosed, especially if this had no regard to guilt or innocence.
The overall gist of my original post is that on this forum, the relatives are continually treated in an absolute appalling manner by a number of posters given that they are also victims of this crime. It is one thing questionning evidence they have provided and debating this, but quite another claiming they are part of a conspiracy to stitch up JB and ensure he remains in jail even tho they know he is innocent.
The argument seems to be that they genuinely DID believe he did it and went looking for evidence to that effect. The argument is that elements within the police accommodated them, for whatever reason, in effect undermining those who would not accommodate them.
Why are you trying to play down non-disclosure, by using the larking around photos? The larking around photos were released, where they not? Also, are you saying respect should be issued in BLANKET form, on the grounds their being victims, regardless of widely held and consistent concerns relating to their testimony, closeness towards some police officers and seeming unwillingness to delve in to any alternative scenario other than JB being guilty, even for example, when such glaring inconsistencies come to light (2004 logs) that should be ringing alarm bells? The explanations given to counteract said documents being uniform and unsigned statements from raid team members?
-
The argument seems to be that they genuinely DID believe he did it and went looking for evidence to that effect. The argument is that elements within the police accommodated them, for whatever reason, in effect undermining those who would not accommodate them.
Why are you trying to play down non-disclosure, by using the larking around photos? The larking around photos were released, where they not? Also, are you saying respect should be issued in BLANKET form, on the grounds their being victims, regardless of widely held and consistent concerns relating to their testimony, closeness towards some police officers and seeming unwillingness to delve in to any alternative scenario other than JB being guilty, even for example, when such glaring inconsistencies come to light (2004 logs) that should be ringing alarm bells? The explanations given to counteract said documents being uniform and unsigned statements from raid team members?
We will agree to disagree.
I personally think the relatives are treated appallingly on this forum.
If I saw COMPELLING evidence that they were Liars, Cheats, Conspirators etc maybe I would change my tune. Until this point I sympathise with them as victims of an appalling tragedy.
I can say with 100% certainty that if a member of my family was killed in such tragic circumstances and I 100% believed that the correct man had been convicted and sent to prison, then the second the trial ended I would do everything I could to try and move on from what happened.
I would find it unbelievably difficult if some 27 years later posters on a JB forum were still questionning my role and what I might have done / could have done / should have done and then accusing me of being part of a conspiracy to lock up an innocent man.
-
We will agree to disagree.
I personally think the relatives are treated appallingly on this forum.
If I saw COMPELLING evidence that they were Liars, Cheats, Conspirators etc maybe I would change my tune. Until this point I sympathise with them as victims of an appalling tragedy.
I can say with 100% certainty that if a member of my family was killed in such tragic circumstances and I 100% believed that the correct man had been convicted and sent to prison, then the second the trial ended I would do everything I could to try and move on from what happened.
I would find it unbelievably difficult if some 27 years later posters on a JB forum were still questionning my role and what I might have done / could have done / should have done and then accusing me of being part of a conspiracy to lock up an innocent man.
We will agree to disagree.
-
We will agree to disagree.
I personally think the relatives are treated appallingly on this forum.
If I saw COMPELLING evidence that they were Liars, Cheats, Conspirators etc maybe I would change my tune. Until this point I sympathise with them as victims of an appalling tragedy.
I can say with 100% certainty that if a member of my family was killed in such tragic circumstances and I 100% believed that the correct man had been convicted and sent to prison, then the second the trial ended I would do everything I could to try and move on from what happened.
I would find it unbelievably difficult if some 27 years later posters on a JB forum were still questionning my role and what I might have done / could have done / should have done and then accusing me of being part of a conspiracy to lock up an innocent man.
Petey , you should know better than most about non disclosure by police , did JB not face the same difficulties Liverpudlians faced ? , why did JB have to take EP to court for them to release ' phone log's ' after 20 year's , then to be sent only a faxed version of them ?
Do you find it believable that four policemen could search a small cupboard and not find a silencer with blood upon it , then the family find it ?
Do you believe RWB , when he claimed JB said ' he could kill his parent's ?
Is there a scenario in your mind , where JB is innocent and the family have had no input in setting him up ? I would like to hear it !!
IMO , there is no getting away from believing JB is innocent and the family not being deceitful , whether that be a case of ' noble cause corruption ' or ' a blatant set up ' !!
My deepest sympathies go to them over their loss's !!
-
The fact is there is doubt as to how evidence came to light, if the relatives remotely believed jeremy had something to do with it they should have expressed their concernes and from there leave it to the police to act , had that been done in the first place i believe jeremy would never be where he is today, the police then and as today are paid a wage many will never have and thats what they are paid for .
-
Petey , you should know better than most about non disclosure by police , did JB not face the same difficulties Liverpudlians faced ? , why did JB have to take EP to court for them to release ' phone log's ' after 20 year's , then to be sent only a faxed version of them ?
Do you find it believable that four policemen could search a small cupboard and not find a silencer with blood upon it , then the family find it ?
Do you believe RWB , when he claimed JB said ' he could kill his parent's ?
Is there a scenario in your mind , where JB is innocent and the family have had no input in setting him up ? I would like to hear it !!
IMO , there is no getting away from believing JB is innocent and the family not being deceitful , whether that be a case of ' noble cause corruption ' or ' a blatant set up ' !!
My deepest sympathies go to them over their loss's !!
In this respect JB is not analogous to Hillsborough in my opinion. The main reason was that 40,000+ people were there at Hillsborough and 10,000+ people were at the Leppings Lane end. They saw what happened and have known the truth for 23 years.
Yes, there was a police cover up, but people have known the truth for 23 years. When the Hillsborough Report came out earier this year, this wasnt news to me. I knew the truth from April 1989. Nobody on this forum categorically KNOWS the truth about what happened at WHF.
There is a scenario in my mind whereby JB could be innocent but Sheila was dead before the police arrived at the scene and the police genuinely initially thought it was suicide. It was only when further evidence came to light that they switched their attentions to JB.
This gives rise to the possibility that the police do not 100% know that JB is innocent and given the circumstantial evidence were satisfied there was enough to go with a prosecution. This may well be the belief that the relatives maintain, having had no part whatsoever in any conspiracy.
JFT96
-
I happen to think that Jeremy has been treated appallingly on here,,especially as there's no hard evidence which ties him to the murders.
-
In this respect JB is not analogous to Hillsborough in my opinion. The main reason was that 40,000+ people were there at Hillsborough and 10,000+ people were at the Leppings Lane end. They saw what happened and have known the truth for 23 years.
Yes, there was a police cover up, but people have known the truth for 23 years. When the Hillsborough Report came out earier this year, this wasnt news to me. I knew the truth from April 1989. Nobody on this forum categorically KNOWS the truth about what happened at WHF.
There is a scenario in my mind whereby JB could be innocent but Sheila was dead before the police arrived at the scene and the police genuinely initially thought it was suicide. It was only when further evidence came to light that they switched their attentions to JB.
This gives rise to the possibility that the police do not 100% know that JB is innocent and given the circumstantial evidence were satisfied there was enough to go with a prosecution. This may well be the belief that the relatives maintain, having had no part whatsoever in any conspiracy.
JFT96
My comparison with Hillsborough and JB is the blatant obstruction of justice Pete , my point being once the authorities obstruct justice , by withholding evidence ( logs ) , altering statement's , disgracefully done in both cases , logic tell's me there is something fundamentally wrong !!
JFT96
-
I happen to think that Jeremy has been treated appallingly on here,,especially as there's no hard evidence which ties him to the murders.
Totally agree with you !!
-
I happen to think that Jeremy has been treated appallingly on here,,especially as there's no hard evidence which ties him to the murders.
If all the books are lies lookout then why hasn't Jeremy sued? Whether you believe Jeremy to be guilty of murder or not he behaved appallingly after the event.
-
If all the books are lies lookout then why hasn't Jeremy sued? Whether you believe Jeremy to be guilty of murder or not he behaved appallingly after the event.
Works both ways steve , i cant sue god because i think the bible is a con.
-
If all the books are lies lookout then why hasn't Jeremy sued? Whether you believe Jeremy to be guilty of murder or not he behaved appallingly after the event.
Don't worry,Steve,,Jeremy will sue once he's able to. I don't see what his behaviour has to do with anything.It's not a hanging offence.
-
I do not agree that only Bamber knows. I have to say, that I get a bit irritated when I read that. In a scenario where something went wrong with the raid - Bamber is clearly not the only person who knows.
I also think that it is a mistake to prop up a dodgy exhibit, which is what you are doing, for the sake of backing up friends. Let's see some lie detector tests (as per the ones used by the authorities) arranged for all the 'honest' people on the other side of this case to Bamber.
Tell me now Vic, that all of the people you support, would be prepared to answer pertinent questions relating to the silencer, while wired up to a polygraph, such as the ones being trialed by various UK authorities.
Also, what are you and the people you support, so frightned of in placing the police under severe scrutiny to see if they have indeed deceived everyone about what took place at WHF?
WHY?
I'm not talking about relying upon police investigating police. I'm talking about full, frank, specific questions coming from the relatives in relation to all of the anomalies. Appeals for full disclosure.
He has a point Vic
What about a test to show they are honest?
quotes fixed - roch
-
If all the books are lies lookout then why hasn't Jeremy sued? Whether you believe Jeremy to be guilty of murder or not he behaved appallingly after the event.
Oh not that old chesnut again. Someone must be guilty because if he wasn't he would sue. Well you could use exactly the same argument in regard to the relatives. You could say that if they were not guilty of all the accusations thrown at them on this forum then they would sue. I think the logical answer to that one is MONEY. You must be prepared to spend a lot of money if you want to sue somebody. (1) JB is skint. (2)I doubt that the relatives have got the resources to sue all and sundry. And those who publish libel are banking on that fact and so they carry on abusing both Jeremy Bamber and also the relatives.
-
Lugg...you beat me to it! No disrepect to steve but what a ridiculous statement to make!How could Jeremy possibly sue anyone whilst behind bars and having no funds? Perhaps Steve should think about the implications should JB ever be freed an innocent man? Owing to his many slanderous posts,he might just find himself a target of a libel case from JB!
-
Lugg...you beat me to it! No disrepect to steve but what a ridiculous statement to make!How could Jeremy possibly sue anyone whilst behind bars and having no funds? Perhaps Steve should think about the implications should JB ever be freed an innocent man? Owing to his many slanderous posts,he might just find himself a target of a libel case from JB!
Of course he can sue books which have been in print,unlike this site whom as petey has already stated very few people actually access.
-
Petey,you say if you saw compelling evidence that any of the relatives were liars,cheats etc? What about theft and dishonesty? Time and again we hear about JB robbing the caravan park and therefore
What kind of underhand character he is.Well what about the court documents on this very forum regarding the Pargeters taking the relatives to court.It clearly states how PE stole from N and J Bamber Ltd after their deaths and ran the company into the ground! Should we just whitewash over this fact that proved PE to be a thief? Was it acceptable,because he too was a victim of the murders?
-
Petey,you say if you saw compelling evidence that any of the relatives were liars,cheats etc? What about theft and dishonesty? Time and again we hear about JB robbing the caravan park and therefore
What kind of underhand character he is.Well what about the court documents on this very forum regarding the Pargeters taking the relatives to court.It clearly states how PE stole from N and J Bamber Ltd after their deaths and ran the company into the ground! Should we just whitewash over this fact that proved PE to be a thief? Was it acceptable,because he too was a victim of the murders?
These documents show nothing of the sort! Where is your proof? Where is the decision? The verdict? Anyone can launch a case, I could accuse you of all sorts and we'd go to court, and have a decision, a verdict?....
So, your husband is happy to enjoy Peter's friendly hospitality whilst you anonymously on the internet accuse him of being a thief?!
-
I happen to think that Jeremy has been treated appallingly on here,,especially as there's no hard evidence which ties him to the murders.
Do u wonder why?!
Irrespective of your own or mine or any other poster's individual beliefs, JB is currently convicted of the appalling murder of 5 members of his family, including shooting dead 2 children whilst they slept.
Regardless of whether there is any evidence or the evidence is sufficiently strong enough, does the fact that he has been found guilty by a court of law and all subsequent appeals have failed, not make you appreciate why he is viewed and treated so badly.
IF he is guilty then he deserves to be treated appallingly and then some. What he has been convicted of doing is absolutely horrific. To be honest i'm surprised he has not been treated and viewed far worse by those convinced of his guilt.
IF he is guily then he is one of the most abhorent criminals in English legal history.
-
Do u wonder why?!
Irrespective of your own or mine or any other poster's individual beliefs, JB is currently convicted of the appalling murder of 5 members of his family, including shooting dead 2 children whilst they slept.
Regardless of whether there is any evidence or the evidence is sufficiently strong enough, does the fact that he has been found guilty by a court of law and all subsequent appeals have failed, not make you appreciate why he is viewed and treated so badly.
IF he is guilty then he deserves to be treated appallingly and then some. What he has been convicted of doing is absolutely horrific. To be honest i'm surprised he has not been treated and viewed far worse by those convinced of his guilt.
IF he is guily then he is one of the most abhorent criminals in English legal history.
Well said petey, tunnel vision springs to mind.
-
Petey there are a whole raft of KNOWN discrepancies regarding the silencer evidence. The relatives allegedly FOUND the silencer. The silencer along with other, arguably hearsay testimony, convicted JB.
The case is notoriously controversial for having been subjected to significant non disclosure and withholding of evidence and the employment of exemptions to get around disclosure. How likely is it, that absolutely none of this un disclosed material, whether secreted away by means other than PII or whether under the PII umbrella, is NOT exculpatory?
With friends like Petey who needs enemies! Petey gets a lot of praise from the Ian Stephens gang. I wonder why that is? As a general rule, I wouldn’t take advice from a man my enemies praise. I would suspect him.
Notice how Petey doesn’t often (if ever) address particular issues with respect to the evidence. He just keeps reminding us that Jeremy was convicted by a jury and that his appeals have failed and so on and so on. The rejection of exculpatory evidence by the CCRC is taken by him to establish that the evidence was not really strong evidence after all.
If Jeremy Bamber were an american citizen like Amanda Knox, there would be scathing criticism of the CCRC by scientific experts. The reasons given by them for rejecting a submission would be put under close scrutiny. The rejection of evidence requires justification. Bamber’s defence should consider the argument that by withholding the precise explanation for rejection, they are preventing the inadequate reasons from being exposed.
What are the specific reasons for rejecting the evidence of professors Meloni and Cavalli who concurred in the view that Sheila could not have been dead for more that two hours when the photographs showing blood still running were taken? Petey has nothing to say on issues such as that.
Petey and his friends just do their “dismissive” act. They remind us that the CCRC rejected the evidence and use that as their argument. For the most part, that’s all the pro guilt crowd can do! The evidence was not evidence because the CCRC rejected it. And of course, the same goes for the Arizona tests. Let us be clear about this. These below are two different arguments
To maintain that the CCRC rejected scientific evidence because it was inconclusive is not the same as to maintain that it is inconclusive because they rejected it. The latter is really Petey’s argument, not the former. In logic, it’s recognised as a fallacy and it’s called argument from authority.
The truth is that they have rejected the evidence of expert witnesses without having gained the support of other experts to oppose them. That’s cheating! A television documentary on Bamber! I would say a large part of it should focus upon the conduct of the CCRC in their handling of the case.
-
Of course he can sue books which have been in print,unlike this site whom as petey has already stated very few people actually access.
I guess that gives you the title of Luckiest Person on the Forum, Steve :)
-
A few days ago, Mr Vidvic asked me quite succinctly:- 'Do you think I am an idiot?'
I have pondered his question, and am glad to confirm in the affirmative.
Moreover in the alleged colourful verbage of Mr Jeremy Bamber, my considered opinion is:- 'He is a nutter'.
PS, - Meddlesome Mat, this opinion is non-negotiatable.
-
A few days ago, Mr Vidvic asked me quite succinctly:- 'Do you think I am an idiot?'
I have pondered his question, and am glad to confirm in the affirmative.
Moreover in the alleged colourful verbage of Mr Jeremy Bamber, my considered opinion is:- 'He is a nutter'.
PS, - Meddlesome Mat, this opinion is non-negotiatable.
Good Morning, dear Campion. Much as it distresses me to leave you, I'm spending the day in London. I will look forward to joining you when I return.
-
Do u wonder why?!
Irrespective of your own or mine or any other poster's individual beliefs, JB is currently convicted of the appalling murder of 5 members of his family, including shooting dead 2 children whilst they slept.
Regardless of whether there is any evidence or the evidence is sufficiently strong enough, does the fact that he has been found guilty by a court of law and all subsequent appeals have failed, not make you appreciate why he is viewed and treated so badly.
IF he is guilty then he deserves to be treated appallingly and then some. What he has been convicted of doing is absolutely horrific. To be honest i'm surprised he has not been treated and viewed far worse by those convinced of his guilt.
IF he is guily then he is one of the most abhorent criminals in English legal history.
Having been found guilty doesn't mean a thing,neither does it prove that he was guilty.
Michael George was found guilty.
Stephan Kischkow was found guilty.
Colin Stagg was found guilty.
Susan May was found guilty.
Eddie Gilfoyle was found guilty.
Amanda Knox was found guilty.
Sion Jenkins was found guilty.
So it goes on. Now tell me the full definition of a guilty verdict,outlining all the results from the investigation,disregarding the " who said/did what " brigade. It was a matter for the police and the police only.
BTW,I don't have tunnel vision,,I don't need followers as I'm not a sheep,,have a mind of my own,never listen to gossip or hearsay, and always follow what I think is right and proper,without being prompted by those wearing blinkers.
-
A person HAS to be mental to shoot/murder in such a way,,and there is/was NO proof that Jeremy was/is mental.
-
Morning april you little minx with your sights set on my campion be gone you devilwomen :) Have a lovely day in London but will miss you. :)
-
Morning lookout how you today. I agree anyone who can shoot two wee children whilst sleeping at close range with a rifle has to be very mentally disturbed. :(
-
A few days ago, Mr Vidvic asked me quite succinctly:- 'Do you think I am an idiot?'
I have pondered his question, and am glad to confirm in the affirmative.
Moreover in the alleged colourful verbage of Mr Jeremy Bamber, my considered opinion is:- 'He is a nutter'.
PS, - Meddlesome Mat, this opinion is non-negotiatable.
Vidvic didn't ask you anything and never shall. What an incredibly rude individual you are.
-
Morning lookout how you today. I agree anyone who can shoot two wee children whilst sleeping at close range with a rifle has to be very mentally disturbed. :(
Hi Susan,,another worse example of mental illness is the tragedy in the States where an unbalanced individual has shot 20 children. How on earth he was able to acquire such a weapon,I don't know.
-
Hi lookout I was hearing that on the news and I ask myself what is going on in the minds of people who at random kill innocent children. He must have had a grudge against the school or some of the parents.When I hear about gang related killings I can understand this more although I do not condone murder for whatever reason., I ask myself at times like this where is my God :(
-
Vidvic didn't ask you anything and never shall. What an incredibly rude individual you are.
Blimey,,that's rich coming from you. Just sayin'.
-
I Have A Personal Maxim :- 'I don't talk to Idiots'.
-
These documents show nothing of the sort! Where is your proof? Where is the decision? The verdict? Anyone can launch a case, I could accuse you of all sorts and we'd go to court, and have a decision, a verdict?....
So, your husband is happy to enjoy Peter's friendly hospitality whilst you anonymously on the internet accuse him of being a thief?!
I can read Vidvic!
And I think that you will find that it was Barbara Wilson that accused PE of being a thief! And clearly the Pargeters too....it is contained in the court documents.As to the decision of the court case,well Hartley has previously told the forum that the Pargeters won the case!
So,it is not me that it is making unfounded accusations!
As to your comments regarding my husband.........how Victorian! You're saying that I should think as my husband thinks? Sorry,but I am my own person! My husband was not on the Eaton's pay role,and took absolutely nothing from them!
-
Lugg...you beat me to it! No disrepect to steve but what a ridiculous statement to make!How could Jeremy possibly sue anyone whilst behind bars and having no funds? Perhaps Steve should think about the implications should JB ever be freed an innocent man? Owing to his many slanderous posts,he might just find himself a target of a libel case from JB!
I think there will be too many of them to sue. :D Anyway if JB was freed and proven an innocent man I think he would be too joyful to spend the rest of his life sueing people. I also think that the relatives will have nothing to fear from this man as I don't think he has murder on his mind.
What I would like to see from a Christian standpoint is for the Holy Spirit to convict him of his sins and for him to believe on Christ as his Saviour and publicly confess this. And then tell us that he is innocent of these despicable crimes with a clean conscience. No true Christian can fight his own conscience.
-
Good Morning, dear Campion. Much as it distresses me to leave you, I'm spending the day in London. I will look forward to joining you when I return.
Lundinium? I do not envy you at this time of year April. :o
-
By the way,I dont make posts that are unfounded.I comment and debate on the things I have read,court documents,statements etc.
Im getting a bit tired of you asking people "Where is your proof"? Many of us can source the information which we debate.
I would like to ask you - Where is YOUR proof?
Not very much of what you say is backed up by proof.Your opening post on this thread for example!
Just yesterday you made an unfounded allegation toward Jeremy,accusing him of giving out misinformation regarding Basil Cocks statement and the fingerprinting dust? Patti posted the evidence which proved you wrong,but there was no admission from you that you had been wrong.....and no apology towards Jeremy.
Why don't you try to practice what you preach!
-
By the way,I dont make posts that are unfounded.I comment and debate on the things I have read,court documents,statements etc.
Im getting a bit tired of you asking people "Where is your proof"? Many of us can source the information which we debate.
I would like to ask you - Where is YOUR proof?
Not very much of what you say is backed up by proof.Your opening post on this thread for example!
Just yesterday you made an unfounded allegation toward Jeremy,accusing him of giving out misinformation regarding Basil Cocks statement and the fingerprinting dust? Patti posted the evidence which proved you wrong,but there was no admission from you that you had been wrong.....and no apology towards Jeremy.
Why don't you try to practice what you preach!
A good observation Tyler.
-
a convicted killer cant sue anybody one he has no character to destroy in law.
and how can you sue someone for agreeing with the verdict of a court.
-
a convicted killer cant sue anybody one he has no character to destroy in law.
and how can you sue for agreeing with the verdict of a court.
Good points Nugs...........and I thought that you had to have money to sue?
-
Hi lookout I was hearing that on the news and I ask myself what is going on in the minds of people who at random kill innocent children. He must have had a grudge against the school or some of the parents.When I hear about gang related killings I can understand this more although I do not condone murder for whatever reason., I ask myself at times like this where is my God :(
Susan,,the killer killed his mother first.!
-
a convicted killer cant sue anybody one he has no character to destroy in law.
and how can you sue someone for agreeing with the verdict of a court.
I have been informed that prisoner can and do sue people. Didn't Sutcliffe successfully sue for physical attacks that he received. Apparently a prisoner is currently suing the prison service for breach of privacy! I must admit though,I know nothing about all things connected with law.
I do however (much to hubby's chagrin) know my way around ebay! ;)
-
yes they can sue people but they wouldn't get very fasr suing for libel.
and you cant sue someone for saying your a murderer if legally you are.
-
I have been informed that prisoner can and do sue people. Didn't Sutcliffe successfully sue for physical attacks that he received. Apparently a prisoner is currently suing the prison service for breach of privacy! I must admit though,I know nothing about all things connected with law.
I do however (much to hubby's chagrin) know my way around ebay! ;)
Jeremy also sued for his injuries he received inside prison.
E-bay has been my life-saver at times.
-
yes they can sue people but they wouldn't get very fasr suing for libel.
and sue someone for saying your a murderer if legally you are.
Ah yes,I see your point.I havent quite woken up yet.......sorry!
-
Don't worry,Steve,,Jeremy will sue once he's able to. I don't see what his behaviour has to do with anything.It's not a hanging offence.
Hi Lookout
I have read Colin's book and Wilkes'. Imo there's nothing in either that's really defamatory it's just Steve_uk's interpretation and the way he tells it with add-ons and embellishment. Of course it's easier for Colin to believe that Jeremy was responsible rather than the mother of his children who Colin treated appallingly at times.
Steve_uk constantly quotes James Richard like a mantra. James was a student a Goldsmiths and a friend of Julie's and is quoted as saying that Jeremy said "I hate my f*****g parents". If this was said it is important to understand the context and lead up but we know neither. My brother recently asked me if I could put together some photos of our childhood which he wanted to show someone. As I was doing this I found some of myself at ballet which I showed to my brother and other family members. In one I was about 2 yoa (awww I look so cute), on the stage and looked petrified whilst at the same time concentrating on what I was suppose to be doing. I jokingly said my parents should have been reported to social services for sending me to ballet and putting me on the stage at 2 yoa and that I've been pscychologically scarred by the experience. Neither of which are true as I only have the vaguest memories of the ballet. I might have added "I f*****g hate my parents" which would also hold no truth but this illustrates how innocent comments can be taken out of context. :)
On the flip side Jean Boutell, the Bambers housekeeper for 20 yrs, states she never heard JB say anything negative about his family. This was a woman who knew JB from the age of 4 to 24 and who as housekeeper wld have observed all sorts of things close up. And who June thought highly of as evidenced by the 1k bequest in her will and yet Steve_uk conveniently forgets this.
-
Petey,you say if you saw compelling evidence that any of the relatives were liars,cheats etc? What about theft and dishonesty? Time and again we hear about JB robbing the caravan park and therefore
What kind of underhand character he is.Well what about the court documents on this very forum regarding the Pargeters taking the relatives to court.It clearly states how PE stole from N and J Bamber Ltd after their deaths and ran the company into the ground! Should we just whitewash over this fact that proved PE to be a thief? Was it acceptable,because he too was a victim of the murders?
If I recall correctly, these were accusations made by BW which Peter was never given the opportunity to answer, or at least if he did his answers have never been posted. The investigation went nowhere because, again IIRC, the executors did not feel he had done anything to the detriment of the estate, and commented that the business actually turned a larger profit under Peter than it had done under Neville.
-
Hi Lookout
I have read Colin's book and Wilkes'. Imo there's nothing in either that's really defamatory it's just Steve_uk's interpretation and the way he tells it with add-ons and embellishment. Of course it's easier for Colin to believe that Jeremy was responsible rather than the mother of his children who Colin treated appallingly at times.
Steve_uk constantly quotes James Richard like a mantra. James was a student a Goldsmiths and a friend of Julie's and is quoted as saying that Jeremy said "I hate my f*****g parents". If this was said it is important to understand the context and lead up but we know neither. My brother recently asked me if I could put together some photos of our childhood which he wanted to show someone. As I was doing this I found some of myself at ballet which I showed to my brother and other family members. In one I was about 2 yoa (awww I look so cute), on the stage and looked petrified whilst at the same time concentrating on what I was suppose to be doing. I jokingly said my parents should have been reported to social services for sending me to ballet and putting me on the stage at 2 yoa and that I've been pscychologically scarred by the experience. Neither of which are true as I only have the vaguest memories of the ballet. I might have added "I f*****g hate my parents" which would also hold no truth but this illustrates how innocent comments can be taken out of context. :)
On the flip side Jean Boutell, the Bambers housekeeper for 20 yrs, states she never heard JB say anything negative about his family. This was a woman who knew JB from the age of 4 to 24 and who as housekeeper wld have observed all sorts of things close up. And who June thought highly of as evidenced by the 1k bequest in her will and yet Steve_uk conveniently forgets this.
Hi NN,you're right of course. Certain embarrassing moments in ones life,caused by parents,does bring on an " out of character " reaction,,to which when something such as Jeremy may have said,,wouldn't always have been taken literally. Just a spur of the moment remark rarely taken seriously.
-
On the flip side Jean Boutell, the Bambers housekeeper for 20 yrs, states she never heard JB say anything negative about his family. This was a woman who knew JB from the age of 4 to 24 and who as housekeeper wld have observed all sorts of things close up. And who June thought highly of as evidenced by the 1k bequest in her will and yet Steve_uk conveniently forgets this.
Given Jean's closeness to June, he was hardly likely to make such comments in her presence was he?
I agree though that context is important.
-
With friends like Petey who needs enemies! Petey gets a lot of praise from the Ian Stephens gang. I wonder why that is? As a general rule, I wouldn’t take advice from a man my enemies praise. I would suspect him.
Notice how Petey doesn’t often (if ever) address particular issues with respect to the evidence. He just keeps reminding us that Jeremy was convicted by a jury and that his appeals have failed and so on and so on. The rejection of exculpatory evidence by the CCRC is taken by him to establish that the evidence was not really strong evidence after all.
If Jeremy Bamber were an american citizen like Amanda Knox, there would be scathing criticism of the CCRC by scientific experts. The reasons given by them for rejecting a submission would be put under close scrutiny. The rejection of evidence requires justification. Bamber’s defence should consider the argument that by withholding the precise explanation for rejection, they are preventing the inadequate reasons from being exposed.
What are the specific reasons for rejecting the evidence of professors Meloni and Cavalli who concurred in the view that Sheila could not have been dead for more that two hours when the photographs showing blood still running were taken? Petey has nothing to say on issues such as that.
Petey and his friends just do their “dismissive” act. They remind us that the CCRC rejected the evidence and use that as their argument. For the most part, that’s all the pro guilt crowd can do! The evidence was not evidence because the CCRC rejected it. And of course, the same goes for the Arizona tests. Let us be clear about this. These below are two different arguments
To maintain that the CCRC rejected scientific evidence because it was inconclusive is not the same as to maintain that it is inconclusive because they rejected it. The latter is really Petey’s argument, not the former. In logic, it’s recognised as a fallacy and it’s called argument from authority.
The truth is that they have rejected the evidence of expert witnesses without having gained the support of other experts to oppose them. That’s cheating! A television documentary on Bamber! I would say a large part of it should focus upon the conduct of the CCRC in their handling of the case.
Any need for a personal attack? Who are you trying to insinuate that I am?
I don't know you or anybody else on this forum. I have posted my honest opinions. Whether you choose to believe it or not if you have read my previous posts over the years, you will see I err on the side of JB being innocent.
I have not seen the submissions or the reasons for refusal therefore cannot accurately say that the CCRC have refused exculpatory evidence.
It has been discussed that the testing that was carried out in Arizona was not conclusive enough and more tests are needed. Therefore it is my personal belief that the CCRC rejected scientific evidence because it was inconclusive and further testing is required.
-
Given Jean's closeness to June, he was hardly likely to make such comments in her presence was he?
I agree though that context is important.
Hi Bridget
Well according to RB and BW, who were close to June and NB, JB made negative comments in their presence.
Lets take RB "Oh Uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents". If this was said it could be argued that Jeremy perceived his Uncle Bobby as viewing him (JB) with some skepticism perhaps partly due to differences in personality etc and JB being the adopted son of unknown birth parents, carrying 'bad blood', alien genes etc and JB simply fuelled this by 'shock' comments.
-
Having been found guilty doesn't mean a thing,neither does it prove that he was guilty.
Michael George was found guilty.
Stephan Kischkow was found guilty.
Colin Stagg was found guilty.
Susan May was found guilty.
Eddie Gilfoyle was found guilty.
Amanda Knox was found guilty.
Sion Jenkins was found guilty.
So it goes on. Now tell me the full definition of a guilty verdict,outlining all the results from the investigation,disregarding the " who said/did what " brigade. It was a matter for the police and the police only.
BTW,I don't have tunnel vision,,I don't need followers as I'm not a sheep,,have a mind of my own,never listen to gossip or hearsay, and always follow what I think is right and proper,without being prompted by those wearing blinkers.
Being found guilty has a massive impact. Of course in English legal history there have been miscarriages of justice and there will continue to be so. However these are very much an absolutely tiny percentage.
If you want me to be facetious, Colin Stagg was never found guilty as following the judges scathing comments at trial, the prosecution withdrew their case and he was aquitted.
On a seperate note a number of people continue to believe that both Sion Jenkins and less so Amanda Knox are actually guilty.
-
the point he is makeing constant repetion of words he was found guilty is rather stupid.
-
Hi Bridget
Well according to RB and BW, who were close to June and NB, JB made negative comments in their presence.
Lets take RB "Oh Uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents". If this was said it could be argued that Jeremy perceived his Uncle Bobby as viewing him (JB) with some skepticism perhaps partly due to differences in personality etc and JB being the adopted son of unknown birth parents, carrying 'bad blood', alien genes etc and JB simply fuelled this by 'shock' comments.
Yes, and there are probably quite a few other possible interpretations of that comment, including the literal one. Does JB deny saying it, or if not, has he ever offered an explanation for it?
-
the point is constant repetion of words he was found guilty is rather stupid.
Stupid or not, it's true.
-
Being found guilty has a massive impact. Of course in English legal history there have been miscarriages of justice and there will continue to be so. However these are very much an absolutely tiny percentage.
If you want me to be facetious, Colin Stagg was never found guilty as following the judges scathing comments at trial, the prosecution withdrew their case and he was aquitted.
On a seperate note a number of people continue to believe that both Sion Jenkins and less so Amanda Knox are actually guilty.
if you acutlly count the numbers i think you will find they are far more than a tiny percentage.
so its ok to question a jurys verdict if its an acquittal.
but not if its a conviction.
-
Yes, and there are probably quite a few other possible interpretations of that comment, including the literal one. Does JB deny saying it, or if not, has he ever offered an explanation for it?
Hi Bridget
I agree, if he said it, it's all down to interpretation and context which we often don't get to hear about. As you said would JB make such literal comments in the presence of those who were close to June and NB. If you were planning to murder your entire immediate adoptive family would you tip off your uncle?
-
Stupid or not, it's true.
its just that repeating the blatantly obvois over and over again can get rather annoying.
i mean is there anybody here who dident know it was true
did anyone really need reminding.
-
yes they can sue people but they wouldn't get very fasr suing for libel.
and you cant sue someone for saying your a murderer if legally you are.
You are quite right Nugnug. It would be impossible for Jeremy Bamber to sue for libel.
-
Hi Bridget
I agree, if he said it, it's all down to interpretation and context which we often don't get to hear about. As you said would JB make such literal comments in the presence of those who were close to June and NB. If you were planning to murder your entire immediate adoptive family would you tip off your uncle?
I tend to think that a lot of these comments have been re-interpreted with hindsight by those that witnessed them - but then i also think that that's natural given that they are seeking answers to the question of how this person whom they thought they knew could have done such a thing. They are, if you like, reassessing their knowledge of him, perhaps rightly, or perhaps not.
-
its just that repeating the blatantly obvois over and over again can get rather annoying.
i mean is there anybody here who dident know it was true
did anyone really need reminding.
Apologies for being annoying :)
But I do think there are some who are overly dismissive of the original verdict, which was delivered by a jury in possession of an awful lot more information than has been posted here. I take the point that there is now further information of which the jury weren't aware, but at the risk of being annoying again, the conclusion of the CoA has so far been that it would not have altered the verdict.
-
if you acutlly count the numbers i think you will find they are far more than a tiny percentage.
so its ok to question a jurys verdict if its an acquittal.
but not if its a conviction.
That is absolute rubbish. Think of the thousands and thousands of cases where justice is correctly meted out.
You don't hear about these. All you hear about are the tiny tiny percantage of cases which are miscarriages of justice, such as Stefan Kiszko, Barry George, Bridgewater 4, Birmingham 6 etc
-
While we have a jury made up of people there will always be mistakes nothing can alter that over the last century our society has made many and many more to come it must be part of our genes.
-
That is absolute rubbish. Think of the thousands and thousands of cases where justice is correctly meted out.
You don't hear about these. All you hear about are the tiny tiny percantage of cases which are miscarriages of justice, such as Stefan Kiszko, Barry George, Bridgewater 4, Birmingham 6 etc
there are some that speculate it could be as many as one in 5 case or 20 percent
i can count the case it certanly far more than i tiny and im talking people who have been cleared.
not people who are thought by some to be innocent.
-
I tend to think that a lot of these comments have been re-interpreted with hindsight by those that witnessed them - but then i also think that that's natural given that they are seeking answers to the question of how this person whom they thought they knew could have done such a thing. They are, if you like, reassessing their knowledge of him, perhaps rightly, or perhaps not.
That is a good observation Bridget.
-
there are some that speculate it could be as many as one in 5 case or 20 percent
I don't really see how it's possible to speculate with any degree of accuracy.
That is a good observation Bridget.
Thank you :)
-
Stupid or not, it's true.
Perhaps "superfluous" is a better word?
-
Perhaps "superfluous" is a better word?
See my comment re overly dismissive...
-
there are many reasons to think he did it but the verdict on its own is not one them.
-
there are many reasons to think he did it but the verdict on its own is not one them.
It's a good starting point..
-
do you believe everyone who found innocent is innocent.
what about people who were found guilty at the first and innocent a retrial.
or vice versa.
-
there are some that speculate it could be as many as one in 5 case or 20 percent
i can count the case it certanly far more than i tiny and im talking people who have been cleared.
not people who are thought by some to be innocent.
If you take a rough estimate of 450,000 criminal proceedings being heard by magistrates and crown courts every quarter are you seriously suggesting to me that you believe up to 90,000 of the decisions reached are wrong and are miscarriages of justice?!!!!!
What kind of society do you think that we live in!
-
a pretty fucked up one.
-
If you take a rough estimate of 450,000 criminal proceedings being heard by magistrates and crown courts every quarter are you seriously suggesting to me that you believe up to 180,000 of the decisions reached are wrong and are miscarriages of justice?!!!!!
What kind of society do you think that we live in!
Might he not be referring to murder trials only? Just a thought. They seem to be the cases most debated and referred to on here.
-
i think theres about 1 in five cases were the verdict could of gone the other way that dosent mean the verdict was wrong necessarily.
-
do you believe everyone who found innocent is innocent.
what about people who were found guilty at the first and innocent a retrial.
or vice versa.
No.
Yes I take your point, but that would require new evidence of sufficient substance to effect the original verdict, and so far the conclusion is that there isn't any. I have to say though, that I'm not overly comfortable with the current system by which appeal court judges (who were not at trial) decide what weight the jury may have attached to a particular piece of evidence or argument. I don't know what the alternative would be though.
-
No.
Yes I take your point, but that would require new evidence of sufficient substance to effect the original verdict, and so far the conclusion is that there isn't any. I have to say though, that I'm not overly comfortable with the current system by which appeal court judges (who were not at trial) decide what weight the jury may have attached to a particular piece of evidence or argument. I don't know what the alternative would be though.
Maybe we could adopt how the circle of truth works, i could steal millions from a bank you sit round me in a circle fire questions at me then give me a hug after and then i go and spend my money.
-
To maintain that the CCRC rejected scientific evidence because it was inconclusive is not the same as to maintain that it is inconclusive because they rejected it.
Bravo..
-
Maybe we could adopt how the circle of truth works, i could steal millions from a bank you sit round me in a circle fire questions at me then give me a hug after and then i go and spend my money.
I like your style Ralph.
-
Hi Lookout
I have read Colin's book and Wilkes'. Imo there's nothing in either that's really defamatory it's just Steve_uk's interpretation and the way he tells it with add-ons and embellishment. Of course it's easier for Colin to believe that Jeremy was responsible rather than the mother of his children who Colin treated appallingly at times.
Steve_uk constantly quotes James Richard like a mantra. James was a student a Goldsmiths and a friend of Julie's and is quoted as saying that Jeremy said "I hate my f*****g parents". If this was said it is important to understand the context and lead up but we know neither. My brother recently asked me if I could put together some photos of our childhood which he wanted to show someone. As I was doing this I found some of myself at ballet which I showed to my brother and other family members. In one I was about 2 yoa (awww I look so cute), on the stage and looked petrified whilst at the same time concentrating on what I was suppose to be doing. I jokingly said my parents should have been reported to social services for sending me to ballet and putting me on the stage at 2 yoa and that I've been pscychologically scarred by the experience. Neither of which are true as I only have the vaguest memories of the ballet. I might have added "I f*****g hate my parents" which would also hold no truth but this illustrates how innocent comments can be taken out of context. :)
On the flip side Jean Boutell, the Bambers housekeeper for 20 yrs, states she never heard JB say anything negative about his family. This was a woman who knew JB from the age of 4 to 24 and who as housekeeper wld have observed all sorts of things close up. And who June thought highly of as evidenced by the 1k bequest in her will and yet Steve_uk conveniently forgets this.
Well sorry: if you think the Jeremy Bamber Case hinges on the opinion of Jean Boutell there's really no hope for you..
-
nugnug I take your point too and really what alternative do we have.
-
If I recall correctly, these were accusations made by BW which Peter was never given the opportunity to answer, or at least if he did his answers have never been posted. The investigation went nowhere because, again IIRC, the executors did not feel he had done anything to the detriment of the estate, and commented that the business actually turned a larger profit under Peter than it had done under Neville.
In the documents that I read,in the second year,the company only made a profit of 3 hundred and something pounds?
I take your point that PE was never charged with anything,and therefore apologise.
Although,if BW's allegations were unfounded,does this not show that we cannot then really put much credence as to her testimony at Jeremy's trial?
-
Well sorry: if you think the Jeremy Bamber Case hinges on the opinion of Jean Boutell there's really no hope for you..
Hi Steve_uk
I have my own beliefs about what the case hinges on and it's certainly nothing to do with the opinion of Jean Boutell ;) ;) ;)
-
In the documents that I read,in the second year,the company only made a profit of 3 hundred and something pounds?
I take your point that PE was never charged with anything,and therefore apologise.
Although,if BW's allegations were unfounded,does this not show that we cannot then really put much credence as to her testimony at Jeremy's trial?
I think I've seen what you read, it was the particulars of claim from the civil case which Anthony Pargeter brought against the executor (and other beneficiaries) and I think you're right about the small amount of profit in later years. But I haven't seen the defendants' statements of case and whilst I accept that AP was at least in part successful in his claim, without reading the full decision I don't know which parts of the claim were successful and which weren't.
-
I think I've seen what you read, it was the particulars of claim from the civil case which Anthony Pargeter brought against the executor (and other beneficiaries) and I think you're right about the small amount of profit in later years. But I haven't seen the defendants' statements of case and whilst I accept that AP was at least in part successful in his claim, without reading the full decision I don't know which parts of the claim were successful and which weren't.
Thanks for pointing that out.Hartley once told the forum that that Anthony and Jackie won the case.I just assumed that he meant all of it.
-
I think I've seen what you read, it was the particulars of claim from the civil case which Anthony Pargeter brought against the executor (and other beneficiaries) and I think you're right about the small amount of profit in later years. But I haven't seen the defendants' statements of case and whilst I accept that AP was at least in part successful in his claim, without reading the full decision I don't know which parts of the claim were successful and which weren't.
I believe the case was settled out of court. Vidvic will be able to help on this.
-
I believe the case was settled out of court. Vidvic will be able to help on this.
Ok, so then the truth or otherwise of any of the allegations has never really been determined.
-
I can read Vidvic!
And I think that you will find that it was Barbara Wilson that accused PE of being a thief! And clearly the Pargeters too....it is contained in the court documents.As to the decision of the court case,well Hartley has previously told the forum that the Pargeters won the case!
So,it is not me that it is making unfounded accusations!
As to your comments regarding my husband.........how Victorian! You're saying that I should think as my husband thinks? Sorry,but I am my own person! My husband was not on the Eaton's pay role,and took absolutely nothing from them!
What you posted was not proof of anything. It was an accusation.
You accused Peter of being a thief. What you posted was not anything like proof of this actually occurring. By exactly the same standard, that Jeremy even appeared in court meant he WAS a murderer?
Please find point 110 from the 2002 appeal;
110. She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm. On 16 August Miss Mugford attended the funerals of Nevill and June Bamber with the appellant and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila Caffell and her children. During that period the witness spoke of the appellant taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described the appellant's mood during this period as "very happy". After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.
Before you demand apologies, please give me the time to answer.
-
the point he is makeing constant repetion of words he was found guilty is rather stupid.
And it’s illogical. If a man hadn’t been found guilty how could anybody think that he’d been wrongly convicted?
-
weather peter eaton did what he was accused of or not he was accused of it by another family member.
so surely the family have blackened there own name.
-
What you posted was not proof of anything. It was an accusation.
You accused Peter of being a thief. What you posted was not anything like proof of this actually occurring. By exactly the same standard, that Jeremy even appeared in court meant he WAS a murderer?
Please find point 110 from the 2002 appeal;
110. She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm. On 16 August Miss Mugford attended the funerals of Nevill and June Bamber with the appellant and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila Caffell and her children. During that period the witness spoke of the appellant taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described the appellant's mood during this period as "very happy". After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.
Before you demand apologies, please give me the time to answer.
I dont recall saying I had posted proof of anything! I said that Patti did re:fingerprinting dust.
I will re-iterate to you again - I have not personally accused anyone of anything. BW did and AP and JW appear to have done.
You know that the farmhouse was not treated as a crimescene as such,as EP felt they had the case concluded.I have never seen ANY evidence that the farmhouse was fingerprinted on the 12th August. If you would care to show me the evidence,( I dont regard he said,she said as evidence),then I will gladly apologise.
And I do not DEMAND apologies,or anything else for that matter, from anyone!
-
i think the main charge that we are blackening the family's name can be clearly proven to be false seeing as we are only repeating things they said about each other.
-
What you posted was not proof of anything. It was an accusation.
You accused Peter of being a thief. What you posted was not anything like proof of this actually occurring. By exactly the same standard, that Jeremy even appeared in court meant he WAS a murderer?
Please find point 110 from the 2002 appeal;
110. She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm. On 16 August Miss Mugford attended the funerals of Nevill and June Bamber with the appellant and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila Caffell and her children. During that period the witness spoke of the appellant taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described the appellant's mood during this period as "very happy". After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.
Before you demand apologies, please give me the time to answer.
Hmm. It seems that Miss Mugford was a willing paticipant of all this "partying"? But she does not elaborate on her own "mood".
-
Hmm. It seems that Miss Mugford was a willing paticipant of all this "partying"? But she does not elaborate on her own "mood".
She was upset that Jeremy was taking everything so light-heartedly,especially with Colin with whom they stayed for a weekend and who had been so magnanimous after the murders.
-
She was upset that Jeremy was taking everything so light-heartedly,especially with Colin with whom they stayed for a weekend and who had been so magnanimous after the murders.
But not too upset to partake of the champagne and cocktails herself?
-
She was upset that Jeremy was taking everything so light-heartedly,especially with Colin with whom they stayed for a weekend and who had been so magnanimous after the murders.
She "said" she was upset. ;) Big difference. How she really felt Caroline has rightly detected.
-
But not too upset to partake of the champagne and cocktails herself?
She had fallen in love with and given succour to a mass murderer. What a dilemma for the poor 20- year-old.
-
She had fallen in love with and given succour to a mass murderer. What a dilemma for the poor 20- year-old.
Oh yes I forgot Poor poor girl ::)
-
she was 25 i believe.
-
she was 25 i believe.
She was 21 in 1995 nugnug....Even though they had broken up, Jeremy still gave her £300 for her birthday, because she had planned to go away and he knew the money would help her.... ;)
-
She was 21 in 1995 nugnug....Even though they had broken up, Jeremy still gave her £300 for her birthday, because she had planned to go away and he knew the money would help her.... ;)
Does that make her 11 in 1985? My maths ain't that good I'm afraid.
-
She was 21 in 1995 nugnug....Even though they had broken up, Jeremy still gave her £300 for her birthday, because she had planned to go away and he knew the money would help her.... ;)
It's alleged by Anji Greaves that he was trying to pay her off. 1985 not 1995 though.
-
Slipped onto 9 instead of 8...sorry! :(
She was 21 in 1985 ;D ;D
-
Is it the case that June called Muggy a whore to her face, Stevie? Do you know how she felt about that unflattering accusation? Would you agree that may have affected her feelings for jovial Jeremy?
I consider that that is a distasteful thing to say, but can you think of why it may have been claimed?
-
Is it the case that June called Muggy a whore to her face, Stevie? Do you know how she felt about that unflattering accusation? Would you agree that may have affected her feelings for jovial Jeremy?
I consider that that is a distasteful thing to say, but can you think of why it may have been claimed?
It's Steve_uk campion,or Steve if you can't manage that. I'm perfectly prepared to go along with the allegation that Julie could and should have acted upon Jeremy's callous thoughts out loud(read my book reviews on egap1's Book Review thread),but Julie was a young girl infatuated with an evil personage who exerted his charming influence over her 27 years ago as he is doing the same with some today from the confines of his prison cell.
-
Sorry about that Stevie. YOUR FORUM OUTPUT IS PHENOMINAL. How do you juggle them all? Will you truthfully tell us your IQ?
Did you know June gave Muggy the bicycle on Aug 3rd, as a hint to her, to get on her bike and out of their lives. Muggy was put out because she was considered to be of a lower class.
-
Sorry about that Stevie. YOUR FORUM OUTPUT IS PHENOMINAL. How do you juggle them all? Will you truthfully tell us your IQ?
Did you know June gave Muggy the bicycle on Aug 3rd, as a hint to her, to get on her bike and out of their lives. Muggy was put out because she was considered to be of a lower class.
So convenient for the bicycle to have arrived then,with Julie returning on the London train the following day.
-
So convenient for the bicycle to have arrived then,with Julie returning on the London train the following day.
Since it use was a figment of RB's imagination, it wasn't convenient at all!
-
And it’s illogical. If a man hadn’t been found guilty how could anybody think that he’d been wrongly convicted?
Again, I am in agreement Martin.
-
Again, I am in agreement Martin.
Undeniable logic Martin! Lol
-
Since it use was a figment of RB's imagination, it wasn't convenient at all!
How had that ladies' bicycle suddenly got covered with brown yellowish mud from the Saturday August 3rd Julie saw it at the back of Bourtree Cottage to the day of the murders?. Which female rider had taken a bath after using it to wash away the dirt which must have been on her person after use?
-
How had that ladies' bicycle suddenly got covered with brown yellowish mud from the Saturday August 3rd Julie saw it at the back of Bourtree Cottage to the day of the murders?. Which female rider had taken a bath after using it to wash away the dirt which must have been on her person after use?
And how had the police discounted it as relevant?
-
And how had the police discounted it as relevant?
..because it was four murders and a suicide for five weeks Lugg.
-
How had that ladies' bicycle suddenly got covered with brown yellowish mud from the Saturday August 3rd Julie saw it at the back of Bourtree Cottage to the day of the murders?. Which female rider had taken a bath after using it to wash away the dirt which must have been on her person after use?
RB 'thought' he saw mud on the bike so what? RB had all kinds of strange accusations in his diary the bike being just one of them!
-
RB 'thought' he saw mud on the bike so what? RB had all kinds of strange accusations in his diary the bike being just one of them!
Strange how a bit of mud suddenly morphs into a great covering of mud? ;D
-
Strange how a bit of mud suddenly morphs into a great covering of mud? ;D
Exactly Lugg!!
-
RB 'thought' he saw mud on the bike so what? RB had all kinds of strange accusations in his diary the bike being just one of them!
Surely, if it had been "covered with brown yellowish mud" RB wouldn't have needed to THINK he saw it, he woiuld have known.
-
These were Ann Eaton's observations.
-
These were Ann Eaton's observations.
Does that mean that AE witnessed RB looking at the bike he "thought was covered with brown yellowish mud" or did he tell AE he had been looking at the bike which he thought was "covered in brown yellowish mud".
-
and if they both saw it why couldent they say it for a fact.
-
These were Ann Eaton's observations.
Ah yes. Wasn't it she who also enquired, "Why is Jeremy still alive?"
-
Does that mean that AE witnessed RB looking at the bike he "thought was covered with brown yellowish mud" or did he tell AE he had been looking at the bike which he thought was "covered in brown yellowish mud".
Ann Eaton noticed the ladies' bicycle was covered with brown yellowish mud shortly after the murders and all I'm asking is which lady rode that bicycle across muddy terrain and where did she take her subsequent bath to rid herself of the ingrained dirt which must have emanated from its use.
-
Ah yes. Wasn't it she who also enquired, "Why is Jeremy still alive?"
And who also knew that Sheila was on the bed.?
-
And who also knew that Sheila was on the bed.?
People with suspicions can usually find plenty of mud. ;)
-
Ann Eaton noticed the ladies' bicycle was covered with brown yellowish mud shortly after the murders and all I'm asking is which lady rode that bicycle across muddy terrain and where did she take her subsequent bath to rid herself of the ingrained dirt which must have emanated from its use.
I can't possibly give you an answer to that Steve, nor will I insult your intelligence by suggesting something fatuous. However, given the lengths gone to in order that the silencer was examined, I'm truly amazed that the bicyle wasn't put in the back of a land rover and taken to police head quarters.
-
I can't possibly give you an answer to that Steve, nor will I insult your intelligence by suggesting something fatuous. However, given the lengths gone to in order that the silencer was examined, I'm truly amazed that the bicyle wasn't put in the back of a land rover and taken to police head quarters.
It was examined by Police,but as usual too late.
-
How had that ladies' bicycle suddenly got covered with brown yellowish mud from the Saturday August 3rd Julie saw it at the back of Bourtree Cottage to the day of the murders?. Which female rider had taken a bath after using it to wash away the dirt which must have been on her person after use?
Then why does RB claim to have noticed the yellowish mud on 1st September? I have tried to post the statement but I'm getting an Internal server error so this is what RB stated in his 16/12 /85 statement. I KNEW I had read it somewhere but I thought it was briefly mentioned in the diary however, it has far more detail in the statement!!
"On Sunday 1st September I went to Jeremy's house and Jeremy was not home. I explored his back garden to see if there was a path that linked up with the footpaths that I had been exploring. I found it was easy to go from his garden onto the footpath. I also discovered a ladies pedal cycle in Jeremy's garden. I examined the pedal cycle and saw that the tyres had been through deep mud. The tyre walls were covered in mud but the tread were clean. The mud of the tyre was consistent with the mud in the lane at the White House end of Brook Farm Lane. The Mud is a yellowish type in the lane where they have been doing some repair work and the mud of the wheels was very similar"
-
Saturday 3rd August eh? Strange!! Then why does RB claim to have noticed the yellowish mud on 1st September? I have tried to post the statement but I'm getting an Internal server error so this is what RB stated in his 16/12 /85 statement. I KNEW I had read it somewhere but I thought it was briefly mentioned in the diary however, it has far more detail in the statement!!
"On Sunday 1st September I went to Jeremy's house and Jeremy was not home. I explored his back garden to see if there was a path that linked up with the footpaths that I had been exploring. I found it was easy to go from his garden onto the footpath. I also discovered a ladies pedal cycle in Jeremy's garden. I examined the pedal cycle and saw that the tyres had been through deep mud. The tyre walls were covered in mud but the tread were clean. The mud of the tyre was consistent with the mud in the lane at the White House end of Brook Farm Lane. The Mud is a yellowish type in the lane where they have been doing some repair work and the mud of the wheels was very similar"
I do have the dates wrong sorry-it was Thursday 22 August when Ann Eaton saw the bicycle with mud. It still has to be explained which lady rode it and how the mud got there.
-
Steve im no Eddy Merckx but the type of bike in question to be even thought of as being used that night is utter rubbish, a bike like that would be puntured in no time .
-
Steve im no Eddy Merckx but the type of bike in question to be even thought of as being used that night is utter rubbish, a bike like that would be puntured in no time .
Well I may need curiousessex's help here but Jeremy could have carried the bicycle through any particular rough patches and cycled along the sea wall,affording him the default excuse of checking security at Osea Road should he have been observed that morning.
-
I do have the dates wrong sorry-it was Thursday 22 August when Ann Eaton saw the bicycle with mud. It still has to be explained which lady rode it and how the mud got there.
Sorry Steve, I don't know what point you're trying to make? There was mud spotted on the wheels - so what? It could have been there ages and come from anywhere!! Just because RB spots some similar coloured mud near WHF that doesn't mean that's the ONLY place it could have come from and to argue that point would be quite ridiculous!!
-
Well I may need curiousessex's help here but Jeremy could have carried the bicycle through any particular rough patches and cycled along the sea wall,affording him the default excuse of checking security at Osea Road should he have been observed that morning.
And run the risk of chain oil to make contact with his garments ? oil is hard as hell to remove.
-
Sorry Steve, I don't know what point you're trying to make? There was much spotted on the wheels - so what? It could have been there ages and come from anywhere!! Just because RB spots some similar coloured mud near WHF that doesn't mean that's the ONLY place it could have come from and to argue that point would be quite ridiculous!!
It is circumstantial I admit,but more importantly there's nothing to disprove that the White House Farm Murders were not carried out as Julie described in her witness statement.
-
Well I may need curiousessex's help here but Jeremy could have carried the bicycle through any particular rough patches and cycled along the sea wall,affording him the default excuse of checking security at Osea Road should he have been observed that morning.
And that wouldn't be suspicious at 3am on the day his family are found murdered? LOL and if he carried it, where did the 'special' mud come from? ::)
-
And run the risk of chain oil to make contact with his garments ? oil is hard as hell to remove.
Well he wore a wet suit..
-
Well he wore a wet suit..
I give up!!
-
Steve i have 4 cycles and i like to think i know what mud is, if you can host on the forum a picture of the bike in question with the mud i will gladly look at what colour the mud is and go from there.
-
Well I may need curiousessex's help here but Jeremy could have carried the bicycle through any particular rough patches and cycled along the sea wall,affording him the default excuse of checking security at Osea Road should he have been observed that morning.
Hey Steve,the name was Simpson,not Samson. Carrying a bicycle indeed. Good Lord man. He'd have run out of puff,as he wasn't exactly built like Atlas,was he.?
-
Steve i have 4 cycles and i like to think i know what mud is, if you can host on the forum a picture of the bike in question with the mud i will gladly look at what colour the mud is and go from there.
There isn't one as far as I know Mertol and I fail to see how anyone could distinguish the colour of one mud sample from another - unless they were looking at the two samples together. However, for a true match to be made, they would have to be tested - they weren't and the whole thing is rubbish!!
-
Hey Steve,the name was Simpson,not Samson. Carrying a bicycle indeed. Good Lord man. He'd have run out of puff,as he wasn't exactly built like Atlas,was he.?
And why use it in the first place if you have to carry it!!
-
And why use it in the first place if you have to carry it!!
I'm afraid that's a no no.
-
I'm afraid that's a no no.
It's a theory that kinda cancels itself out ;D
-
There isn't one as far as I know Mertol and I fail to see how anyone could distinguish the colour of one mud sample from another - unless they were looking at the two samples together. However, for a true match to be made, they would have to be tested - they weren't and the whole thing is rubbish!!
Mud light brown or with cracking is old mud almost sandy dust, fresh mud within 24 hours can sometines still be wet, i bought a racer last Saturday off ebay from Birmingham the mud on the tyres is old, steve is really scraping the barrel on this one.
-
Mud light brown or with cracking is old mud almost sandy dust, fresh mud within 24 hours can sometines still be wet, i bought a racer last Saturday off ebay from Birmingham the mud on the tyres is old, steve is really scraping the barrel on this one.
Or the mud off and old tyre!! ;D
-
Or the mud off and old tyre!! ;D
What would be of a real aid to further the case is the weather for the night of 7/8/85
-
What would be of a real aid to further the case is the weather for the night of 7/8/85
It was dry
-
To be pondered - why did JB need a bike, he had Muggy.
-
It was dry
As i suspected, which blows away what steve ponders how could mud cover a cycle tyre in dry conditions.
-
To be pondered - why did JB need a bike, he had Muggy.
Hahaha,nice one campion.
-
As i suspected, which blows away what steve ponders how could mud cover a cycle tyre in dry conditions.
I've always thought it was rubbish - along with the wet suit and some of the other more colourful theories!!
-
Steve overlooks the little things such as in the 80s the police still hit hard cyclists hard not having lights ect , the risk of using any form of transport would carry huge prices for failure,
-
I do have the dates wrong sorry-it was Thursday 22 August when Ann Eaton saw the bicycle with mud. It still has to be explained which lady rode it and how the mud got there.
Perhaps it was already there before it got taken to Jeremy's place?
-
Didn't RWB ride the bike himself to test his theory?
-
Didn't RWB ride the bike himself to test his theory?
;D ;D ;D
-
Morning steve uk You told me in an earlier post that the first thing Jeremy did when he got back to his home was wash the bike down to remove any traces of evidence. I thought it rather strange that anyone who saw a young man in the middle of the night wearing a wetsuit washing his bike would maybe have thought it bizarre to say the least.
-
Morning steve uk You told me in an earlier post that the first thing Jeremy did when he got back to his home was wash the bike down to remove any traces of evidence. I thought it rather strange that anyone who saw a young man in the middle of the night wearing a wetsuit washing his bike would maybe have thought it bizarre to say the least.
Especially if he was only wearing one marigold susie!!
Actually if the mud seen on the bike later that month had any connection with the murders, Jeremy didn't cover his tracks very well did he steve?. It certainly means he didn't wash the bike down and it shows a generally casual attitude to covering up any evidence of his alledged crime.
-
Morning steve uk You told me in an earlier post that the first thing Jeremy did when he got back to his home was wash the bike down to remove any traces of evidence. I thought it rather strange that anyone who saw a young man in the middle of the night wearing a wetsuit washing his bike would maybe have thought it bizarre to say the least.
Also if he had washed it why was it "plastered" with mud when seen by Mrs Eaton?
-
Whilst you all reinvestigate the case, I just thought I'd re mention point 110, which is an extract from one of JM's statements and mentioned in the 2002 appeal. It seems strange that so many of you truth seekers would ignore this post, even if by an idiot.
110. She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm.
-
Whilst you all reinvestigate the case, I just thought I'd re mention point 110, which is an extract from one of JM's statements and mentioned in the 2002 appeal. It seems strange that so many of you truth seekers would ignore this post, even if by an idiot.
110. She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm.
Yes I read that. Your point is?
By the way why do you post in that sneering way? I do indeed seek the truth. My mind is not already made up like yours. Also I have actually taken the trouble to contact Bamber himself, unlike you who only have the words of the relatives to go by, why are in your eyes whiter than white saints whose brilliance and holiness is too bright to look at by the naked eye.
As for me I believe the human heart to be "deceitful above all things and desparately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9)
-
Morning steve uk You told me in an earlier post that the first thing Jeremy did when he got back to his home was wash the bike down to remove any traces of evidence. I thought it rather strange that anyone who saw a young man in the middle of the night wearing a wetsuit washing his bike would maybe have thought it bizarre to say the least.
Morning Susan. So where may the mud come from which RB THOUGHT he saw? Given that Jeremy, supposing any of this is true, made a half decent job of cleaning said bike, wouldn't RB have needed a magnifying glass to find any trace? Desperate or what ;D ;D
-
Morning april I just give up as this serious case is turning into a farce >:(
-
Morning april I just give up as this serious case is turning into a farce >:(
Susan. Be sure of this. JB was suspected, arrested, judged and sentenced by his own relatives long before the case ever came to court. The whole thing was engineered long before the police suspected him and it all started with the words of Ann Eaton, "Why is Jeremy still alive". go figure.
-
Yes I read that. Your point is?
By the way why do you post in that sneering way? I do indeed seek the truth. My mind is not already made up like yours. Also I have actually taken the trouble to contact Bamber himself, unlike you who only have the words of the relatives to go by, why are in your eyes whiter than white saints whose brilliance and holiness is too bright to look at by the naked eye.
As for me I believe the human heart to be "deceitful above all things and desparately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9)
So now you insult me too? Over the weekend I was called an idiot by Campion, and challenged by others to show evidence of fingerprinting occurring at WHF before September. Patti claimed I think that the sections she posted were the only references at appeal to fingerprinting and I countered with this.
I find it strange that it bearly warranted a mention.
-
So now you insult me too? Over the weekend I was called an idiot by Campion, and challenged by others to show evidence of fingerprinting occurring at WHF before September. Patti claimed I think that the sections she posted were the only references at appeal to fingerprinting and I countered with this.
I find it strange that it bearly warranted a mention.
I'm sorry Vidvic. But I was under the impression that you were insulting my intelligence in your post. It also seems to me that you are too sanctimonious as regards the relatives. Did you or did you not refer to us as "Truth seekers" in a sneering way. As if we are not truly seeking the truth instead of meekly towing the line like all the relative lovers do. I don't know about you. But I want to know the truth. Because all was not what it seemed in the original investigation.
-
I'm sorry Vidvic. But I was under the impression that you were insulting my intelligence in your post. It also seems to me that you are too sanctimonious as regards the relatives. Did you or did you not refer to us as "Truth seekers" in a sneering way. As if we are not truly seeking the truth instead of meekly towing the line like all the relative lovers do. I don't know about you. But I want to know the truth. Because all was not what it seemed in the original investigation.
But Lugg, you seem to have made up your mind?
Susan. Be sure of this. JB was suspected, arrested, judged and sentenced by his own relatives long before the case ever came to court. The whole thing was engineered long before the police suspected him and it all started with the words of Ann Eaton, "Why is Jeremy still alive". go figure.
-
But Lugg, you seem to have made up your mind?
Susan. Be sure of this. JB was suspected, arrested, judged and sentenced by his own relatives long before the case ever came to court. The whole thing was engineered long before the police suspected him and it all started with the words of Ann Eaton, "Why is Jeremy still alive". go figure.
That is an observation and a truthful one. I question both sides unlike yourself who surely have made up your mind. Without even talking with Bamber himself, but going only by what you have been told by others. Surely you should know that the key to good investigation is to trust no one?
-
That is an observation and a truthful one. I question both sides unlike yourself who surely have made up your mind. Without even talking with Bamber himself, but going only by what you have been told by others. Surely you should know that the key to good investigation is to trust no one?
So what did Bamber say to you that convinced you of his innocence? Was it a long chat? Or, like me, do you rely on mike Tesko to give us bamber's thoughts?
Have you contacted the relatives then? To get their side of the story?
-
So what did Bamber say to you that convinced you of his innocence? Was it a long chat? Or, like me, do you rely on mike Tesko to give us bamber's thoughts?
Have you contacted the relatives then? To get their side of the story?
Vic. I don't have to contact the relatives. Their story is set out by you and by Hartley. No I don't just listen to MT. There is a load of stuff on the forum that has been written down. I only speak about that. That Is why I said that I trust no one. Furthermore Bamber has not "convinced" me of his innocence. I am not sure where you got that idea from? Just because I question certain things does not mean I am for him or againat him or likewise the relatives. I just think things ouht to be looked at honestly and honestly does not mean drink in eve4rything people say about something. Everyone in my opinion needs to come under scrutiny if one is to honestly investigate something. That is all I am doing and nothing more. I also agree that Bamber needs to be questioned more deeply about certain aspects of his story. It is that things as they are just don't add up whichever way you look at it. Whether it is from the relatives point of view or from Bambers point of view.
-
How about a polygraph test for witnesses.?
-
How about a polygraph test for witnesses.?
Are you voluntering to pay? I think it has already been established in the minds of some that for them they have no value. I myself would not take one just in case it makes a mistake and finds me guilty of a mass murder or something?
-
Vic. I don't have to contact the relatives. Their story is set out by you and by Hartley. No I don't just listen to MT. There is a load of stuff on the forum that has been written down. I only speak about that. That Is why I said that I trust no one. Furthermore Bamber has not "convinced" me of his innocence. I am not sure where you got that idea from? Just because I question certain things does not mean I am for him or againat him or likewise the relatives. I just think things ouht to be looked at honestly and honestly does not mean drink in eve4rything people say about something. Everyone in my opinion needs to come under scrutiny if one is to honestly investigate something. That is all I am doing and nothing more. I also agree that Bamber needs to be questioned more deeply about certain aspects of his story. It is that things as they are just don't add up whichever way you look at it. Whether it is from the relatives point of view or from Bambers point of view.
what you have written above and what you have said earlier this morning do not tally.
You said that I'd not bothered to contact Bamber but that you do not need to speak to the relatives. How is that not hypocrisy?
-
Are you voluntering to pay? I think it has already been established in the minds of some that for them they have no value. I myself would not take one just in case it makes a mistake and finds me guilty of a mass murder or something?
No value to the guilty maybe.!
-
Hello lookout how you today. Julie refused to be interviewed by Mason Doyle so she would not be up for a polygraph test.
-
Hi Lugg I do put a certain amount of credence into polygraph testings if I am wrong the Authorities are wasting so much money on paying for them to be carried out on certain people. Don't work as is being suggested you have to have been involved in the subject for them to work. Like benefit cheats, sex offenders. Don't worry you wont fail or pass Ha Ha. Unless they ask do you love campion and you answer Yes you might fail just kidding everybody loves campion.
-
well if they dont work there wasting a hell of lot of our money.
-
Hi nugnug I think they do work not saying they are a hundred percent accurate but quite close. The sad thing is if Jeremy Bamber had failed his polygraph test people would have said told you he was guilty but as he had a positive result they are deemed not reliable.It all depends whether you believe in the reliabity of the test in general.
-
Hi nugnug I think they do work not saying they are a hundred percent accurate but quite close. The sad thing is if Jeremy Bamber had failed his polygraph test people would have said told you he was guilty but as he had a positive result they are deemed not reliable.It all depends whether you believe in the reliabity of the test in general.
Plus the reliability of the person taking the test,Susan. Composure matters most,or you get a " white coat syndrome " result.
-
what you have written above and what you have said earlier this morning do not tally.
You said that I'd not bothered to contact Bamber but that you do not need to speak to the relatives. How is that not hypocrisy?
Vidvic the reason I will not contact the relatives is not hypocrisy as you seem willing to accept about me. But that both you and Hartley have made it quite clear that they would not welcome such intrusions. I believe it or not am respecting their wishes by abiding by that request. Also I have enough trust in your honesty to correctly portray their views as you are a direct mouthpiece for them.
However if you need to get Bamber's views from the horses mouth so to speak then I suggest you contact him as you have made it quite clear that you do not trust Mike Teskowski. So you see there is a big difference between me not contacting the relatives and you not contactling Bamber. I actually believe that you are honestly reporting the relatives feelings on these matters. You however do not believe that Mike or anyone else is reporting honestly Bamber's views. Solution? Write to him and then at least you will have his original view and can pull it to pieces without criticism from me or anyone else.
But I reacted to your remark because you came on this forum today with all guns blazing and ready for trouble it seemed that is why I answered you as I did. I thought you'd got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? ::)
-
Vidvic the reason I will not contact the relatives is not hypocrisy as you seem willing to accept about me. But that both you and Hartley have made it quite clear that they would not welcome such intrusions. I believe it or not am respecting their wishes by abiding by that request. Also I have enough trust in your honesty to correctly portray their views as you are a direct mouthpiece for them.
However if you need to get Bamber's views from the horses mouth so to speak then I suggest you contact him as you have made it quite clear that you do not trust Mike Teskowski. So you see there is a big difference between me not contacting the relatives and you not contactling Bamber. I actually believe that you are honestly reporting the relatives feelings on these matters. You however do not believe that Mike or anyone else is reporting honestly Bamber's views. Solution? Write to him and then at least you will have his original view and can pull it to pieces without criticism from me or anyone else.
But I reacted to your remark because you came on this forum today with all guns blazing and ready for trouble it seemed that is why I answered you as I did.
Having said all that Vic I would be quite will and happy to meet with the relatives if you would like to arrange it? Who knows, it may change my perception of things?
-
Well he wore a wet suit..
Hi Steve_uk
Can you please explain how JB would benefit from wearing a wetsuit ie what advanatge would a wetsuit provide over normal clothing?
-
Hi Steve_uk
Can you please explain how JB would benefit from wearing a wetsuit ie what advanatge would a wetsuit provide over normal clothing?
Yes he could rinse any blood off with the shower head at White House Farm,which is exactly what he did do.
-
Yes he could rinse any blood off with the shower head at White House Farm,which is exactly what he did do.
I hope you managed to stay dry whilst he was doing it because you could only know if he did it if you were there to witness it.
-
Yes he could rinse any blood off with the shower head at White House Farm,which is exactly what he did do.
Hi Steve_uk
Not true. As a keen watersports enthusiast I own a couple of wetsuits. It's difficult to remove stains from them :-[ In any event EP took JB's wetsuit away for analysis and found nothing. Are you confusing a wetsuit with a drysuit? You have recommended to Susan that she reads books on the case to improve her understanding and I would like to recommend that you visit a wetsuit/drysuit retailer and check them out before posting up about this again :)
-
Yes he could rinse any blood off with the shower head at White House Farm,which is exactly what he did do.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) And there's the guilty party trying their best to prove the shower was never used.
-
Hi Steve_uk
Not true. As a keen watersports enthusiast I own a couple of wetsuits. It's difficult to remove stains from them :-[ In any event EP took JB's wetsuit away for analysis and found nothing. Are you confusing a wetsuit with a drysuit? You have recommended to Susan that she reads books on the case to improve her understanding and I would like to recommend that you visit a wetsuit/drysuit retailer and check them out before posting up about this again :)
Not so difficult if the blood is dripping wet and you have access to a shower head with running water.
-
steve will you please highlight in red what part of my last post to you did I make any inference that it was your fault Crispy was put to sleep. All I am asking steve is for you to be fair.
-
Not so difficult if the blood is dripping wet and you have access to a shower head with running water.
I ask you again Steve. In all reality if Jeremy is not some sort of psychopathic monster, how on earth do you believe he could be capable of such a heinous crime.
No history of violence before or since (apart from one angry reaction in prison many years ago). He was able to turn up to meet the police as cool as anyone else and according to you, to play a part.
Baring in mind he has been found to be free of any psychopathic tendencies, including covering up and hiding such tendencies and shows no sign of any personality disorder or mental illness, maybe you can explain how he managed to do this?
-
Not so difficult if the blood is dripping wet and you have access to a shower head with running water.
Hi Steve_uk
Impossible to get it forensically clean from blood, oil etc as wetsuits are porous. It was analysed by EP.
-
I ask you again Steve. In all reality if Jeremy is not some sort of psychopathic monster, how on earth do you believe he could be capable of such a heinous crime.
No history of violence before or since (apart from one angry reaction in prison many years ago). He was able to turn up to meet the police as cool as anyone else and according to you, to play a part.
Baring in mind he has been found to be free of any psychopathic tendencies, including covering up and hiding such tendencies and shows no sign of any personality disorder or mental illness, maybe you can explain how he managed to do this?
Lee Harvey Oswald did the same thing after Kennedy was shot..quite equanimical that he hadn't done it. Anders Behring Breivik at least admitted shooting 77 people,yet not one shred of remorse..yet.
-
Lee Harvey Oswald did the same thing after Kennedy was shot..quite equanimical that he hadn't done it. Anders Behring Breivik at least admitted shooting 77 people,yet not one shred of remorse..yet.
Hi Steve_uk
I have already pointed out that Oswald and Breivik exhibited early psychological issues whereby reports were compiled. No such issues have EVER been identified with JB. Why do you continue to persist with your assertions even when faced with overwhelming evidence and facts showing you are WRONG?
-
Lee Harvey Oswald did the same thing after Kennedy was shot..quite equanimical that he hadn't done it. Anders Behring Breivik at least admitted shooting 77 people,yet not one shred of remorse..yet.
Hi Steve. :)
Maggie raised some valid points in her post and not once have you referred to them. You cannot compare Oswald and Brevick to Jeremy Bamber. Each case is unique. :-\
-
Hi Steve_uk
Impossible to get it forensically clean from blood, oil etc as wetsuits are porous. It was analysed by EP.
Good point NN. They have to be porous for them to be able to function as wetsuits. I think the clue is in the name. ;D
If Jeremy wanted to remain clean from blood he chose the wrong type of suit. What he needed was a dry suit. Those are much heavier and extremely hard to wear on land. If he wore a wetsuit and then showered the blood would simply go straight through onto his clothes and skin.
-
Hi Steve_uk
I have already pointed out that Oswald and Breivik exhibited early psychological issues whereby reports were compiled. No such issues have EVER been identified with JB. Why do you continue to persist with your assertions even when faced with overwhelming evidence and facts showing you are WRONG?
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3668.msg146037.html#msg146037
-
Lee Harvey Oswald did the same thing after Kennedy was shot..quite equanimical that he hadn't done it. Anders Behring Breivik at least admitted shooting 77 people,yet not one shred of remorse..yet.
I don't recall reading anything about LHO or ABB that suggests that they, in any way, reached out to other people. I'm not in a position to say whether they shunned or were shunned by others but I do have a sense of both of them having a need to be important in the eyes of the world, allbeit for a warped act. Jeremy, it seems, had no problem in drawing others to him and was at no time autonomous. What link are you attempting to show?
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) And there's the guilty party trying their best to prove the shower was never used.
Hi Lugg
If the shower was used imo it's more likely that Sheila used it to wash herself properly after her period/accident.
-
Hi Steve_uk
I have already pointed out that Oswald and Breivik exhibited early psychological issues whereby reports were compiled. No such issues have EVER been identified with JB. Why do you continue to persist with your assertions even when faced with overwhelming evidence and facts showing you are WRONG?
Oswald was in denial,like Bamber. Breivik showed no remorse,like Bamber.
That's it.
-
I don't recall reading anything about LHO or ABB that suggests that they, in any way, reached out to other people. I'm not in a position to say whether they shunned or were shunned by others but I do have a sense of both of them having a need to be important in the eyes of the world, allbeit for a warped act. Jeremy, it seems, had no problem in drawing others to him and was at no time autonomous. What link are you attempting to show?
Hi April1
If you care to look at the links I have posted re LHO and ABB you will see under the 'early childhood' section both came to the attention of mental health professionals whereby reports were compiled.
-
Oswald was in denial,like Bamber. Breivik showed no remorse,like Bamber.
That's it.
So in Jeremy we have a psychological combination of Oswald and Breveik, do we? And yet he isn't a psychopath. Odd, that.
-
I don't recall reading anything about LHO or ABB that suggests that they, in any way, reached out to other people. I'm not in a position to say whether they shunned or were shunned by others but I do have a sense of both of them having a need to be important in the eyes of the world, allbeit for a warped act. Jeremy, it seems, had no problem in drawing others to him and was at no time autonomous. What link are you attempting to show?
What do you mean Jeremy "was at no time autonomous"? The murders germinated in his mind,were his idea and he alone is responsible for them
-
Oswald was in denial,like Bamber. Breivik showed no remorse,like Bamber.
That's it.
Hi Steve_uk
It strikes me right now that you're in denial too.
You also show no remorse for what at times can only be described as rudeness bordering on arrogance.
-
Hi April1
If you care to look at the links I have posted re LHO and ABB you will see under the 'early childhood' section both came to the attention of mental health professionals whereby reports were compiled.
Sorry NaNu. That post wasn't directed at you, however I will enjoy the links,. Thankyou :)
-
So in Jeremy we have a psychological combination of Oswald and Breveik, do we? And yet he isn't a psychopath. Odd, that.
You don't know he's not a psychopath. He had no feeling for any of the victims apart from a slight sensitivity once in awhile that Nevill wasn't around. This subject was broached by Julie at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath.
-
N/N and he lacks manners and social graces the fact I have made a request twice now for him to confirm where I said he was to blame for Crispy death. It takes a man to admit he was wrong and out of order methinks.
-
Hi Steve_uk
It strikes me right now that you're in denial too.
You also show no remorse for what at times can only be described as rudeness bordering on arrogance.
Yet I'm not a mass murderer. Post the bits about Sheila hitching a lift if you like,but you could find better ammunition for your cause than that irrelevant story,if only you thought it through.
-
You don't know he's not a psychopath. He had no feeling for any of the victims apart from a slight sensitivity once in awhile that Nevill wasn't around. This subject was broached by Julie at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath.
Hi Steve_uk
But you do know that he's a psychopath? You know better than Vincent Egan do you?
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
-
You don't know he's not a psychopath. He had no feeling for any of the victims apart from a slight sensitivity once in awhile that Nevill wasn't around. This subject was broached by Julie at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath.
And you don't know that he is, but you would have us believe, by your interminable labouring of the point, that you know better than all the professionals who have examined him. Would I be correct in thinking that you have no respect for psychology?
-
Hi Steve_uk
But you do know that he's a psychopath? You know better than Vincent Egan do you?
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
I'm cheaper than Vincent Egan. I'm going off Julie's conversation with Jeremy at Blazer's restaurant in Blackheath when Jeremy himself acknowledges that maybe there is something wrong with him as he felt nothing for any of the victims. Liz Rimington formed a similar judgement that there was something not quite right about him.
-
What do you mean Jeremy "was at no time autonomous"? The murders germinated in his mind,were his idea and he alone is responsible for them
But according to you, he told/hinted to all and sundry of his devilish plans. You have given us a list of those you say can vouch for it.
-
But according to you, he told/hinted to all and sundry of his devilish plans. You have given us a list of those you say can vouch for it.
He never spelled out that he did the murders,but Julie twigged that he must have been responsible. Of course he acted autonomously.
-
I'm cheaper than Vincent Egan. I'm going off Julie's conversation with Jeremy at Blazer's restaurant in Blackheath when Jeremy himself acknowledges that maybe there is something wrong with him as he felt nothing for any of the victims. Liz Rimington formed a similar judgement that there was something not quite right about him.
As a bereavement counsellor I can assure you that numbness following bereavement is par for the course as are other seemingly inappropriate behaviours. This is why it is not thought to be advisable to counsel anybody until after the first anniversary is passed.
-
Yet I'm not a mass murderer. Post the bits about Sheila hitching a lift if you like,but you could find better ammunition for your cause than that irrelevant story,if only you thought it through.
Hi Steve_uk
You don't need to be a mass murderer to be in denial about various issues, rude and arrogant.
Given that you have read Colin's book my offer of providing the info was not aimed at you but other posters.
I have enough ammunition for my cause thank you and I don't need you telling me how to think either.
-
He never spelled out that he did the murders,but Julie twigged that he must have been responsible. Of course he acted autonomously.
I was actually speaking of his life as a whole, NOT the act and its' planning which you believe him guilty of.
-
I'm cheaper than Vincent Egan. I'm going off Julie's conversation with Jeremy at Blazer's restaurant in Blackheath when Jeremy himself acknowledges that maybe there is something wrong with him as he felt nothing for any of the victims. Liz Rimington formed a similar judgement that there was something not quite right about him.
Hi Steve_uk
And I'm starting to form a similar judgement about you ie that there's something not quite right.
-
I'm cheaper than Vincent Egan. I'm going off Julie's conversation with Jeremy at Blazer's restaurant in Blackheath when Jeremy himself acknowledges that maybe there is something wrong with him as he felt nothing for any of the victims. Liz Rimington formed a similar judgement that there was something not quite right about him.
Cheaper and not qualified! And obviously Mugford would say that - hardly evidence given the source!! And is that the same Liz Rimmington who slept with Jeremy?
-
N/N very well put my little naughty nun :)
-
As a bereavement counsellor I can assure you that numbness following bereavement is par for the course as are other seemingly inappropriate behaviours. This is why it is not thought to be advisable to counsel anybody until after the first anniversary is passed.
Does that include looking at one's watch at a funeral and declaring "Time's up!". Does it include pinching the waitresses' bottoms at a restaurant where champagne is ordered,does it include not letting one of the relatives inside the hearse leaving her standing outside in pouring rain because "she can go in the other car",does it include ripping up the twins' photograph at the Maida Vale flat,disposing of all Sheila's portfolio except one topless photo which he tried to flog to the Sun newspaper,along with another photograph showing Sheila wielding a gun as a prop,which he considered might have been useful to him?
I could go on about avoiding Auntie Pam and not sorting out his mother's things,as well as the tissue of lies Jeremy spreaded to anyone who deigned to listen to him..
-
Does that include looking at one's watch at a funeral and declaring "Time's up!". Does it include pinching the waitresses' bottoms at a restaurant where champagne is ordered,does it include not letting one of the relatives inside the hearse leaving her standing outside in pouring rain because "she can go in the other car",does it include ripping up the twins' photograph at the Maida Vale flat,disposing of all Sheila's portfolio except one topless photo which he tried to flog to the Sun newspaper,along with another photograph showing Sheila wielding a gun as a prop,which he considered might have been useful to him?
I could go on about avoiding Auntie Pam and not sorting out his mother's things,as well as the tissue of lies Jeremy spreaded to anyone who deigned to listen to him..
I suspect that many have cause to look back on behaviour alien to them and feel disbelief/ ashamed that they could act in such a way. You would be amazed at what comes out of the woodwork at such times. Families CAN be torn apart forever. If jeremy felt his family's hostility I feel he would have covered it with artificial joviality as a way of telling them he didn't need them. The knowledge that he had NOBODY in the world to whom he belonged must have been a very lonely place.
-
Hi Steve_uk
You don't need to be a mass murderer to be in denial about various issues, rude and arrogant.
Given that you have read Colin's book my offer of providing the info was not aimed at you but other posters.
I have enough ammunition for my cause thank you and I don't need you telling me how to think either.
If you can somehow make the incident where Sheila hitches the lift and thankfully escapes from what have could have been a dangerous situation relevant to the events on Wednesday 7th August 1985 then I'm prepared to keep an open mind.
-
Does that include looking at one's watch at a funeral and declaring "Time's up!". Does it include pinching the waitresses' bottoms at a restaurant where champagne is ordered,does it include not letting one of the relatives inside the hearse leaving her standing outside in pouring rain because "she can go in the other car",does it include ripping up the twins' photograph at the Maida Vale flat,disposing of all Sheila's portfolio except one topless photo which he tried to flog to the Sun newspaper,along with another photograph showing Sheila wielding a gun as a prop,which he considered might have been useful to him?
I could go on about avoiding Auntie Pam and not sorting out his mother's things,as well as the tissue of lies Jeremy spreaded to anyone who deigned to listen to him..
Steve,,the emotions of shock know no bounds. I can go back to when my mother died and my brother kept looking at his watch throughout the service and ceremony then remarked to me that " it went on a bit,didn't it ?" His idea was to get it over and done with and leave it all behind. Not that he wasn't sorrowful,but that he didn't want to be reminded at mum dying. My brother is hopeless when it comes to illness and dying,as a lot of people are,and their way of dealing with it,is to " pretend " it didn't happen,and to carry on where they left off,while trying to ignore the situation in reality.
-
He never spelled out that he did the murders,but Julie twigged that he must have been responsible. Of course he acted autonomously.
In other words she just "guessed" he'd murdered them all. I always thought she was a sandwich short of a picnic.
-
Also Steve/lookout if Jeremy wa full of valium prescribed by the doctor adn cannabis prescribed by him who knows what land he was floating in by then. It was hardly what you'd call a 'normal' funeral for him...if you see what mean. Valium alone in a heavy dose makes you hallucinate.
-
In other words she just "guessed" he'd murdered them all. I always thought she was a sandwich short of a picnic.
No she was a former pupil of Altrincham Grammar School for Girls,one of the best schools in the country,thanks.
-
He never spelled out that he did the murders,but Julie twigged that he must have been responsible. Of course he acted autonomously.
You see M's Mugford never tells the same story twice. She told the NOTW that he NEVER admitted to her that he was was actually responsible but she told Colin that her told her which window he left by. Which is it? Does she even know?
-
Also Steve/lookout if Jeremy wa full of valium prescribed by the doctor adn cannabis prescribed by him who knows what land he was floating in by then. It was hardly what you'd call a 'normal' funeral for him...if you see what mean. Valium alone in a heavy dose makes you hallucinate.
I think we're getting closer to the truth with the hallucinations reference,though it's my assertion that it was Jeremy who was high on drugs whilst shooting his victims and not Sheila's hallucinations as a symptom of mental illness.
-
No she was a former pupil of Altrincham Grammar School for Girls,one of the best schools in the country,thanks.
Wow! Bet she was a challenge to them? But that's no proof of intelligence. Boris Johnson went to Eton.
-
As a bereavement counsellor I can assure you that numbness following bereavement is par for the course as are other seemingly inappropriate behaviours. This is why it is not thought to be advisable to counsel anybody until after the first anniversary is passed.
I suspect that many have cause to look back on behaviour alien to them and feel disbelief/ ashamed that they could act in such a way. You would be amazed at what comes out of the woodwork at such times. Families CAN be torn apart forever. If jeremy felt his family's hostility I feel he would have covered it with artificial joviality as a way of telling them he didn't need them. The knowledge that he had NOBODY in the world to whom he belonged must have been a very lonely place.
Steve,,the emotions of shock know no bounds. I can go back to when my mother died and my brother kept looking at his watch throughout the service and ceremony then remarked to me that " it went on a bit,didn't it ?" His idea was to get it over and done with and leave it all behind. Not that he wasn't sorrowful,but that he didn't want to be reminded at mum dying. My brother is hopeless when it comes to illness and dying,as a lot of people are,and their way of dealing with it,is to " pretend " it didn't happen,and to carry on where they left off,while trying to ignore the situation in reality.
Lookout, Hi. You know, I truly don't believe Steve has any interest AT ALL in any of the above. I don't believe he wants any proof OTHER than that of Jeremy being guilty.
None of the above is conjecture or speculation. None of it has been embellished or tweaked for effect but I wouldn't mind betting that as far as Steve is concerned NONE of it applies to Jeremy.
-
There seems to me a effort by VV to speak up for the relatives, this i find strange given the verdict of the trial, what is there to defend them from, a forum is simply a portal for debate, there is nothing lasting for them to be concerned about as jeremy is jailed for life, its quite possible that there is missing pieces of this case awaiting encounter, if there is one single issue that maintains my view is JM recieving that payout , nothing can excuse that.
-
I think we're getting closer to the truth with the hallucinations reference,though it's my assertion that it was Jeremy who was high on drugs whilst shooting his victims and not Sheila's hallucinations as a symptom of mental illness.
Steve you are twisting my words totally and you know what I have said about Jeremy's eyes a million times but you just disregard it and quote a woman who has NO idea of the effect of drugs on someone's eyes, except she probably read it in the Daily Mail. I am curious what drugs you surmise Jeremy was on because if it was cannabis he would be more likey to have dropped asleep in a corner of the kitchen. Ordinary cannabis removes any aggression you may have and relaxes you down. If he was stuffed full of goodness knows what and high as a kite how on earth did he control himself in front of the police. That theory holds no water whatsever Steve.
-
I think we're getting closer to the truth with the hallucinations reference,though it's my assertion that it was Jeremy who was high on drugs whilst shooting his victims and not Sheila's hallucinations as a symptom of mental illness.
OK Steve, let's run with that for a moment, shall we. He pumps himself full enough of chemicals to bounce across fields wearing a wetsuit to commit murder most foul, but is with it enough to get rid of evidence after the deed is done, get himself into the shower, bounce his way back across the fields and seawall, soaked to the skin because the wetsuit has absorbed water from the shower, catch his breath and come down from his carefully timed "high" in order not to speak gobbledygook to the police. Somehow, I don't think so, Steve.
-
OK Steve, let's run with that for a moment, shall we. He pumps himself full enough of chemicals to bounce across fields wearing a wetsuit to commit murder most foul, but is with it enough to get rid of evidence after the deed is done, get himself into the shower, bounce his way back across the fields and seawall, soaked to the skin because the wetsuit has absorbed water from the shower, catch his breath and come down from his carefully timed "high" in order not to speak gobbledygook to the police. Somehow, I don't think so, Steve.
April, maybe Jeremy has some secret downer that renders you totally cool immediately you need to be. 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
You see M's Mugford never tells the same story twice. She told the NOTW that he NEVER admitted to her that he was was actually responsible but she told Colin that her told her which window he left by. Which is it? Does she even know?
He never confessed to Julie,though he told her she held his life in her hands. It must have been a very emotional time for Julie as her inner turmoil wrestled with her civic duty to turn this criminal in, whom she had loved so passionately for a period of almost two years.
-
April, maybe Jeremy has some secret downer that renders you totally cool immediately you need to be. 8) 8) 8) 8)
We could all do with some of that Maggie, for when Steve is at his most exasperating ;D ;D
-
We could all do with some of that Maggie, for when Steve is at his most exasperating ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ...think Caroline maybe could do with some at the moment April. 8) 8)
-
Steve you are twisting my words totally and you know what I have said about Jeremy's eyes a million times but you just disregard it and quote a woman who has NO idea of the effect of drugs on someone's eyes, except she probably read it in the Daily Mail. I am curious what drugs you surmise Jeremy was on because if it was cannabis he would be more likey to have dropped asleep in a corner of the kitchen. Ordinary cannabis removes any aggression you may have and relaxes you down. If he was stuffed full of goodness knows what and high as a kite how on earth did he control himself in front of the police. That theory holds no water whatsever Steve.
I have no knowledge of drugs whatsoever apart from the occasional Nurofen when Naughty Nun persists in playing the innocent card and digging herself deeper into whatever modish argument she is currently peddling.
-
He never confessed to Julie,though he told her she held his life in her hands. It must have been a very emotional time for Julie as her inner turmoil wrestled with her civic duty to turn this criminal in, whom she had loved so passionately for a period of almost two years.
Steve, those are the words of a besotted lover. Said over the phone they can have a very powerful effect. Almost erotic. He must have been aware of the effect they would have. Perhaps it was a game they played.
-
Steve, those are the words of a besotted lover. Said over the phone they can have a very powerful effect. Almost erotic. He must have been aware of the effect they would have. Perhaps it was a game they played.
I think Jeremy may well have played these kind of games along with practical jokes mentioned in the various books.Maybe that's why Julie found Jeremy so difficult to read.
-
I have no knowledge of drugs whatsoever apart from the occasional Nurofen when Naughty Nun persists in playing the innocent card and digging herself deeper into whatever modish argument she is currently peddling.
Well steve, the old fashioned cannabis still smoked in the 1980's is a relaxant, people smoked it and generally sat around ruminating about 'stuff' and maybe fell asleep. Today the stronger hybred cannabis more commonly available is a much stronger more addictive drug than it's original cousin....one well known kind is skunk...these are known to cause psychosis and brain damage.
Cocaine etc which zoop you up can take a fair time to comedown from, it would take a long time to come down from as large a dose as Jeremy would have needed to carry out that crime, certainly at least 12 hours to be anywhere near normal .imo
-
Well steve, the old fashioned cannabis still smoked in the 1980's is a relaxant, people smoked it and generally sat around ruminating about 'stuff' and maybe fell asleep. Today the stronger hybred cannabis more commonly available is a much stronger more addictive drug than it's original cousin....one well known kind is skunk...these are known to cause psychosis and brain damage.
Cocaine etc which zoop you up can take a fair time to comedown from, it would take a long time to come down from as large a dose as Jeremy would have needed to carry out that crime.imo
It's quite possible he had access to it in the circles he used to frequent.
-
It's quite possible he had access to it in the circles he used to frequent.
I'm not certain but don't think it was available at all in the 1980s steve. Would be interesting to find out. In have tried to find out on line but didn't get anywhere. The psychosis often occurs over time not particularly when it is smoked, it's quite random and there is no record of Jeremy ever showing signs of psychosis, so I wouldn't think that was involved. imo
-
I think Jeremy may well have played these kind of games along with practical jokes mentioned in the various books.Maybe that's why Julie found Jeremy so difficult to read.
My point is Steve, that Julie would have played these games with him. It's part of the fun. Foreplay, if you like and there's no point in playing the game alone. Unfortunately, when taken as soundbites, instead of sounding erotic, they can sound sinister..............rather like that soundbite you keep quoting, "I hate my F'ing parents", not nice, but supposing , before that sentence are word similar to "........and try as I might, I can't get it out of them what they're giving me. God, I.........."Not the words I might have used, but I never have been a 23 year old male trying to impress a mate.
-
My point is Steve, that Julie would have played these games with him. It's part of the fun. Foreplay, if you like and there's no point in playing the game alone. Unfortunately, when taken as soundbites, instead of sounding erotic, they can sound sinister..............rather like that soundbite you keep quoting, "I hate my F'ing parents", not nice, but supposing , before that sentence are word similar to "........and try as I might, I can't get it out of them what they're giving me. God, I.........."Not the words I might have used, but I never have been a 23 year old male trying to impress a mate.
There's too many incidents of these remarks,of which Julie may not always have been privy. It's just too much of a coincidence for there to be two potential murderers inside a house where on the previous occasion they were all together at Christmas 1984 Jeremy had speculated about the house burning down and its aftermath.
-
There's too many incidents of these remarks,of which Julie may not always have been privy. It's just too much of a coincidence for there to be two potential murderers inside a house where on the previous occasion they were all together at Christmas 1984 Jeremy had speculated about the house burning down and its aftermath.
Steve, every soundbite you pluck from where ever, on its' own and of itself, sounds sinister. That is how you wish us to perceive it, but with the addition of other words much of the venom is removed, Speculation about the house burning COULD have been accompanied by talk of lighted candles as part of Christmas decorations and "think of all the dosh that would come my way if that happened". Most of what you present to us as sinister and proof enough to convince you of his guilt, when expanded, comes across to me as silly, boastful, idle chatter.
-
Steve you have handled yourself well tonight. I would not be able to answer that many people coming back to me with all different answers and questions. Well done. :)
-
Steve you have handled yourself well tonight. I would not be able to answer that many people coming back to me with all different answers and questions. Well done. :)
Don't encourage him! :o
-
Steve, every soundbite you pluck from where ever, on its' own and of itself, sounds sinister. That is how you wish us to perceive it, but with the addition of other words much of the venom is removed, Speculation about the house burning COULD have been accompanied by talk of lighted candles as part of Christmas decorations and "think of all the dosh that would come my way if that happened". Most of what you present to us as sinister and proof enough to convince you of his guilt, when expanded, comes across to me as silly, boastful, idle chatter.
It's sounding like a scene from the film " Rebecca ".
-
Don't encourage him! :o
Think I'll go to bed now. Quite exhausted ;D ;D ;D
-
Don't encourage him! :o
Well I do admire him, although I think he's wrong. ;D
-
Well I do admire him, although I think he's wrong. ;D
Vic too. Although I still can't work out why he came on the forum this morning with all guns blazing?
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ...think Caroline maybe could do with some at the moment April. 8) 8)
Nah, Maggie, had a wine gum, that will set me up for the night!! ;D
-
Think I'll go to bed now. Quite exhausted ;D ;D ;D
He didn't answer my question ;D
-
Steve, every soundbite you pluck from where ever, on its' own and of itself, sounds sinister. That is how you wish us to perceive it, but with the addition of other words much of the venom is removed, Speculation about the house burning COULD have been accompanied by talk of lighted candles as part of Christmas decorations and "think of all the dosh that would come my way if that happened". Most of what you present to us as sinister and proof enough to convince you of his guilt, when expanded, comes across to me as silly, boastful, idle chatter.
I don't accept that interpretation of events. The smoking gun is this conversation with Charles Marsden,because the Defence has to explain how there can possibly be two serial killers on the loose in one house on the only the second occasion in 365 days when all the family are under one roof and they are all killed.
I will persist in my persecution of Jeremy Bamber until he is decent enough to own up. A deathbed confession will suffice.
-
I don't accept that interpretation of events. The smoking gun is this conversation with Charles Marsden,because the Defence has to explain how there can possibly be two serial killers on the loose in one house on the only the second occasion in 365 days when all the family are under one roof and they are all killed.
I will persist in my persecution of Jeremy Bamber until he is decent enough to own up. A deathbed confession will suffice.
Don't hold your breath!
-
With a book at his side Steve will take anyone on rock on Tommy, i wonder if Steve is aware the deaths were not the first at White House Farm, that place is cursed.
-
With a book at his side Steve will take anyone on rock on Tommy, i wonder if Steve is aware the deaths were not the first at White House Farm, that place is cursed.
Yes there was a hanging I believe mertol22.
-
Vic too. Although I still can't work out why he came on the forum this morning with all guns blazing?
Agreed. I do not know how they take it. I would have given up by now. Must have strong reasons and know much more than I.
Who is Charles Marsdon? I thought you mean Charles Manson at first.
-
Yes there was a hanging I believe mertol22.
Thats correct Steve from one of the ceiling beams i dare say is still there .
-
Thats correct Steve from one of the ceiling beams i dare say is still there .
Oh wow, I not know this. Was this Charles Marsdon?
-
Oh wow, I not know this. Was this Charles Marsdon?
One of the Page family i think as someone drowned in a trough also.
-
With a book at his side Steve will take anyone on rock on Tommy, i wonder if Steve is aware the deaths were not the first at White House Farm, that place is cursed.
You see mertol22 I am lambasted for quoting from books,whilst there are people on this site who are still unfamiliar with Charles Marsden.
-
One of the Page family i think as someone drowned in a trough also.
This is more like Haunted House Mystery rather than just simple Joint Enterprise, Locked Room Mystery.
Where is Sherlock (Oh Benedict Cumberbatch ) when you need him?
-
You see mertol22 I am lambasted for quoting from books,whilst there are people on this site who are still unfamiliar with Charles Marsden.
Well who is he? Another murderer or a suicide?
-
One of the Page family i think as someone drowned in a trough also.
How can anyone drown in a trough? They have to be held down or serious drunk.
-
You see mertol22 I am lambasted for quoting from books,whilst there are people on this site who are still unfamiliar with Charles Marsden.
There is nothing wrong in quotes from books steve i did but now i realise they more than often land you back in the think tank, only Colins book moved me as this book is so far the only one from the Families, i do not think there will be any more.
-
There is nothing wrong in quotes from books steve i did but now i realise they more than often land you back in the think tank, only Colins book moved me as this book is so far the only one from the Families, i do not think there will be any more.
Will some body put me out of my misery and I do not mean a pillow over my face.
Who is Charles Marsdon?
-
Thats correct Steve from one of the ceiling beams i dare say is still there .
Well thank God Jeremy didn't get wind of that story or read Thomas Hardy's "Jude the Obscure" or you can bet your life there would have been a similar pattern.
-
Well thank God Jeremy didn't get wind of that story or read Thomas Hardy's "Jude the Obscure" or you can bet your life there would have been a similar pattern.
Sounds like Tess of the d'Urbervilles.
Please some one tell me? Pretty please?
-
Sounds like Tess of the d'Urbervilles.
Please some one tell me? Pretty please?
sorry hourglass tell you what? :)
-
sorry hourglass tell you what? :)
Who Charles Marsdon was?
-
Hourglass, I refer to him as Charles Ramsden, because of his familiarity with Muggy at the house where they lived at Hither Green, near BlaZers at Blackheath.
-
How can anyone drown in a trough? They have to be held down or serious drunk.
Alex was nearly drowned in in a trough in Clockwork Orange by Police Officers.
-
Alex was nearly drowned in in a trough in Clockwork Orange by Police Officers.
You got me on that one, before my time. Is that the one with "The Ultra Violence"?
-
Hourglass, I refer to him as Charles Ramsden, because of his familiarity with Muggy at the house where they lived at Hither Green, near BlaZers at Blackheath.
Which means Julie Mugford shared a house with him in Blacheath, London when she was at Goldsmiths Teachers Training College, hourglass.
-
Hourglass, I refer to him as Charles Ramsden, because of his familiarity with Muggy at the house where they lived at Hither Green, near BlaZers at Blackheath.
Oh thank you Mr Campion, I was quite beside myself. I felt quite faint....
So he was friend of JB and JM but was real name Marsdon or Ramsden?
I have found some vague references to a Charles Marsdon on wow, wowow, on other sites..... Wowowow!
-
You got me on that one, before my time. Is that the one with "The Ultra Violence"?
Spot on, played by Leeds actor Malcolm Mc Dowell.
-
Which means Julie Mugford shared a house with him in Blacheath, London when she was at Goldsmiths Teachers Training College, hourglass.
Thank you Maggie, I got him now. I will retire and read.
as we say:
88
-
Spot on, played by Leeds actor Malcolm Mc Dowell.
did he not play the monkey in Planet of the Apes too?
Oh no I am thinking of Roddy Mcdowell before my time again
-
did he not play the monkey in Planet of the Apes too?
Oh no I am thinking of Roddy Mcdowell before my time again
Roddy playes Ceasar i think
-
Roddy playes Ceasar i think
Yes you are right, I check on IMDB. Foolish me.
Now I must go.
88
-
Hourglass, The Coroner at the Inquest decided that Page died of a heart attack as his face met the cold water in the trough.
Ergo the verdict was accident. But of course his insurance was paid out. and furthermore, his body could be buried in the churchyard.
-
Agreed. I do not know how they take it. I would have given up by now. Must have strong reasons and know much more than I.
Who is Charles Marsdon? I thought you mean Charles Manson at first.
I don't know who Charles Marsdon is? If I said it, it was probably Charles Manson?
-
I don't accept that interpretation of events. The smoking gun is this conversation with Charles Marsden,because the Defence has to explain how there can possibly be two serial killers on the loose in one house on the only the second occasion in 365 days when all the family are under one roof and they are all killed.
I will persist in my persecution of Jeremy Bamber until he is decent enough to own up. A deathbed confession will suffice.
Why what has he got to do with you? It doesn't make sense to persecute someone who has done nothing to you or your family?
-
Why what has he got to do with you? It doesn't make sense to persecute someone who has done nothing to you or your family?
I'll withdraw persecute as I don't want to drive anyone to suicide. But he should be made to face up to his crimes and a proper interrogation with the new technology not available in his day when he would not now get away with the behaviour in the interview room he exhibited with Police at the time.
-
Hourglass, The Coroner at the Inquest decided that Page died of a heart attack as his face met the cold water in the trough.
Ergo the verdict was accident. But of course his insurance was paid out. and furthermore, his body could be buried in the churchyard.
How convenient for everyone but I never hear of anyone die this before even in China and we have some strange deaths. I remember corrupt town mayor near my home town, drove some farmer familys out of their homes so he could sell their land. A farmer was beaten to death and wife kill herself. The son disappear and then shortly afterwards the mayor is found hanging from a tree with barbed wire and wrists bound with barbed wire next to his burning Mercedes. The wise policeman say it was worst case of suicide he ever saw.
-
I'll withdraw persecute as I don't want to drive anyone to suicide. But he should be made to face up to his crimes and a proper interrogation with the new technology not available in his day when he would not now get away with the behaviour in the interview room he exhibited with Police at the time.
Steve for his own destiny jeremy is locked forever in his plea of innocence, 27 years of being in a cell have not changed his stance, looking now at the death penalty i see its humane side, to be locked up forever i wonder what we fought 2 world wars for my only positive view we shall never fight a 3rd world war there can only be 2 now.
-
How convenient for everyone but I never hear of anyone die this before even in China and we have some strange deaths. I remember corrupt town mayor near my home town, drove some farmer familys out of their homes so he could sell their land. A farmer was beaten to death and wife kill herself. The son disappear and then shortly afterwards the mayor is found hanging from a tree with barbed wire and wrists bound with barbed wire next to his burning Mercedes. The wise policeman say it was worst case of suicide he ever saw.
Wasn't there a similar incident with the driver of the white Fiat involved in the Princess Diana death in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris? I forget the details..
-
I'll withdraw persecute as I don't want to drive anyone to suicide. But he should be made to face up to his crimes and a proper interrogation with the new technology not available in his day when he would not now get away with the behaviour in the interview room he exhibited with Police at the time.
Again! I suspect that you're referring to his frustration at Jones's attitude in which he answered 'no comment'. You should post your picture of the Magic Roundabout instead Steve. And people STILL say no comment today!!
-
Again! I suspect that you're referring to his frustration at Jones's attitude in which he answered 'no comment'. You should post your picture of the Magic Roundabout instead Steve. And people STILL say no comment today!!
Not to whether the tractor had a canopy or not they don't.
-
I'll withdraw persecute as I don't want to drive anyone to suicide. But he should be made to face up to his crimes and a proper interrogation with the new technology not available in his day when he would not now get away with the behaviour in the interview room he exhibited with Police at the time.
Erm......torture?
-
Wasn't there a similar incident with the driver of the white Fiat involved in the Princess Diana death in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris? I forget the details..
Oh I know this one, his car blew up, or rather he was cremated in the wreckage.
I do assignment on Diana. It is straight forward accident. As much as any one would like conspiracy there is nothing. Really big screw up nothing more. But newspapers never let facts stand in the way of a good story.
-
Erm......torture?
No no, extraordinary rendition you call it.
-
Not to whether the tractor had a canopy or not they don't.
The question was pathetic! That's why!!
-
Steve for his own destiny jeremy is locked forever in his plea of innocence, 27 years of being in a cell have not changed his stance, looking now at the death penalty i see its humane side, to be locked up forever i wonder what we fought 2 world wars for my only positive view we shall never fight a 3rd world war there can only be 2 now.
My lot have not started yet...
-
Oh I know this one, his car blew up, or rather he was cremated in the wreckage.
I do assignment on Diana. It is straight forward accident. As much as any one would like conspiracy there is nothing. Really big screw up nothing more. But newspapers never let facts stand in the way of a good story.
Totally agree Hourglass - an accident, nothing more!!
-
Totally agree Hourglass - an accident, nothing more!!
There are some interesting bits but not for this forum.
-
The question was pathetic! That's why!!
No,it was on the dangerous territory of things Jeremy had told Julie. For goodness sake..
-
The question was pathetic! That's why!!
I think all modern tractors hsave canopies? Although I could be wrong? I think it has something to do with health and safety?
Campion thought that he asked that question because he was of the view that Jeremy might have used the canopy to get into an upstairs window?
-
No,it was on the dangerous territory of things Jeremy had told Julie. For goodness sake..
Rubbish!! The tractor was there for all to see!! He couldn't hide it, they only had to look at it!! It was a stupid question and I don't blame him for not answering it because it was obvious they were playing games!! For goodness sake!
-
I think all modern tractors hsave canopies? Although I could be wrong? I think it has something to do with health and safety?
Campion thought that he asked that question because he was of the view that Jeremy might have used the canopy to get into an upstairs window?
Would not their suspicions be raised by the reving of the tractor outside the bedroom window with a ninja gunman sitting on the roof? I not know a lot about farming but tractors are not known for their stealthy approach.
-
I think all modern tractors hsave canopies? Although I could be wrong? I think it has something to do with health and safety?
Campion thought that he asked that question because he was of the view that Jeremy might have used the canopy to get into an upstairs window?
Was it a silent tractor? :)
-
Sorry I go, this is too much for me and I have college tomorrow.
88
-
Rubbish!! The tractor was there for all to see!! He couldn't hide it, they only had to look at it!! It was a stupid question and I don't blame him for not answering it because it was obvious they were playing games!! For goodness sake!
This is normal police procedure. They continually ask you questions to (1) tire you out and (2) to try and trick you into saying something they want to hear.
-
Would not their suspicions be raised by the reving of the tractor outside the bedroom window with a ninja gunman sitting on the roof? I not know a lot about farming but tractors are not known for their stealthy approach.
No I think it was rejected by the army because of the lack of its stealth qualities?
-
This is normal police procedure. They continually ask you questions to (1) tire you out and (2) to try and trick you into saying something they want to hear.
Yes and that's exactly what happened and as soon as he realised they were doing just that, he began to say 'No comment'. But Steve keeps on about the tractor as though he was trying to hide something - they only had to go and look at it! The no comment was simply a pee'd off response!
-
Yes and that's exactly what happened and as soon as he realised they were doing just that, he began to say 'No comment'. But Steve keeps on about the tractor as though he was trying to hide something - they only have to go and look at it! The no comment was simply a pee'd off response!
He may not even have said, "No comment". The officer might have just jotted down no comment because JB never answered at all?
-
He may not even have said, "No comment". The officer might have just jotted down no comment because JB never answered at all?
Possibly but it was hardly subterfuge when the answer to the question was a hulking great tractor easily made available to anyone who wished to go and look at it! :)
-
This is normal police procedure. They continually ask you questions to (1) tire you out and (2) to try and trick you into saying something they want to hear.
..and Jeremy was certainly ready for the interrogation wasn't he? Is this because he had foreknowledge of what was about to occur,or did he revert to type as a child on the school bus who did not answer back to the bullies but had Sheila stick up for him?
Don't say I never see it Jeremy's way.
-
..and Jeremy was certainly ready for the interrogation wasn't he? Is this because he had foreknowledge of what was about to occur,or did he revert to type as a child on the school bus who did not answer back to the bullies but had Sheila stick up for him?
Don't say I never see it Jeremy's way.
No he didn't and no you don't!
-
I don't accept that interpretation of events. The smoking gun is this conversation with Charles Marsden,because the Defence has to explain how there can possibly be two serial killers on the loose in one house on the only the second occasion in 365 days when all the family are under one roof and they are all killed.
I will persist in my persecution of Jeremy Bamber until he is decent enough to own up. A deathbed confession will suffice.
Vidvic says you have family connections with the Mugfords. Or have I misunderstood? Given the extreme virulence of your posts, I think you ought to be honest about where you are really coming from. I for one am not convinced that you genuinely believe Bamber is guilty.
There is a difference between holding an opinion and having an allegiance. Your allegiance is plain enough but not, to a sceptical eye, your real opinion.
Quote from: vidvic on December 02, 2012, 10:51:PM
Look, I take no pleasure in saying this but they were a couple of complete toe-rags together....
Robbery, Cheque Fraud, Coke, dealing.....other unsubstantiated things which I will not print....
I take no pleasure in saying this because of our mutual family connections, but I have to be honest Steve.
Quote from: vidvic on December 03, 2012, 10:28:AM
When I said mutual I didn't mean to include Steve. Myself and my family and friends know the Mugfords, though not well.
-
I don't accept that interpretation of events..................................
I will persist in my persecution of Jeremy Bamber until he is decent enough to own up. A deathbed confession will suffice.
Perhaps your first sentence would be more correctly stated as you don't accept ANY interpretation of events which doesn't make Jeremy appear guilty. Your last sentence says it all, really, doesn't it? It certainly seems to validate what I said earlier. That the only truth you seek is proof of Jeremy's guilt.
-
Vidvic says you have family connections with the Mugfords. Or have I misunderstood? Given the extreme virulence of your posts, I think you ought to be honest about where you are really coming from. I for one am not convinced that you genuinely believe Bamber is guilty.
There is a difference between holding an opinion and having an allegiance. Your allegiance is plain enough but not, to a sceptical eye, your real opinion.
I admire your investigative qualities Martin. I personally didn't notice that. But I did have my suspicions as Steve's reactions to certain things does rather betray his allegiance to Muggy as he seems to defend her at every point in a way that anyone with no personal attachment to her would? Unless he's got a crush on her of course? :D
-
Vidvic says you have family connections with the Mugfords. Or have I misunderstood? Given the extreme virulence of your posts, I think you ought to be honest about where you are really coming from. I for one am not convinced that you genuinely believe Bamber is guilty.
There is a difference between holding an opinion and having an allegiance. Your allegiance is plain enough but not, to a sceptical eye, your real opinion.
Martin,I remember when Steve first appeared on the forum, the first thing I said to him was that he didn't believe Jeremy to be guilty. That his main aim was to trip up a few of the " old faithfuls " on the forum.
I still maintain that he doesn't believe Jeremy to be the guilty one,and that what he's doing,is looking to finding him innocent the same as we all are,but using his own version of tactics.Clever.
-
Hi lookout sorry have to disagree slightly on the post regarding steve uk. I feel he wants so much for Jeremy to be guilty but is struggling with the evidence against him so he is making more up to try and cement the verdict in his own head. I was quite puzzled at how he knew Jeremy brought cannabis or took from Amsterdam in an empty toothpaste tube. He knows far too much tittle tattle about what Julie and Jeremy did or did not do for my liking it is not all a figment of his imagination. What she said what he said must be some truth in there somewhere.
-
Hi lookout sorry have to disagree slightly on the post regarding steve uk. I feel he wants so much for Jeremy to be guilty but is struggling with the evidence against him so he is making more up to try and cement the verdict in his own head. I was quite puzzled at how he knew Jeremy brought cannabis or took from Amsterdam in an empty toothpaste tube. He knows far too much tittle tattle about what Julie and Jeremy did or did not do for my liking it is not all a figment of his imagination. What she said what he said must be some truth in there somewhere.
To be honest, Steve's opinion is no more important than anyone else's - I think he enjoys the attention that he often outrageous accusations bring him. Often it isn't a case of discussing the Bamber case but more a discussion of 'Steve's opinions' of the Bamber case!!
-
Hi Lugg forget the feelings steve does not do them except trying to goad animal lovers. He defends Julie at every opportunity and knows far too much about her for a connection not to exist some maybe a figment of his imagination but not all of it. He told me I should do more reading so I am off to read Womans Own :) :) :)
-
Hi Caroline you are so right steve's knowledge on the Bamber case is worse than mine all the stuff he posts up he has skim read somewhere and does add on's and my oh my does he change the goalposts plus he contradicts himself from week to week I pay particular attention to his posts and I have a very good memory. :) He does not pay attention either to other posts as he may have learnt a little more :)
-
I've been discussing Steve's posts with campion and campion thinks that becayse Steve's posts are sometimes very long and that the answers to some questions do not seem to be direct answers, that he may have text dump somewhere and just cuts and pastes a lot of his posts? Just an idea?
-
To be honest, Steve's opinion is no more important than anyone else's - I think he enjoys the attention that he often outrageous accusations bring him. Often it isn't a case of discussing the Bamber case but more a discussion of 'Steve's opinions' of the Bamber case!!
Hi Caroline
I've been thinking for a while now about starting a thread along the lines of 'Myths Created and Perputated By Steve_uk' in an attempt to clean up the forum. He lauches onto threads and posts AT posters seemingly without rhyme or reason.
-
Hi N/N what steve is very guilty of is using other people's posts (not directed to him) and answering with his own views which are not relevant to the post posted. It is as if he is not interested in answering our posts just wants to post his own stuff up all the time maybe good if he just posted and answered himself. :)
-
Hi Caroline
I've been thinking for a while now about starting a thread along the lines of 'Myths Created and Perputated By Steve_uk' in an attempt to clean up the forum. He lauches onto threads and posts AT posters seemingly without rhyme or reason.
NaNu/Caroline Hi to you both. I have said on several occasions that Steve has ZERO interest in what is said by others, often including the few who agree with him. IMO, Steve's only interest is in online oratory and he enjoys seeing the words he has written as opposed to just listening to the sound of his own voice.
-
If Steve does have a connection to JM,then that would explain a lot imo.To believe Jeremy innocent he would then have to admit that JM's testimony was false! I think that would be more than he could possibly bear!
-
If Steve does have a connection to JM,then that would explain a lot imo.To believe Jeremy innocent he would then have to admit that JM's testimony was false! I think that would be more than he could possibly bear!
Tyler, even if he doesn't have a connection to JM, I believe he encourages the belief that he has.
-
Hi tyler I think you could have a point. steve seems desperate to convince himself by convincing us of Jeremy's guilt this would exonerate Julie from any wrong doing.
-
Susan ....exactly! I think certain other members face the same problem,which is of coarse fully understandable.As was said at trial,it all comes down to who you believe - Jeremy or Julie.
-
NaNu/Caroline Hi to you both. I have said on several occasions that Steve has ZERO interest in what is said by others, often including the few who agree with him. IMO, Steve's only interest is in online oratory and he enjoys seeing the words he has written as opposed to just listening to the sound of his own voice.
Hi April1
I totally agree :)
He appears to have had a bypass insofar as the ability to hold a two-way conversation goes. His need to dominate the airwaves is imo rather worrying at times :-\
-
Hi lookout sorry have to disagree slightly on the post regarding steve uk. I feel he wants so much for Jeremy to be guilty but is struggling with the evidence against him so he is making more up to try and cement the verdict in his own head. I was quite puzzled at how he knew Jeremy brought cannabis or took from Amsterdam in an empty toothpaste tube. He knows far too much tittle tattle about what Julie and Jeremy did or did not do for my liking it is not all a figment of his imagination. What she said what he said must be some truth in there somewhere.
He is correct in this as I have seen this in one of the JM statements. I have had the tedium of reading statements by these disagreeable people. Steve is definately correct.
Also I disagree strongly with attacks on any one person. It is just petty and unhelpful. If you want to run a club then have a closed form and do not ask for outside comments.
-
I think my point has been missed, I was trying to say that comments are more about what Steve thinks than on specific issues! Perhaps we should try and drag things back to issues concerning JB and not just Steve's opinions of them - I know it's easy to get dragged in but it just ends up distracting the debate away from the topic and back to points which have already been done to death. Just my opinion, but if you read back you'll find that Steve is mentioned even more than JB - which is a little ironic. ???
-
Susan/Tyler, I think you're both totally correct. The more of us he can convince of Jeremy's guilt, the more certain he can allow himself to be of his guilt. There's just one problem. IMO, he's going entirely the wrong way about it and if he stopped sneering at psychology for long enough, he'd realize that using some reverse psychology might actually work. At the moment everything he says gives us cause to defend Jeremy, which is probably a little unrealistic. If he changed his approach more of us MAY concede a point or two.
-
Hi Caroline the point is steve will not allow us to discuss anything. If it is something he does not like he can becme quite rude and sarcastic. If I say post upto you he will answer my post with something entirely irrelevant to what I was saying. He takes topics over with his own theories like last night he said I accused him of being responsible for Crispy's death I asked twice for him to highlight my post where I had suggested this totally ridiculous suggestion he just totally ignored me. He takes over the forum with his own theories and N/N is right he is using this forum as his own personal soap box.
-
He is correct in this as I have seen this in one of the JM statements. I have had the tedium of reading statements by these disagreeable people. Steve is definately correct.
Also I disagree strongly with attacks on any one person. It is just petty and unhelpful. If you want to run a club then have a closed form and do not ask for outside comments.
Hi Hourglass
I did read in Roger Wilkes' book (I think) about cannabis in toothpaste tubes. Possibly wit stats too - it's a long time since I read them.
The forum would be a waste of time without differences in opinion. The problem with Steve_uk is that he posts AT posters and at times is unable to engage in debate in a 'reasonable' manner.
For example one of Steve_uk's very first posts makes reference to Pamela Boutflour referring to Sheila as a 'zombie'. PB made a witness statement but there's no reference to her using this descritption of Sheila whatsover. Despite this being pointed out to Steve_uk he continues to persist. Please also bear in mind that this is a lady, who if still alive, would now be well into her 90's and was brought up and lived in rural Essex within the farming community. The word 'zombie' is very unlikely to have featured in her vocabularly and this is supported by her witness statement.
-
Hi Caroline the point is steve will not allow us to discuss anything. If it is something he does not like he can becme quite rude and sarcastic. If I say post upto you he will answer my post with something entirely irrelevant to what I was saying. He takes topics over with his own theories like last night he said I accused him of being responsible for Crispy's death I asked twice for him to highlight my post where I had suggested this totally ridiculous suggestion he just totally ignored me. He takes over the forum with his own theories and N/N is right he is using this forum as his own personal soap box.
Susan, I think you will find that he attacks and accuses when he is on the losing end of an argument. Last night was a prime example. The debate regarding Crispy had gone on interminably and whilst we were all offering different possibilites, most were valid. Steve however, wouldn't accept the validity of anything we said and refused to back down by throwing into the mix totally irrelevant and fatuous soundbites. I think the closest he has come to truth is when he, albeit, inadvertantly said he would continue to "persecute" Jeremy.
-
Hi april as far as Crispy was concerned all I asked him was why did Crispy barking when Jeremy entered through a window not wake Ralph. Never got an answer then I got cannabis in toothpaste tubes which I never asked him about when I objected to him referring to Crispy as a mutt what did he do in the next post describe Crispy as a mangy old dog. In my opinion he lashes out if he thinks he can hurt a poster who has asked him a reasonale question. The only person he is letting down is himself. When it suits him June is a light sleeper then she is a heavy sleeper. Jeremy lost a marigold glove then after I had mentioned about clothes being burnt in the Aga he decides the gloves were burnt in the Aga. When I said the police would smell the burning rubber well they were only latex gloves before an empty pkt of marigold gloves was found in the field. I just give up. Hope he does answer my post which I have put up for Nickos who is very sensible.
-
Hi april as far as Crispy was concerned all I asked him was why did Crispy barking when Jeremy entered through a window not wake Ralph. Never got an answer then I got cannabis in toothpaste tubes which I never asked him about when I objected to him referring to Crispy as a mutt what did he do in the next post describe Crispy as a mangy old dog. In my opinion he lashes out if he thinks he can hurt a poster who has asked him a reasonale question. The only person he is letting down is himself. When it suits him June is a light sleeper then she is a heavy sleeper. Jeremy lost a marigold glove then after I had mentioned about clothes being burnt in the Aga he decides the gloves were burnt in the Aga. When I said the police would smell the burning rubber well they were only latex gloves before an empty pkt of marigold gloves was found in the field. I just give up. Hope he does answer my post which I have put up for Nickos who is very sensible.
Dear Susan, it has been noted. Not only does Steve like all I's dotted and all T's crossed, he juggles them around to suit his own purpose first ;D ;D
-
I don't accept that interpretation of events. The smoking gun is this conversation with Charles Marsden,because the Defence has to explain how there can possibly be two serial killers on the loose in one house on the only the second occasion in 365 days when all the family are under one roof and they are all killed.
I will persist in my persecution of Jeremy Bamber until he is decent enough to own up. A deathbed confession will suffice.
Hi Steve_uk
Imo, albeit I'm not legally trained, the defence should have made a much, much better job of explaining to the jury how in a family of 4 where none were biologically related but two members had a long history of mental illness, a third member free of ever having had any mental illness/personality disorder was being tried for the murder of 5 family members! :o If Jeremy is guilty this would mean 3 of the 4 non-biologically related family members were mentally ill/personality disordered!! :o :o
-
Hi Steve_uk
Imo, albeit I'm not legally trained, the defence should have made a much, much better job of explaining to the jury how in a family of 4 where none were biologically related but two members had a long history of mental illness, a third member free of ever having had any mental illness/personality disorder was being tried for the murder of 5 family members! :o If Jeremy is guilty this would mean 3 of the 4 non-biologically related family members were mentally ill/personality disordered!! :o :o
And the question which follows, regardless of its' validity, is how 2 unrelated children without any history of psychological/mental disorder in either family, should BOTH end up with one.
-
And the question which follows, regardless of its' validity, is how 2 unrelated children without any history of psychological/mental disorder in either family, should BOTH end up with one.
I'd end up with a disorder too if I was living with someone who was fanatical about religion.
It's clear that Sheila followed in Junes' footsteps in that direction when the term " devils' child/children " came into play.
-
Dear Susan, it has been noted. Not only does Steve like all I's dotted and all T's crossed, he juggles them around to suit his own purpose first ;D ;D
It's called knight jump tactics.
-
Hi Hourglass
I did read in Roger Wilkes' book (I think) about cannabis in toothpaste tubes. Possibly wit stats too - it's a long time since I read them.
The forum would be a waste of time without differences in opinion. The problem with Steve_uk is that he posts AT posters and at times is unable to engage in debate in a 'reasonable' manner.
For example one of Steve_uk's very first posts makes reference to Pamela Boutflour referring to Sheila as a 'zombie'. PB made a witness statement but there's no reference to her using this descritption of Sheila whatsover. Despite this being pointed out to Steve_uk he continues to persist. Please also bear in mind that this is a lady, who if still alive, would now be well into her 90's and was brought up and lived in rural Essex within the farming community. The word 'zombie' is very unlikely to have featured in her vocabularly and this is supported by her witness statement.
[/quoThe "zombie" remark is mentioned here and if you give me time I'll find it elsewhere.http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/innocent-man-part-13.html
You'll have to wait an hour as there's a programme on about a man murdering his American wife..
-
Hi Hourglass
I did read in Roger Wilkes' book (I think) about cannabis in toothpaste tubes. Possibly wit stats too - it's a long time since I read them.
The forum would be a waste of time without differences in opinion. The problem with Steve_uk is that he posts AT posters and at times is unable to engage in debate in a 'reasonable' manner.
For example one of Steve_uk's very first posts makes reference to Pamela Boutflour referring to Sheila as a 'zombie'. PB made a witness statement but there's no reference to her using this descritption of Sheila whatsover. Despite this being pointed out to Steve_uk he continues to persist. Please also bear in mind that this is a lady, who if still alive, would now be well into her 90's and was brought up and lived in rural Essex within the farming community. The word 'zombie' is very unlikely to have featured in her vocabularly and this is supported by her witness statement.
Hello NN,
I would accept all that but email and forum posting is a terrible tool with all the immediate effect of a conversation but people think it has the legal effect of a written statement. I say things that I do not always mean in emails and postings and afterwards wish I had written better. I have assumed that Steve may have heard something said that is not in a witness statement. I would not like to work with only witness statements proporting to be the only truth. We freely disregard other witness statements when they do not agree with our point of view so I can not get hung up about a "Zombie" reference one way or another. It is quite an old term, not exactly bibilical but certainly in use for at least 100 years. Whether or not in common Essex vocabulary I am not qualified to say.
-
Hello NN,
I would accept all that but email and forum posting is a terrible tool with all the immediate effect of a conversation but people think it has the legal effect of a written statement. I say things that I do not always mean in emails and postings and afterwards wish I had written better. I have assumed that Steve may have heard something said that is not in a witness statement. I would not like to work with only witness statements proporting to be the only truth. We freely disregard other witness statements when they do not agree with our point of view so I can not get hung up about a "Zombie" reference one way or another. It is quite an old term, not exactly bibilical but certainly in use for at least 100 years. Whether or not in common Essex vocabulary I am not qualified to say.
Hourglass, Steve has admitted to using embellishment to add interest to his writing. Some would call it literary licence.
-
Nickos says Jeremy Bamber entered through a window so I don't see how that's different from when I said the dog would recognize his scent. The Georgian house had thick walls so it's quite possible Jeremy ascended the staircase without being challenged. Why speculate again as to the order of the deaths as this topic has been broached many times.
-
Hourglass, Steve has admitted to using embellishment to add interest to his writing. Some would call it literary licence.
I think some times also to provoke outrage. I will admit that also.
I still have not worked out who is one which side on this forum. :( :( :(
-
I'd end up with a disorder too if I was living with someone who was fanatical about religion.
It's clear that Sheila followed in Junes' footsteps in that direction when the term " devils' child/children " came into play.
Though i believe JB to be not guilty his then attitude was something else lookout , with zero intrest in religion it was a cinch for him to not get the bible bashing Sheila recieved.
-
I admire your investigative qualities Martin. I personally didn't notice that. But I did have my suspicions as Steve's reactions to certain things does rather betray his allegiance to Muggy as he seems to defend her at every point in a way that anyone with no personal attachment to her would? Unless he's got a crush on her of course? :D
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2377/2080494243_e7b291b811.jpg)
Thanks Lugg, The mode of advocacy is unmistakable. As Bing Crosby said to Rosemary Clooney in White Christmas, "Why, everyone has an angle!”
-
Martin, A brlliant and signifant Post.
Rosemary Clooney is also famed for the song 'This Ole House'.
This is a sad story about a hunter, who comes across a deserted house. In this , he finds a dog, apparently still guarding his dead master.
Rings a bell with WHF scenario!
More surprisingly, this song was also recorded by Shakin' Stephens. Is there a connection to Steve uk?
I remain, Yous truly,
Campion.
-
Rosemary Clooney is also famed for the song 'This Ole House'.
Rings a bell with WHF scenario!
More surprisingly, this song was also recorded by Shakin' Stephens. Is there a connection to Steve uk?
Lipstick, powder and paint?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4988;image)
-
Hi campion I just love Shakin Stephens he is a top man :)
-
I've just taken a long, hard look at that picture of Julie. If you cover up the hair the face beneath it could be either male or female. It strikes me also, that pictures of Jeremy reveal a similar anomaly. It has suddenly struck me that there may be deeper similarites between this pair than first meets the eye.
-
SNAP
-
I've just taken a long, hard look at that picture of Julie. If you cover up the hair the face beneath it could be either male or female. It strikes me also, that pictures of Jeremy reveal a similar anomaly. It has suddenly struck me that there may be deeper similarites between this pair than first meets the eye.
April,no offence to JM,but in her NOTW photo she looked like a transvestite.When I remarked about this on the forum,somebody said that Jeremy had made exactly the same observation!
Regarding Steve's connection to JM,did he not let slip yesterday that he too was/is in the teaching profession?
-
April,no offence to JM,but in her NOTW photo she looked like a transvestite.When I remarked about this on the forum,somebody said that Jeremy had made exactly the same observation!
Regarding Steve's connection to JM,did he not let slip yesterday that he too was/is in the teaching profession?
OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Hi campion I just love Shakin Stephens he is a top man :)
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o!!
-
I've just taken a long, hard look at that picture of Julie. If you cover up the hair the face beneath it could be either male or female. It strikes me also, that pictures of Jeremy reveal a similar anomaly. It has suddenly struck me that there may be deeper similarites between this pair than first meets the eye.
I thought exactly the same thing - it it the moustache? ;D (sorry, couldn't resist!)
-
OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
she does look a bit man-ish
-
That is an emotionless face. Fixed.
-
It's always those who are the most unprepossessing who are the first to cast aspersions on other people's appearance,don't you find?
-
I probably shouldn't have posted that picture in the context of the shakin stevens song. Julie, if you're reading, I do believe that only half of your story has been told, that you were trapped between a rock and hard place. Any move towards doing the correct thing on your part, should be supported. You should be subject to an amnesty, as should the genuine TFG officers.
-
It's always those who are the most unprepossessing who are the first to cast aspersions on other people's appearance,don't you find?
I'm trying to remember how you described Jeremy's appearance? ::)
-
I'm trying to remember how you described Jeremy's appearance? ::)
No I was quoting Ann Eaton that first morning at Bourtree Cottage,where she described Jeremy as having dilated pupils.
-
No I was quoting Ann Eaton that first morning at Bourtree Cottage,where she described Jeremy as having dilated pupils.
Something wrong there then because Marijuana doesn't cause the pupils to dilate at all, in fact, quite the opposite!
-
For goodness sake..http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080121040349AAfIhIv
-
For goodness sake..http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080121040349AAfIhIv
A yahoo site? LOL. I've been around enough people who smoked the stuff to know what someone looks like. However, JB said he'd smoked a joint - so what?