Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Lugg on January 06, 2013, 08:27:PM
-
Just to direct you to this website in order to keep things fresh and hopefully to honestly review this case again.
http://jeremybamber.org/ann-peter-eaton/
-
Is that another official site, Lugg. Or is there just one official site?
-
It was OK for Basil Cook to send Jeremy a bill for 16k when N and J Bamber dissolved in 1999. Why, send him a bill if he had lost all of his assets anyway? This is what I can't understand about it all. See below:
Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.
N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.
-
Is that another official site, Lugg. Or is there just one official site?
I think it has a link to the official site?
-
So Jeremy's shares were wroth 72K in 1985.
However, in 1985, N and J Bamber Ltd was a prosperous company worth approximately £388,000. £308,000 was the 79% share Nevill Bamber owned in N and J Bamber while a further £80,000 was from other personal assets, and indeed in 1985, Jeremy Bamber’s share was worth approximately £72,000.
-
One part interested me and I am curious as to which is the correct one. Some report state that Mabel Speakman disinherited Jeremy after the guilty verdict.
But this website says that Robert Boutflour visited Mabel Speakman before the trial in order to get her to disinherit Jeremy. Which is the correct version?
-
It was OK for Basil Cook to send Jeremy a bill for 16k when N and J Bamber dissolved in 1999. Why, send him a bill if he had lost all of his assets anyway? This is what I can't understand about it all. See below:
Notwithstanding Jeremy Bamber’s conviction, he was still in ownership of 20% of N and J Bamber Ltd when eventually it was wound up and the assets sold.
N and J Bamber Ltd was dissolved on the 14th September 1999, with no assets, only costs. These costs covered winding up the company, depreciation, repairs, outstanding management fees and other miscellaneous costs totalling £80,000. Indeed Jeremy Bamber received a bill from Basil Cock stating that upon liquidation, Jeremy Bamber owed almost £16,000, which was his share of the costs of winding up N and J Bamber Ltd.
God Patti,,that doesn't seem right does it.? Was this before,or after the jiggery pokery which BW reported ? ( that was swept under the carpet.)
-
Talk about being squeezed until your pips squeak.
-
One part interested me and I am curious as to which is the correct one. Some report state that Mabel Speakman disinherited Jeremy after the guilty verdict.
But this website says that Robert Boutflour visited Mabel Speakman before the trial in order to get her to disinherit Jeremy. Which is the correct version?
Not sure Lugg. I know AE does comment on this in 1991 but I am getting tired of reading....Flop! :) :) :) :)
-
Talk about being squeezed until your pips squeak.
If Jeremy was so well off with shares ect....it certainly doesn't make him poor does it.... :) :) :) :)
-
If Jeremy was so well off with shares ect....it certainly doesn't make him poor does it.... :) :) :) :)
I believe he was receiving an income from the caravan park before he was convicted of murder? But I stand corrected if I'm wrong?
But as I have said before if his family had lived he would be a very wealthy man now. And probably less friends? ::)
-
I believe he was receiving an income from the caravan park before he was convicted of murder? But I stand corrected if I'm wrong?
But as I have said before if his family had lived he would be a very wealthy man now. And probably less friends? ::)
He got a yearly bonus of around 2K it was with this money he had planned to get a Porsche car kit....It was said by the police that he was going to buy a Porsche. But they, contacted the firm that Jeremy had given them and, the firm confirmed that it was a car kit and not a real Porsche as was suggested...In fact it might have been his defence that had contacted the firm....it was one or the other, which proved that Jeremy was telling truth about it.... :) :) :) :)
-
I believe he was receiving an income from the caravan park before he was convicted of murder? But I stand corrected if I'm wrong?
But as I have said before if his family had lived he would be a very wealthy man now. And probably less friends? ::)
And no doubt would have had to continually watch his back.
-
I believe he was receiving an income from the caravan park before he was convicted of murder? But I stand corrected if I'm wrong?
But as I have said before if his family had lived he would be a very wealthy man now. And probably less friends? ::)
Scott lomax wrote that Members of the Boutflour and Eaton families now own all but a few of the Bamber family assets, does anyone know what assets they dont own of the bamber family?
-
One part interested me and I am curious as to which is the correct one. Some report state that Mabel Speakman disinherited Jeremy after the guilty verdict.
But this website says that Robert Boutflour visited Mabel Speakman before the trial in order to get her to disinherit Jeremy. Which is the correct version?
does this help?
Thus on the 2nd September 1985, RB organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit MS in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, PB was the only beneficiary of the estate.
-
does this help?
Thus on the 2nd September 1985, RB organised for a solicitor, Mr Peek to visit MS in order for her to change her will. Thus ensuring that his wife, PB was the only beneficiary of the estate.
Where did you get that from Patti? If that is the true version then Robert Boutflours actions would in my mind be justified. I think under similar circumstances I would do the same?
But if this website's version is the true version then his actions would be questionable in my humble opinion, as Mabel Speakman's mind, according to this version was not fit to sign any legal documents.
-
Where did you get that from Patti? If that is the true version then Robert Boutflours actions would in my mind be justified. I think under similar circumstances I would do the same?
But if this website's version is the true version then his actions would be questionable in my humble opinion, as Mabel Speakman's mind, according to this version was not fit to sign any legal documents.
Hi Lugg If you look at the link that you posted and scroll down you will see certain words highlighted in blue, which leads you to relevant documents that backs up what has been written on the website you posted....I got it from there, but I do know that AE mentions this in her 1991 statement.
In all fairness the will had to be changed because JB was no longer alive.....I think Ae more or less admits that it was done so that JB did not inherit... :) :) :)
-
Hi Lugg If you look at the link that you posted and scroll down you will see certain words highlighted in blue, which leads you to relevant documents that backs up what has been written on the website you posted....I got it from there, but I do know that AE mentions this in her 1991 statement.
In all fairness the will had to be changed because JB was no longer alive.....I think Ae more or less admits that it was done so that JB did not inherit... :) :) :)
Yes I understand that Patti and I fully understand their reasons for doing that. But if that is true what you say, then it still leaves us with two versions. (1) That the will was changed after the guilty verdict and (2) That it was changed before the verdict.
Also there is the little matter of whether she was of sound mind at the time of the changing of the will?
-
Yes I understand that Patti and I fully understand their reasons for doing that. But if that is true what you say, then it still leaves us with two versions. (1) That the will was changed after the guilty verdict and (2) That it was changed before the verdict.
Also there is the little matter of whether she was of sound mind at the time of the changing of the will?
Well, it wasn't until the 28th August 1985 that the family told Granny S. The will was certainly changed before the trial and verdict, because sadly she died in the February of 1986. :( :( :(
-
Yes I understand that Patti and I fully understand their reasons for doing that. But if that is true what you say, then it still leaves us with two versions. (1) That the will was changed after the guilty verdict and (2) That it was changed before the verdict.
Also there is the little matter of whether she was of sound mind at the time of the changing of the will?
In one of RB statements he says that on Monday 2nd September 1985 Mr Peek and his secretary took instructions from Mable Speakman to change her will. In another statement he said that PB told MS that the whole family, except JB had been shot but I don't recall any statement that mentions her being told that JB was a suspect?
-
They didn't tell her that JB was a suspect.They told her that he was responsible!
-
They didn't tell her that JB was a suspect.They told her that he was responsible!
When did they tell her? By that I mean is it documented?
-
Hi...yes,it is documented somewhere. Will try to find it for you.Granny Speakman was told in Sept 85,before Jeremy had even been arrested.She was told that Jeremy was responsible and made a comment something along the lines of "Its the devil at work"I'm uncertain as to the date that she changed her will,but she passed away in feb 86 if I - remember rightly.
-
Hi...yes,it is documented somewhere. Will try to find it for you.Granny Speakman was told in Sept 85,before Jeremy had even been arrested.She was told that Jeremy was responsible and made a comment something along the lines of "Its the devil at work"I'm uncertain as to the date that she changed her will,but she passed away in feb 86 if I - remember rightly.
Hi Tyler, I found the RB statement that mentions her being told they were all dead (cept Jeremy) on Monday 2nd September 1985 but it doesn't mention that she was told JB was responsible and "The devil's work" was mentioned". I'll paste the ref I have below.
-
She was told on the 28th August and on the 2nd of September RB engaged a solicitor. I have already said this at least 3 times. I know what it says in RB statement but he got it wrong....if you read AE statement and other documents it will confirm this. I'm not saying I am 100% right, but either way it was done pre trial......in order that Jeremy was disinherited and before he was found guilty. :) :) :) :)
gran S. said its the devil at work and asked the doctor when am i going to die....according to AE. Sorry to have to say that.
-
Well, it wasn't until the 28th August 1985 that the family told Granny S. The will was certainly changed before the trial and verdict, because sadly she died in the February of 1986. :( :( :(
You are one smart lady Patti. ;) Thank you.
-
In one of RB statements he says that on Monday 2nd September 1985 Mr Peek and his secretary took instructions from Mable Speakman to change her will. In another statement he said that PB told MS that the whole family, except JB had been shot but I don't recall any statement that mentions her being told that JB was a suspect?
But was Mabel Speakman sound of mind at the time of changing her will? But at any rate they preempted the verdict at the trial. That cannot look good for RB surely. Now notice that I have come to this question without any bias at all?
-
They didn't tell her that JB was a suspect.They told her that he was responsible!
Again this doesn't look good for those who told her that? The question is WHY did they think immediately of informing Mabel Speakman? What was their motive for doing this?
-
Hi Tyler, I found the RB statement that mentions her being told they were all dead (cept Jeremy) on Monday 2nd September 1985 but it doesn't mention that she was told JB was responsible and "The devil's work" was mentioned". I'll paste the ref I have below.
If they didn't tell her that he was responsible then the "devil's work" was surely involved. For it must mean that she was miraculously informed?
-
She was told on the 28th August and on the 2nd of September RB engaged a solicitor. I have already said this at least 3 times. I know what it says in RB statement but he got it wrong....if you read AE statement and other documents it will confirm this. I'm not saying I am 100% right, but either way it was done pre trial......in order that Jeremy was disinherited and before he was found guilty. :) :) :) :)
gran S. said its the devil at work and asked the doctor when am i going to die....according to AE. Sorry to have to say that.
You are a brilliant investigator Patti.
-
Morning Lugg
Patti is the Miss Marples of the forum :) :) :)
-
Morning Lugg
Patti is the Miss Marples of the forum :) :) :)
Get off. She's not that old. ;D
-
She was told on the 28th August and on the 2nd of September RB engaged a solicitor. I have already said this at least 3 times. I know what it says in RB statement but he got it wrong....if you read AE statement and other documents it will confirm this. I'm not saying I am 100% right, but either way it was done pre trial......in order that Jeremy was disinherited and before he was found guilty. :) :) :) :)
gran S. said its the devil at work and asked the doctor when am i going to die....according to AE. Sorry to have to say that.
Hi Patti, my question wasn't 'when was MS told of the deaths' I already know that, it was 'when was she told that JB was responsible'. No one mentions that they told her JB was responsible, in fact AE states that they DIDN'T tell her of their suspicions and that MS didn't even ask about JB when she was told of the deaths. AE also mentions that MS didn't ask about JB until December 1985 (long after his arrest) but she doesn't mention about what they told her - presumably the will had been changed at this point? If she didn't know he was involved, why would she 'cut him out'? Because no one mentioned JB, did she presume he died too? I have pasted the relevant page of AE's 1991 statement below to save anyone having to trawl through the whole thing.
-
Hi Patti, my question wasn't 'when was MS told of the deaths' I already know that, it was 'when was she told that JB was responsible'. No one mentions that they told her JB was responsible, in fact AE states that they DIDN'T tell her of their suspicions and that MS didn't even ask about JB when she was told of the deaths. AE also mentions that MS didn't ask about JB until December 1985 (long after his arrest) but she doesn't mention about what they told her - presumably the will had been changed at this point? If she didn't know he was involved, why would she 'cut him out'? Because no one mentioned JB, did she presume he died too? I have pasted the relevant page of AE's 1991 statement below to save anyone having to trawl through the whole thing.
Thank you for clarifying things with Ann Eaton's statement Caroline. Could I ask just one question if anybody knows? Why do you think that Ann Eaton was asked that question as to when Mabel Speakman was told? And Who asked her that question? Was it the police, or someone else?
Hoping not to confuse things further, there was a Speakman who was a resident of Hailey House in Maldon, who was a relation to Mabel Speakman and the Boutflours. She died some years back now. I believe she had Alzheimer's and it was her greatest fear that Jeremy would some how escape and come after her. Just another point of interest.
-
Hi Guys
The only other thing I can add to all of this, is that, no matter how you look at it. The will was being put into place prior to Julie going to the police on the 7th of September, prior to JB's arrest on the 29th of September and prior to the trial.
I am assuming that AE was asked loads of question by the LCP because Jeremy's defence team had lodged a complaint and they were obliged to investigate. :) :) :) :) :)
Thank You Caroline :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Guys
The only other thing I can add to all of this, is that, no matter how you look at it. The will was being put into place prior to Julie going to the police on the 7th of September, prior to JB's arrest on the 29th of September and prior to the trial.
I am assuming that AE was asked loads of question by the LCP because Jeremy's defence team had lodged a complaint and they were obliged to investigate. :) :) :) :) :)
Thank You Caroline :) :) :) :) :)
Well, I find that most odd! They didn't tell her that Jeremy was even alive?? If she had known, would she have kept him out of her will? Why would they not tell her?
-
Well, I find that most odd! They didn't tell her that Jeremy was even alive?? If she had known, would she have kept him out of her will? Why would they not tell her?
Hi Caroline, I agree....she would have kept him in her will if she didn't know, therefore she must have known something....AE admits it was done. to keep Jeremy for inheriting. I suppose we will never know eh? :) :) :) :)