Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Steve_uk on January 29, 2013, 08:45:PM
-
As the clamour for revenge in many quarters continues to which the recent attack on a Full Sutton inmate attests, one wonders what the future holds for this Category A prisoner, a rating we are told reserved for Britain’s most dangerous and difficult prisoners. Is Jeremy really such a deceitful person, a snake in the grass who once released would immediately set out to exact vengeance and seek financial and violent recompense on those who have wronged him, or has his sentence of time-served satisfied those types whose thirst for revenge almost destroys themselves as well as the perpetrator? Is this man the victim of a massive conspiracy inconceivable even by 1980s standards, yet with the fabric of society so stretched to breaking point over that period that the average person in the street no longer baulks at corruption in the highest office? If Jeremy Bamber is guilty is he the product of such a society which many of us helped to create, or is it notwithstanding unsafe ever to let Jeremy Bamber out and experience life as a free man,at liberty to travel when and wherever he pleases?
A greedy man who wanted more, influenced by the wanton hedonism of his age, a man who out of the confines of his adoptive parents’ influence expected and for the most part achieved complete subservience, who came to despise weakness and was jealous of those who threatened to be his rival, a man who finally even uptore the parental shackles to become master of his own destiny, but for the stalwart Julie who finally realized that Frankenstein’s monster, the monster she amongst others had helped to create, finally had to be destroyed.
A man who killed his entire adoptive family, parents who had nurtured him from three months old, yet who would be slaughtered in that short orgy of violence as Jeremy high on cocaine pumped bullet after bullet relentlessly into his parents’ form, bashing Nevill vindictively with a rifle butt as he sank into his favourite armchair, as Jeremy remembered the nights when his father, weary from farm labour would be too tired to chat to his son and would close his eyes on the world. June too was occupied with events from without and her son, after the formal atmosphere of Gresham’s public school, would come home to a time-warp existence where a young man who initially craved only attention came only to know his place in the Bamber family routine in monetary terms, that of being a skivvy on the farm for as long as they were in charge.
Was June apprised of her attacker in the early hours of Wednesday morning as Jeremy took one last disdainful look before vowing never to see her again, did she have time for a final frantic prayer as the last of seven bullets pierced her skull and brain, did God afford her succour and solace in those last final moments or was she cast into the pit of despair beside the bed as she recognized her assailant and finally realized what Jeremy had planned for her?
What of Sheila, that naïve, gullible, easily-led girl, whose greatest achievement lay asleep in beds across the corridor, yet who believed herself to be such a failure. Can one really believe that she was the instrument of evil that morning, or were the five corpses synonymous with the person who tipped a sack of potatoes in a ditch for others to clear, who scattered papers on the office floor of Osea Road to simulate intruders, the man who set up pranks with Julie, lighting the blue touchpaper ,then retreating from a safe distance to watch the consequences? The man who under a veneer of decency and respectability coveted a secret lifestyle only achievable through cold-blooded murder?
What of the twins, those six year old cherubs Nicholas and Daniel, whom Jeremy had told Liz Rimington what spoilt brats they were and could never do a thing wrong in their mother’s eyes? Those interlopers who were sleeping at the farm in Jeremy’s room, sensing the oppressive atmosphere with only a thumb as comforter as possibly their mother was too ill that night to read them a bedtime story. As Colin reflects on their unwitting abandonment of all the actors in this drama it is he who will feel the greatest sense of relief and security in the years to come as he finally lies down alongside his boys in Highgate, in contrast to an unconfessed and unrepentant Jeremy, who leaves but an awful blank as he acts out daily his sombre charade in front of a host of people to whom he could offer relief if only he so chose.
-
I've heard all these Royal conspiracies before. There was one about Adolph Hitler being the son of Emperor Franz Josef and being smuggled out of court in a basket, and if you believe that of course you can believe that Leslie Marsham wasn't Jeremy's real dad (maybe it was the Duke of Edinburgh, who knows?)
Did we have the debate about locked threads..it rings a bell somewhere.
-
Hi Steve :)
Have you read all of the Dickens novels....what about David Herbert Lawrence?
Steve, I would love to read your post, but it is time for me to go ni nights...Hopefully, I will get the time tomorrow.....Night. :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Steve :)
Have you read all of the Dickens novels....what about David Herbert Lawrence?
Steve, I would love to read your post, but it is time for me to go ni nights...Hopefully, I will get the time tomorrow.....Night. :) :) :) :)
Hi Patti..yes I've read many of Dickens' novels..not many of D.H Lawrence's. Will have to make time for that.
-
Hi Patti..yes I've read many of Dickens' novels..not many of D.H Lawrence's. Will have to make time for that.
What's your favourite Dickens Steve? ;D Mind you if you love his work there's no such thing as a favourite. :) :) :) He's brilliant imo ;D
-
What's your favourite Dickens Steve? ;D Mind you if you love his work there's no such thing as a favourite. :) :) :) He's brilliant imo ;D
Hi maggie-I like Oliver Twist and A Tale of Two Cities.
-
Maybe we should assign Dickens' characters to forum members? I suspect that Steve's got Bamber already penciled in for the role of Jacob Marley?
-
Hi maggie-I like Oliver Twist and A Tale of Two Cities.
I did A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield for O Level and for years A Tale of Two Cities was my favourite too. Now I'm older, I look for and see different things in his books. Love his descriptive prose, it's just amazing imo :)
-
Jeremy would have to be orphan Oliver Twist but we'd have to re-write the ending as he ends up like Fagin.Mike could be Scrooge..
-
..and Lookout is Mrs. Gamp(I like her really;we're sharing a caravan at Osea Road for an Easter break)..
-
..and Lookout is Mrs. Gamp(I like her really;we're sharing a caravan at Osea Road for an Easter break)..
Steve,does Mrs Gamp know that you're sharing a caravan with her.?
-
Hi lookout nothing like a bit of bonding and sharing in a small caravan over the Easter Break ;D ;D ;) ;)Lucky you :D
-
Hi lookout nothing like a bit of bonding and sharing in a small caravan over the Easter Break ;D ;D ;) ;)Lucky you :D
Who could turn down such an offer,Susan.? :)
-
Who could turn down such an offer,Susan.? :)
Lookout, one or two of us are so close to Osea that we could join you for a party. Think of the interesting live debates we could have ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Lookout, one or two of us are so close to Osea that we could join you for a party. Think of the interesting live debates we could have ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
That sounds just wonderful,April.
-
lookout better book a bigger caravan I knew april would not let you have steve to yourself little minx ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout better book a bigger caravan I knew april would not let you have steve to yourself little minx ;D ;D ;D
I don't mind,Susan.Share and share alike. ;D
-
That sounds just wonderful,April.
And Steve could read everyone a nice bedtime story he's written...
-
And Steve could read everyone a nice bedtime story he's written...
Lovely :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
And Steve could read everyone a nice bedtime story he's written...
Bags I turn the pages over. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
HMEssex/lookout
Bags I send the appropriate books ;D
-
Bags I turn the pages over. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
As long as you promise not to turn over three at a time ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
HMEssex/lookout
Bags I send the appropriate books ;D
As long as they are tasteful and appropriate, Susan dear. There are so many of those boring shades of grey, one can become bored ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D----------------------Spoilsports
-
april tasteful and appropriate I am not ;) ;) ;)
-
april tasteful and appropriate I am not ;) ;) ;)
Nor me, but I wouldn't want to frighten Steve :D :D :D :D :D
-
Nor me, but I wouldn't want to frighten Steve :D :D :D :D :D
Oh I'd listen to him intently. But my actions would creak louder than my words.
-
The caravan park is known as a repository for those Eastenders wishing to escape the smoke and grime of the City and partake of what is known in the vernacular as a "dirty weekend". Of course there will be no such conduct on our visit,which can be termed loosely as a working holiday as I cross the Saxon settlements and traverse the fertile fields,whilst Lookout mounts the ladies' bicycle and braves the salt air as she rides the sea wall, viewing The Stumbles on the horizon whilst periodically checking her stopwatch as she shifts gear.
After the reconnoitre we reconvene at the park to compare notes. The social discourse is halted momentarily whilst I imbibe a green herbal infusion and stick my pencil behind the ears as I meditate on the day's events and Lookout enjoys a tot of the harder stuff as it finally registers with her that Jeremy could indeed have made the malign trip with malice aforethought with all the consequences that journey has brought in its wake..
-
The caravan park is known as a repository for those Eastenders wishing to escape the smoke and grime of the City and partake of what is known in the vernacular as a "dirty weekend". Of course there will be no such conduct on our visit,which can be termed loosely as a working holiday as I cross the Saxon settlements and traverse the fertile fields,whilst Lookout mounts the ladies' bicycle and braves the salt air as she rides the sea wall, viewing The Stumbles on the horizon whilst periodically checking her stopwatch as she shifts gear.
After the reconnoitre we reconvene at the park to compare notes. The social discourse is halted momentarily whilst I imbibe a green herbal infusion and stick my pencil behind the ears as I meditate on the day's events and Lookout enjoys a tot of the harder stuff as it finally registers with her that Jeremy could indeed have made the malign trip with malice aforethought with all the consequences that journey has brought in its wake..
And should either of you become hungry for something more :)there are a couple of very good pubs at Heybridge Basin which serve excellent victuals.
-
The caravan park is known as a repository for those Eastenders wishing to escape the smoke and grime of the City and partake of what is known in the vernacular as a "dirty weekend". Of course there will be no such conduct on our visit,which can be termed loosely as a working holiday as I cross the Saxon settlements and traverse the fertile fields,whilst Lookout mounts the ladies' bicycle and braves the salt air as she rides the sea wall, viewing The Stumbles on the horizon whilst periodically checking her stopwatch as she shifts gear.
After the reconnoitre we reconvene at the park to compare notes. The social discourse is halted momentarily whilst I imbibe a green herbal infusion and stick my pencil behind the ears as I meditate on the day's events and Lookout enjoys a tot of the harder stuff as it finally registers with her that Jeremy could indeed have made the malign trip with malice aforethought with all the consequences that journey has brought in its wake..
You really want me to do that,Steve.? Yes,I'm rather partial to a tot of " oh be joyful ",,,,but there's a method in your madness,isn't there.?
I'll bring my little black book,,,,which is full of names, of----------------------------doctors,consultants,etc etc,,,except for a little patch the size of a postage stamp in which to enter the flimsy evidence which led to Jeremy's incarceration.
I'm sure we'd get on like a house on fire. One thing I must add though, and that is what doesn't hurt----------------------doesn't work.
I couldn't think of a better way of enjoying an Easter weekend,than being saddle-sore.! Because of the working holiday,you understand. How bracing it all sounds.
-
Is something happening on this thread that I don't know about? Awwwwwwwww :o :D :D :D :D
-
And should either of you become hungry for something more :)there are a couple of very good pubs at Heybridge Basin which serve excellent victuals.
Steve didn't mention food,April. Maybe the green liquid that he imbibes is crushed grass.? Hedgerow food,,,as long as it isn't deadly nightshade or anything like that.
-
Is Jeremy highly dangerous to society,thereby warranting Category A status? Would he upon release come after the relatives and attempt to level the score? Or does all he want to do is eat Pot Noodle on a Dorset beach?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_security_categories_in_the_United_Kingdom
-
The caravan park is known as a repository for those Eastenders wishing to escape the smoke and grime of the City and partake of what is known in the vernacular as a "dirty weekend". Of course there will be no such conduct on our visit,which can be termed loosely as a working holiday as I cross the Saxon settlements and traverse the fertile fields,whilst Lookout mounts the ladies' bicycle and braves the salt air as she rides the sea wall, viewing The Stumbles on the horizon whilst periodically checking her stopwatch as she shifts gear.
After the reconnoitre we reconvene at the park to compare notes. The social discourse is halted momentarily whilst I imbibe a green herbal infusion and stick my pencil behind the ears as I meditate on the day's events and Lookout enjoys a tot of the harder stuff as it finally registers with her that Jeremy could indeed have made the malign trip with malice aforethought with all the consequences that journey has brought in its wake..
hear endeth the lesson in the year of our lord 2013
-
Is something happening on this thread that I don't know about? Awwwwwwwww :o :D :D :D :D
Yes,Patti,,,Steve says he's going to show me an educational tour of how " Jeremy got on his bike ",,whilst we stay at Osea caravan Park ( sharing of course ),,,but the catch is,,,I have to ride the bike.! Along the sea wall.
-
Yes,Patti,,,Steve says he's going to show me an educational tour of how " Jeremy got on his bike ",,whilst we stay at Osea caravan Park ( sharing of course ),,,but the catch is,,,I have to ride the bike.! Along the sea wall.
..it takes but ten minutes,and the bicycle becomes muddy..http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
-
..it takes but ten minutes,and the bicycle becomes muddy..http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
have you ridden such a bike ?, i recently bought a dutch style one im no eddy merckx but i can say they are no easy form of transport.
-
..it takes but ten minutes,and the bicycle becomes muddy..http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
If she lands in the creek, it most certainly will :D
-
Is Jeremy highly dangerous to society,thereby warranting Category A status? Would he upon release come after the relatives and attempt to level the score? Or does all he want to do is eat Pot Noodle on a Dorset beach?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_security_categories_in_the_United_Kingdom
the 2nd one seems to have issues here, yet in context tells much
-
If she lands in the creek, it most certainly will :D
"...and you will look sweet, upon the seat, of a bicycle built for two...."
-
I would like to know who rode that bicycle for it to become splattered in brown yellowish mud..
-
I would like to know who rode that bicycle for it to become splattered in brown yellowish mud..
show a image of this bike and we might make a start
-
I would like to know who rode that bicycle for it to become splattered in brown yellowish mud..
The police didn't seem unduly interested in it.
-
The police didn't seem unduly interested in it.
..neither were they interested in the silencer until it was brought to their attention.
-
..neither were they interested in the silencer until it was brought to their attention.
Perhaps, given that Jeremy was a suspect only to the relatives, they suspected its provenance.
-
Patti,
Have you read Charles Dickens account of his travels around Europe?
As a travel writer he is very readable; I prefer his nonfiction to his novels
-
Yes,Patti,,,Steve says he's going to show me an educational tour of how " Jeremy got on his bike ",,whilst we stay at Osea caravan Park ( sharing of course ),,,but the catch is,,,I have to ride the bike.! Along the sea wall.
Haha.....I hope you haven't got to wear flippers and frog suit lookout? I hope Steve takes his camera lolol
:) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi lookout what is worrying me is what are april and Yeltrah going to do whilst you and steve experiment ;D
-
Patti,
Have you read Charles Dickens account of his travels around Europe?
As a travel writer he is very readable; I prefer his nonfiction to his novels
Hi Houghton :)
It has been many years since I read a Dickens Novel....I can't even remember what I have read...I do remember one about a little boy who had lost his parents and was taken to live with his Aunt near the seaside. I think they lives on a cliff top.....I also remember his description of smoke, like a serpentine above the skies.....\he was a great writer and described life as it was then....I haven't read about his travel though. I was not aware that he left England.... :) :) :) :)
-
Hi lookout what is worrying me is what are april and Yeltrah going to do whilst you and steve experiment ;D
Hi Susan :) Are we all going.... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti that would be worth seeing lookout in a wetsuit and flippers ;D is steve going to run behind her ;D
-
No sorry Patti just Yeltrah (he reckons he does not want to go but he is playing hard to get) and april nice number for the size of caravan. Bet the windows get steamed up ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti that would be worth seeing lookout in a wetsuit and flippers ;D is steve going to run behind her ;D
He will never catch Lookout....By heck can she move! lol :) :) :) :)
-
He will never catch Lookout....By heck can she move! lol :) :) :) :)
Who says I'll be running. :P
-
Who says I'll be running. :P
When you become stuck in the brownish yellow mud, lookout, you won't be able to :) :)
-
When you become stuck in the brownish yellow mud, lookout, you won't be able to :) :)
Eeeuuuwww,that bad,April.? I hope our Steve didn't have that in mind. :-[
-
Eeeuuuwww,that bad,April.? I hope our Steve didn't have that in mind. :-[
It was Steve who first mentioned it as splattered on the bike. So perhaps when you find yourself caked in it he can get a closer look at it's composition :D :D :D :D
-
Hi Houghton :)
It has been many years since I read a Dickens Novel....I can't even remember what I have read...I do remember one about a little boy who had lost his parents and was taken to live with his Aunt near the seaside. I think they lives on a cliff top.....I also remember his description of smoke, like a serpentine above the skies.....\he was a great writer and described life as it was then....I haven't read about his travel though. I was not aware that he left England.... :) :) :) :)
That's David Copperfield Patti. Susan can play the part of Dora..
-
It was Steve who first mentioned it as splattered on the bike. So perhaps when you find yourself caked in it he can get a closer look at it's composition :D :D :D :D
..quoting Ann Eaton of course(who else?)
-
That's David Copperfield Patti. Susan can play the part of Dora..
Arh, yeah, that's right, well done Steve. :) :) :) :) :)
Dora the explorer....lol
-
So I've drawn the short straw. :( Muddy bloomers.
-
So I've drawn the short straw. :( Muddy bloomers.
And, all that beautiful long hair wet through down to yer ankles....lol :) :) :) :)
-
And, all that beautiful long hair wet through down to yer ankles....lol :) :) :) :)
Never mind,Patti.I can do my Lady Godiva bit on the bicycle instead of a horse....Then again,Steve might do a runner. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
Never mind,Patti.I can do my Lady Godiva bit on the bicycle instead of a horse....Then again,Steve might do a runner. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Be careful not to let that beautiful long hair get caught in the chain :D :D :D
-
Be careful not to let that beautiful long hair get caught in the chain :D :D :D
What a sight that would be,hahahaha. ;D ;D ;D ;D Upside down,naked,and tangled in the spokes of a bicycle.
-
What a sight that would be,hahahaha. ;D ;D ;D ;D Upside down,naked,and tangled in the spokes of a bicycle.
Not to mention the poor fish.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not to mention the poor fish.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I bet Steve's well put off now. :( :( :( :( :( I wonder if he's gone off me. ::)
-
I bet Steve's well put off now. :( :( :( :( :( I wonder if he's gone off me. ::)
Hope not Lookout, you make a lovely couple....Hope he isn't out with another! :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
he will be mulling further book quotes
-
Hope not Lookout, you make a lovely couple....Hope he isn't out with another! :'( :'( :'( :'(
Aww,Patti that's a nice thing to say. It's the chance one has to take ;) ;) ;) ;)
Do you know what,,,I am thinking that he's got a brilliant sense of humour beneath that serious facade. Also his eccentricity is very becoming too.
-
he will be mulling further book quotes
Might be locked in the library???????? :)
Aww,Patti that's a nice thing to say. It's the chance one has to take ;) ;) ;) ;)
Do you know what,,,I am thinking that he's got a brilliant sense of humour beneath that serious facade. Also his eccentricity is very becoming too.
I'm sure he laughs his socks off sometimes....no one is that serious! :) :) :) :D
-
Might be locked in the library???????? :)
I'm sure he laughs his socks off sometimes....no one is that serious! :) :) :) :D
I don't mind serious though. I'm easily pleased. :) :) :) :)
-
I don't mind serious though. I'm easily pleased. :) :) :) :)
Listen the music I just posted on the music thread...." I never met a girl like you before" :D :D :D :D
-
Listen the music I just posted on the music thread...." I never met a girl like you before" :D :D :D :D
I've just been playing that Patti. I would say that Steve's into chamber music,,,or the refrain from spitting. ;D ;D ;D ;D.
-
I've just been playing that Patti. I would say that Steve's into chamber music,,,or the refrain from spitting. ;D ;D ;D ;D.
There is a song by Shirley Bassey. "For Every Man There's a Woman" but I can't find one...it appears banned... :'( :'( :'(
-
There is a song by Shirley Bassey. "For Every Man There's a Woman" but I can't find one...it appears banned... :'( :'( :'(
Banned.? Goodness me. For every pot there's a lid. ;D
-
Banned.? Goodness me. For every pot there's a lid. ;D
Hahahaha You crack me up! :D :D :D :D
-
Hahahaha You crack me up! :D :D :D :D
I'm an old romantic,Patti. In my own way,,,with comical overtones thrown in for good measure. ;D :P
-
Romeo,Romeo,wherefore art thou Juliet..
Whether Jeremy Bamber was a Romeo or not,and there is evidence that he was a promiscuous man,does not have a direct bearing upon the case,apart from making him feel possibly that he could control Julie after the murders and excite in him a feeling of over-confidence which led to his downfall. One could,of course,discuss the case without Julie's evidence were one to take the view that it was tainted,but in my view her evidence if not the mainstay,was certainly the icing on the cake to the Prosecution.
However one of the many layers in this mysterious case is the role of the biological parents of Jeremy Bamber,who appear to have abandoned him to his fate at twelve weeks in March 1961,then shortly afterwards remarried and had more children of their own. Major Leslie Marsham married Juliet Wheeler,the daughter of a company executive shortly after they gave the illegitimate Jeremy away,and kept in touch with Nevill and June for four years. June told both Jeremy and Sheila early on in her way of expressing things that "they had not grown out of mummy's tummy but had been chosen". Jeremy seems to have accepted this with equanimity;Sheila on the other hand was always the more sensitive of the two and this may have harboured insecurities in her as she grew up,as well as putting her somewhat apart from her adoptive parents in her own mind.
We know from media reports that Jeremy's natural father wants no more contact with his birth son,he accepts the guilty verdict wholeheartedly and believes that his son grew up with the best of chances and has thrown his life away. However there is a deafening silence from the birth mother Juliet,who suckled her son to her breast in those cold Winter months of early 1961,and must have formed some kind of bond with her baby whether unwitting or not. Did she give up her baby willingly or under duress,was Juliet's maternal instinct fulfilled by the rest of her children she sired with her now husband,or does she sometimes cast a wistful eye in the direction of North Yorkshire whenever a news story emerges,does she ever shed a tear about what might have been,or is she so under the power of her husband that she meekly accepts his judgement that the break was made and no further contact can be fostered nor is there nothing to be gained by the birth parents ever seeing their son again?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/He+went+to+lovely+people+who+gave+him+the+best+start+in+life.+He...-a0112751004
-
Hello steve just read your descriptive post and wonder if Jeremy Bamber wanted control of Julie to excite him why did he dump her. May I ask about Jeremy's birth Mother I have read she was the 16 year old daughter of a Vicar possible some part of Scotland. It would not be normal IMO for a Mother not to think of her son from time to time more than a Father actually as Jeremy was part of her and always will be and sometimes she must feel very sad the way his life has turned out. :(
-
Susan/Steve, hello both of you. Susan, you MAY be speaking of Sheila's birth mother. I seem to recall that there were several clerics, including a vicar in Tiptree, in Sheila's family.
Steve you may rest assured that how ever many babies subsequently filled the arms of Jeremy's birth mother, there is always likely to be an aching emptiness and a longing, left by and for, the child she gave up. I wonder, too, how many times since 1985, she has asked "What if.........."
-
Hello steve just read your descriptive post and wonder if Jeremy Bamber wanted control of Julie to excite him why did he dump her. May I ask about Jeremy's birth Mother I have read she was the 16 year old daughter of a Vicar possible some part of Scotland. It would not be normal IMO for a Mother not to think of her son from time to time more than a Father actually as Jeremy was part of her and always will be and sometimes she must feel very sad the way his life has turned out. :(
I agree Susie/April how could a mother not think of her child and hope that child was having a happy life. I wonder what it must be like in the quiet hours of the night for JBs mother. She may not admit it but she must wonder what the truth is....we shouldnt judge her, she may not feel she has a choice. Imo
-
Hello steve just read your descriptive post and wonder if Jeremy Bamber wanted control of Julie to excite him why did he dump her. May I ask about Jeremy's birth Mother I have read she was the 16 year old daughter of a Vicar possible some part of Scotland. It would not be normal IMO for a Mother not to think of her son from time to time more than a Father actually as Jeremy was part of her and always will be and sometimes she must feel very sad the way his life has turned out. :(
Didn't Leslie Marsham give his address as St. Kilda so there's a Scottish connection somewhere. As for Jeremy,I think he thought that he could control good-old-reliable-Julie and told her he had put his life in her hands. He gave her his last pay cheque of £400 which Julie described as "paying her off",but didn't he ask her to stay on at Goldhanger and he also helped move her furniture to a flat in Hither Green,so it wasn't as straightforward as a clean break until Julie's friends more or less forced her hand in going to Police.
-
Didn't Leslie Marsham give his address as St. Kilda so there's a Scottish connection somewhere. As for Jeremy,I think he thought that he could control good-old-reliable-Julie and told her he had put his life in her hands. He gave her his last pay cheque of £400 which Julie described as "paying her off",but didn't he ask her to stay on at Goldhanger and he also helped move her furniture to a flat in Hither Green,so it wasn't as straightforward as a clean break until Julie's friends more or less forced her hand in going to Police.
By golly, that girl certainly had her eye on the main chance whenitr came to finance, didn't she. If we start to tot it up, I wonder just how much money she managed to extract from Jeremy during their time together. She may have described the £400 as a "pay off" but clearly didn't feel insulted enough to turn it down. Wasn't there also several hundred pounds for a holiday, all those weekends away, the outfit for the funeral and let's be honest, she was still raking it in, courtesy of Jeremy, after she's been dumped, via the NOTW.
-
By golly, that girl certainly had her eye on the main chance whenitr came to finance, didn't she. If we start to tot it up, I wonder just how much money she managed to extract from Jeremy during their time together. She may have described the £400 as a "pay off" but clearly didn't feel insulted enough to turn it down. Wasn't there also several hundred pounds for a holiday, all those weekends away, the outfit for the funeral and let's be honest, she was still raking it in, courtesy of Jeremy, after she's been dumped, via the NOTW.
Nice one April!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
By golly, that girl certainly had her eye on the main chance whenitr came to finance, didn't she. If we start to tot it up, I wonder just how much money she managed to extract from Jeremy during their time together. She may have described the £400 as a "pay off" but clearly didn't feel insulted enough to turn it down. Wasn't there also several hundred pounds for a holiday, all those weekends away, the outfit for the funeral and let's be honest, she was still raking it in, courtesy of Jeremy, after she's been dumped, via the NOTW.
Sometimes it offends the giver if cash is turned down. She met Jeremy in November 1983 and started a relationship soon afterwards,turned down the offer of a flat from June and stuck by Jeremy until September 1985 so you can hardly call their relationship a mild fling.
-
Sometimes it offends the giver if cash is turned down. She met Jeremy in November 1983 and started a relationship soon afterwards,turned down the offer of a flat from June and stuck by Jeremy until September 1985 so you can hardly call their relationship a mild fling.
C'mon,Steve,,,she was " in it " to see what she could get out of it. A gold-digger who proved her point when she started to steal,,,she wanted more.
-
C'mon,Steve,,,she was " in it " to see what she could get out of it. A gold-digger who proved her point when she started to steal,,,she wanted more.
She did the cheque fraud to ingratiate herself with Jeremy,she dealt in cannabis at Goldsmiths to increase Jeremy's income and she had misgivings about the Osea Road robbery but again was easy prey for Jeremy.
-
She did the cheque fraud to ingratiate herself with Jeremy,she dealt in cannabis at Goldsmiths to increase Jeremy's income and she had misgivings about the Osea Road robbery but again was easy prey for Jeremy.
6 of one and half a dozen of the other,Steve.
-
She did the cheque fraud to ingratiate herself with Jeremy,she dealt in cannabis at Goldsmiths to increase Jeremy's income and she had misgivings about the Osea Road robbery but again was easy prey for Jeremy.
Steve Unless you know in a more personal capacity I have to say thats twaddle. You argue that the wonderful julie was soooo intelligent ....well if she behaved as you say she did she was a fool amongst other thi.gs
.Far more likely she was a a thief in her own right, She chose what she did you cannot blame jeremy for the rest of the company she kept.
-
She did the cheque fraud to ingratiate herself with Jeremy,she dealt in cannabis at Goldsmiths to increase Jeremy's income and she had misgivings about the Osea Road robbery but again was easy prey for Jeremy.
But nobody threatened to boil her in oil if she didn't. SHE HAD A CHOICE!!!
-
She did the cheque fraud to ingratiate herself with Jeremy,she dealt in cannabis at Goldsmiths to increase Jeremy's income and she had misgivings about the Osea Road robbery but again was easy prey for Jeremy.
No Steve, that's why she SAID she did it!
-
She did the cheque fraud to ingratiate herself with Jeremy,she dealt in cannabis at Goldsmiths to increase Jeremy's income and she had misgivings about the Osea Road robbery but again was easy prey for Jeremy.
Yeayea, Julie blamed Jeremy for the check-fraud SHE herself committed, how classy (and how typical, I might add)! She is something else!!
BTW, Julie cried a lot on the stand at the trial against Jeremy. She didn´t cry when the whole family was killed, she did not cry when she saw the dead bodies at the morgue and she did not cry at the funerals. Apparently not a type person who cries easily, them why on earth was she crying so much on the stand??
-
Yeayea, Julie blamed Jeremy for the check-fraud SHE herself committed, how classy (and how typical, I might add)! She is something else!!
BTW, Julie cried a lot on the stand at the trial against Jeremy. She didn´t cry when the whole family was killed, she did not cry when she saw the dead bodies at the morgue and she did not cry at the funerals. Apparently not a type person who cries easily, them why on earth was she crying so much on the stand??
Brilliant observation, Alias :)
-
Yeayea, Julie blamed Jeremy for the check-fraud SHE herself committed, how classy (and how typical, I might add)! She is something else!!
BTW, Julie cried a lot on the stand at the trial against Jeremy. She didn´t cry when the whole family was killed, she did not cry when she saw the dead bodies at the morgue and she did not cry at the funerals. Apparently not a type person who cries easily, them why on earth was she crying so much on the stand??
I like your way of thinking. So true! It does beg the question to why did she cry one year later at the trial...Was it because she had make a mistake and, had gone to far? :) :) :)
-
Yeayea, Julie blamed Jeremy for the check-fraud SHE herself committed, how classy (and how typical, I might add)! She is something else!!
BTW, Julie cried a lot on the stand at the trial against Jeremy. She didn´t cry when the whole family was killed, she did not cry when she saw the dead bodies at the morgue and she did not cry at the funerals. Apparently not a type person who cries easily, them why on earth was she crying so much on the stand??
Maybe she cries for herself Alias, the one who seems to matter most to her?
-
I like your way of thinking. So true! It does beg the question to why did she cry one year later at the trial...Was it because she had make a mistake and, had gone to far? :) :) :)
In deep do-do's I'd have said. She'd tied herself in knots that she couldn't undo,,,so feared for herself.
-
Thanks.
I think Julie cried to avoid questions she did not want to answer. She made it close to impossible for Jeremy´s defence to get anything out of her. I wish it was on film, would be easier to judge if it seemed fake or genuine.
In any case, it is strange she cried so much.
-
Thanks.
I think Julie cried to avoid questions she did not want to answer. She made it close to impossible for Jeremy´s defence to get anything out of her. I wish it was on film, would be easier to judge if it seemed fake or genuine.
In any case, it is strange she cried so much.
I do agree with youalias but whatever made her able to cry like that must have been about her, she seemed to lack emotion for others imo.
-
She did the cheque fraud to ingratiate herself with Jeremy,she dealt in cannabis at Goldsmiths to increase Jeremy's income and she had misgivings about the Osea Road robbery but again was easy prey for Jeremy.
Now if Hitler said he had misgivings about the Jews would you believe him? Come on Steve you are telling us that someone that you admire. Who went to one of the country's best teaching colleges and who now runs a school was that naive to do everything to get into Bamber's good books. Well I'm sorry mate. But that is one of the most naive statements that I have ever read. ;D
-
I do agree with youalias but whatever made her able to cry like that must have been about her, she seemed to lack emotion for others imo.
Self pity it was Maggie.
-
I do agree with youalias but whatever made her able to cry like that must have been about her, she seemed to lack emotion for others imo.
Wouldn't it be good to know if she managed wet or dry tears :D :D :D
-
Hello april that is sand paper you are thinking of not tears ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti don't think that was the reason for her tears as after the Trial she was all smiles posing for the newspaper and enjoying her short lived celeb status. >:(
-
Hello april that is sand paper you are thinking of not tears ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan, hi :) Could be that wet tears were illicited by thoughts of what sand paper could do, but it's possible to "dry cry" so convincingly that those watching would believe they see tears.
-
Hi steve Jeremy's birth Father did indeed give his address as St. Kilda although by that time the island was uninhabited. I recall reading the army were at sea off St Kilda for whatever reason so he would prefer to use that as his address instead of Buckingham Palace ;D Jeremy gave Julie the cheque towards her holiday in Malta and once the cheque had cleared she sold him down the river >:(
-
Hi lookout nothing like a bit of bonding and sharing in a small caravan over the Easter Break ;D ;D ;) ;)Lucky you :D
lol!! :) :) :)
-
Hello my friend PB I could get you an invite to the caravan with steve april and lookout yeltrah has dropped out and you could bring your bells and leather stuff ;D ;D ;D
-
Had Julie cried at the funerals she would only have been accused of hypocrisy. She did cry at the trial but as far as I'm aware Rivlin had all the time he needed to cross-examine her,and if he didn't ask her the right questions then that was his fault.
-
lol!! :) :) :)
Hey,PB,,,I might have blotted me copy book saying all he wanted me there for was traipsing through mud on a bicycle, up to me bloomers,,, while he calls time with a stop-watch. Here's me thinking he wanted me body. Foiled again. :( :(
-
Hey,PB,,,I might have blotted me copy book saying all he wanted me there for was traipsing through mud on a bicycle, up to me bloomers,,, while he calls time with a stop-watch. Here's me thinking he wanted me body. Foiled again. :( :(
LOL................Am I on the right forum? Lawdy! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi lookout I have saved the day tell steve to get on his own bike because package builder is coming and he is into KINKSTER ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D the caravan will rock ;D
-
Had Julie cried at the funerals she would only have been accused of hypocrisy. She did cry at the trial but as far as I'm aware Rivlin had all the time he needed to cross-examine her,and if he didn't ask her the right questions then that was his fault.
Steve, whilst it is possible to "dry cry" at will, the shedding of tears is something most women have little control over.
-
Hi lookout I have saved the day tell steve to get on his own bike because package builder is coming and he is into KINGSTER ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D the caravan will rock ;D
Steve on his 3 wheeler....Ha! ::) :D :D :D :D
-
I bring my police officer's uniform :) :) :) :) :) and baton & handcuffs
-
Hi lookout I have saved the day tell steve to get on his own bike because package builder is coming and he is into KINGSTER ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D the caravan will rock ;D
What on earth's Kingster,Susan.? My word you are street-wise,you little tinker.
-
Hi lookout I have saved the day tell steve to get on his own bike because package builder is coming and he is into KINGSTER ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D the caravan will rock ;D
Susan dear, methinks you to mean kinKster ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Lookout PB has taught me so much on the forum he will tell you what it is and I believe Patti knows but I can assure you that you will enjoy it. ;D
-
Hi april you are correct you devil you the g should be taken out I think you maybe more streetwise than I. ;D
-
Steve, whilst it is possible to "dry cry" at will, the shedding of tears is something most women have little control over.
From the look of the photos she seems to have needed all her time to prop Jeremy up,not shed crocodile tears,until he passed under the lychgate and afforded a short smirk.
-
I bring my police officer's uniform :) :) :) :) :) and baton & handcuffs
Okay,PB,,but what do you do for an encore.? ;D
-
Hi april you are correct you devil you the g should be taken out I think you maybe more streetwise than I. ;D
Susan dear, it's only because whilst I'm FAIRLY sure I know what kinKsters are about, I haven't a clue what kinGsters do ;D ;D ;D
-
Even to this day anyone can order a magazine to any gun! as a magazine is not a controlled part.
So whats would of stop Jeremy from ordering a few magazines for Nevill's rifle and loading them over time? I sure anyone would of bought extra magazine if the planning such attack?
It goes to show such attack was not planned and Sheila's to blame.
-
Even to this day anyone can order a magazine to any gun! as a magazine is not a controlled part.
So whats would of stop Jeremy from ordering a few magazines for Nevill's rifle and loading them over time? I sure anyone would of bought extra magazine if the planning such attack?
It goes to show such attack was not planned and Sheila's to blame.
Oh yes,,it wasn't planned that's for sure. I actually know a woman like Sheila,,but fortunately there are no guns around,,,but in all honesty,it's exactly the same pattern. Unpredictable.!!!
-
april you will have to go to the caravan with packagebuilder and find out and be sure to tell me if you enjoyed it. ;D
-
Even to this day anyone can order a magazine to any gun! as a magazine is not a controlled part.
So whats would of stop Jeremy from ordering a few magazines for Nevill's rifle and loading them over time? I sure anyone would of bought extra magazine if the planning such attack?
It goes to show such attack was not planned and Sheila's to blame.
It had to look like a spur of the moment attack,hence Jeremy leaving the loaded rifle out on the settle for Sheila to pick up. It's indicative once again of Jeremy over-egging the pudding with his suggestion that June had decided to take the twins off Sheila and that they were to be fostered,that his sister was "on the hard stuff" as told to Ann Eaton whilst Jeremy's pupils were still heavily dilated,and that Sheila would have to use the NHS next time she was ill. June would not have let this happen as Jeremy himself had a package which included private health insurance and whatever one might think of June's religious mania she did try to even things out among the children as much as possible.
-
It had to look like a spur of the moment attack,hence Jeremy leaving the loaded rifle out on the settle for Sheila to pick up. It's indicative once again of Jeremy over-egging the pudding with his suggestion that June had decided to take the twins off Sheila and that they were to be fostered,that his sister was "on the hard stuff" as told to Ann Eaton whilst Jeremy's pupils were still heavily dilated,and that Sheila would have to use the NHS next time she was ill. June would not have let this happen as Jeremy himself had a package which included private health insurance and whatever one might think of June's religious mania she did try to even things out among the children as much as possible.
And you have concrete evidence of all of this, do you?
-
And you have concrete evidence of all of this, do you?
I keep telling you all:we're dealing with the balance of probabilities and you have to ask yourself why Jeremy delayed entry into the farm by driving as slowly as possible and then putting it into the minds of Police that they were dealing with a nutter who had recently indulged in target practice. It's all there I'm afraid.
-
It had to look like a spur of the moment attack,hence Jeremy leaving the loaded rifle out on the settle for Sheila to pick up. It's indicative once again of Jeremy over-egging the pudding with his suggestion that June had decided to take the twins off Sheila and that they were to be fostered,that his sister was "on the hard stuff" as told to Ann Eaton whilst Jeremy's pupils were still heavily dilated,and that Sheila would have to use the NHS next time she was ill. June would not have let this happen as Jeremy himself had a package which included private health insurance and whatever one might think of June's religious mania she did try to even things out among the children as much as possible.
Have to say steve you managed to pack almost all Jeremy's sins into this one post ;D
-
I keep telling you all:we're dealing with the balance of probabilities and you have to ask yourself why Jeremy delayed entry into the farm by driving as slowly as possible and then putting it into the minds of Police that they were dealing with a nutter who had recently indulged in target practice. It's all there I'm afraid.
Steve,,Jeremy was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. How would it have looked if Jeremy had driven like a bat out of Hell.? The officers would have then thought he was " too eager ",,so he drove slowly,,probably out of sheer spite because they'd refused him a lift with them.
-
I keep telling you all:we're dealing with the balance of probabilities and you have to ask yourself why Jeremy delayed entry into the farm by driving as slowly as possible and then putting it into the minds of Police that they were dealing with a nutter who had recently indulged in target practice. It's all there I'm afraid.
And yet you refuse to accept a balance of probabitities surrounding anything to do with JM. She had no choice. She was talked into it. Jeremy made her do it. It was all for Jeremy. The paper made her flash her thighs.
-
Steve,,Jeremy was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. How would it have looked if Jeremy had driven like a bat out of Hell.? The officers would have then thought he was " too eager ",,so he drove slowly,,probably out of sheer spite because they'd refused him a lift with them.
Maybe the cocaine was beginning to wear off and Jeremy had to confront the awfulness of his actions. Or maybe Julie was right at Blazers' restaurant Blackheath and Jeremy told her he felt nothing for the deaths. He was jealous of the twins which Sheila brought out to the tractor(and hence the "no comment" to Police on this piece of evidence)because his children had not been born when Suzette Ford had a series of miscarriages. Jeremy was going to even it out. In any case Jeremy had to be in control:it's why he stuck with Julie for so long and why he despised his parents so much as he began to understand that those who paid the piper called the tune.
-
I keep telling you all:we're dealing with the balance of probabilities and you have to ask yourself why Jeremy delayed entry into the farm by driving as slowly as possible and then putting it into the minds of Police that they were dealing with a nutter who had recently indulged in target practice. It's all there I'm afraid.
I have seen this slow driving used against Jeremy many times. I have to admit, I don´t quite get how that incriminates him???
-
Maybe the cocaine was beginning to wear off and Jeremy had to confront the awfulness of his actions. Or maybe Julie was right at Blazers' restaurant Blackheath and Jeremy told her he felt nothing for the deaths. He was jealous of the twins which Sheila brought out to the tractor(and hence the "no comment" to Police on this piece of evidence)because his children had not been born when Suzette Ford had a series of miscarriages. Jeremy was going to even it out. In any case Jeremy had to be in control:it's why he stuck with Julie for so long and why he despised his parents so much as he began to understand that those who paid the piper called the tune.
You make a lot of things up,, don´t you? Never heard this one before: Jeremy jealous of Sheila for having the twins, while he had no children!
-
You make a lot of things up,, don´t you? Never heard this one before: Jeremy jealous of Sheila for having the twins, while he had no children!
They were the new generation,they were in June's will and Jeremy was a stranger to them. He realized they had to be disposed of and he steeled himself for the task in hand by attempting to strangle rats. In the event he probably shot them in the dark then refused to identify the bodies. The last picture he had in his mind would be the twins inside the tractor under the canopy.
-
Maybe the cocaine was beginning to wear off and Jeremy had to confront the awfulness of his actions. Or maybe Julie was right at Blazers' restaurant Blackheath and Jeremy told her he felt nothing for the deaths. He was jealous of the twins which Sheila brought out to the tractor(and hence the "no comment" to Police on this piece of evidence)because his children had not been born when Suzette Ford had a series of miscarriages. Jeremy was going to even it out. In any case Jeremy had to be in control:it's why he stuck with Julie for so long and why he despised his parents so much as he began to understand that those who paid the piper called the tune.
I wouldn't take anything that JM said,as authentic at all. She was a gossip-monger who knew she'd gone too far with that mouth of hers. A loose tongue in a loose woman.Recipe for danger and that's what JB was. She wasn't in love with Jeremy.She was watching his every movement,,listening to his sometimes silly talk which she knew was at the time,,but elaborated latterly in court. Circumstantial evidence shouldn't incarcerate a man for 27 years,,,but she was the actress and she made it happen. Shame on her.
-
Maybe the cocaine was beginning to wear off and Jeremy had to confront the awfulness of his actions. Or maybe Julie was right at Blazers' restaurant Blackheath and Jeremy told her he felt nothing for the deaths. He was jealous of the twins which Sheila brought out to the tractor(and hence the "no comment" to Police on this piece of evidence)because his children had not been born when Suzette Ford had a series of miscarriages. Jeremy was going to even it out. In any case Jeremy had to be in control:it's why he stuck with Julie for so long and why he despised his parents so much as he began to understand that those who paid the piper called the tune.
That piece of ordure doesn't even come close to a balance of probabilities.
-
You make a lot of things up,, don´t you? Never heard this one before: Jeremy jealous of Sheila for having the twins, while he had no children!
Actually Alias we haven't seen that one before tonight either, I don't think but that's our steve....he's full of novel ideas ;D ;D
-
I have seen this slow driving used against Jeremy many times. I have to admit, I don´t quite get how that incriminates him???
He's composing himself before the encounter with Police.
-
They were the new generation,they were in June's will and Jeremy was a stranger to them. He realized they had to be disposed of and he steeled himself for the task in hand by attempting to strangle rats. In the event he probably shot them in the dark then refused to identify the bodies. The last picture he had in his mind would be the twins inside the tractor under the canopy.
Guff!!
-
They were the new generation,they were in June's will and Jeremy was a stranger to them. He realized they had to be disposed of and he steeled himself for the task in hand by attempting to strangle rats. In the event he probably shot them in the dark then refused to identify the bodies. The last picture he had in his mind would be the twins inside the tractor under the canopy.
This, too, cannot be considered to be a balance of probabilities.
-
He's composing himself before the encounter with Police.
It could also be that he was composing himself with a possible family tragedy. Or he was simply afraid and wanted the protection being there with police provided.
It could just as well be that.
-
I wouldn't take anything that JM said,as authentic at all. She was a gossip-monger who knew she'd gone too far with that mouth of hers. A loose tongue in a loose woman.Recipe for danger and that's what JB was. She wasn't in love with Jeremy.She was watching his every movement,,listening to his sometimes silly talk which she knew was at the time,,but elaborated latterly in court. Circumstantial evidence shouldn't incarcerate a man for 27 years,,,but she was the actress and she made it happen. Shame on her.
Why was there a ladies' bicycle at Goldhanger on Saturday 3 August when Julie was returning to London on the Sunday night? Jeremy is using her as a cover,and the telephone calls on Tuesday night through Wednesday morning are a crude design to rope Julie in as an accessory. Had Julie wanted to convince Police give her more credence as to make up a sum of £2000 as payment for the murders. This so obviously to my mind emanated from Jeremy's mouth.
-
Why was there a ladies' bicycle at Goldhanger on Saturday 3 August when Julie was returning to London on the Sunday night? Jeremy is using her as a cover,and the telephone calls on Tuesday night through Wednesday morning are a crude design to rope Julie in as an accessory. Had Julie wanted to convince Police give her more credence as to make up a sum of £2000 as payment for the murders. This so obviously to my mind emanated from Jeremy's mouth.
Julie asked for the bike, it is in her statement :-\ ;) :) :) :)
-
Why was there a ladies' bicycle at Goldhanger on Saturday 3 August when Julie was returning to London on the Sunday night? Jeremy is using her as a cover,and the telephone calls on Tuesday night through Wednesday morning are a crude design to rope Julie in as an accessory. Had Julie wanted to convince Police give her more credence as to make up a sum of £2000 as payment for the murders. This so obviously to my mind emanated from Jeremy's mouth.
The expression "roping her in" really doesn't hold water, because according to you, JM was already well and truly "in", even to the point of obtaining sleeping pills for him to drug his family with, therefore, because she CHOSE not to opt out, she was a willing party to whatever she said was going on, which given the high regard she appeared to place on things financial, is hardly surprising
-
Steve,,Jeremy was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. How would it have looked if Jeremy had driven like a bat out of Hell.? The officers would have then thought he was " too eager ",,so he drove slowly,,probably out of sheer spite because they'd refused him a lift with them.
Of course the logical reason for him driving slowly was to let the police pass him. I always drive slow when I see a blue light in my rear view mirror. The police obviously had to make him look as guilty as hell so at the debriefing they were instructed to do this obviously. It's all there I'm afraid.
-
It could also be that he was composing himself with a possible family tragedy. Or he was simply afraid and wanted the protection being there with police provided.
It could just as well be that.
It couldb e that Alias. Last summer I had a call about 1am from a very close family member, the police had been called and I needed to go. Now what would you think you'd do...jump in the car and drive the 5 miles down empty country lanes like a mad thing. I would have thought so but no I drove slowly within the speed limit, intent on getting there safely but also not wanting to get there, So I understand why he may have behaved like that. Your mind takes over....fear I suppose.
-
Why was there a ladies' bicycle at Goldhanger on Saturday 3 August when Julie was returning to London on the Sunday night? Jeremy is using her as a cover,and the telephone calls on Tuesday night through Wednesday morning are a crude design to rope Julie in as an accessory. Had Julie wanted to convince Police give her more credence as to make up a sum of £2000 as payment for the murders. This so obviously to my mind emanated from Jeremy's mouth.
You really must make up your mind whether you believe Jeremy did it or a third person did it. If a third person did it for Jeremy why then would he have had a shower and wear too many clothes?
-
It's in Julie's diary here,with that telling remark from Jeremy:"the trick is to tell the truth as much as possible"..http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
-
The expression "roping her in" really doesn't hold water, because according to you, JM was already well and truly "in", even to the point of obtaining sleeping pills for him to drug his family with, therefore, because she CHOSE not to opt out, she was a willing party to whatever she said was going on, which given the high regard she appeared to place on things financial, is hardly surprising
I can understand that people think that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for the murders. What I cannot understand is the glorification of Julie Mugford. According to her, she did get those sleeping pills for Jeremy to KILL his family + she was a thief (along with Jeremy) and a fraudster (on her own with a girlfriend). How can she be regarded as a nice person??
Is it because you HAVE to think she is, because most of the case hinged on her testimony?
-
You really must make up your mind whether you believe Jeremy did it or a third person did it. If a third person did it for Jeremy why then would he have had a shower and wear too many clothes?
Lugg I really think Steve is kidding, surely he's sitting at home laughing his head off at us all trying to answer his posts. ::) ::) ;D?
-
It's in Julie's diary here,with that telling remark from Jeremy:"the trick is to tell the truth as much as possible"..http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
Good grief Steve you aren't getting your information from that forum are you? No wonder you're all over the place with the facts. ::)
-
You really must make up your mind whether you believe Jeremy did it or a third person did it. If a third person did it for Jeremy why then would he have had a shower and wear too many clothes?
The point is Lugg that if Julie has been backed into a corner as the Defence suggests and is prepared to proffer a tissue of lies in a quid pro quo for the Osea Road and cheque fraud to be dropped then she is not going to risk making up stories of a £2000 sum for five deaths, giving a name as to the murderer or Jeremy practising on rats to steel himself for the task in hand. She also mentions that Jeremy told her a glove came off in the struggle with Nevill which was not released to the Press,and is one explanation for the few fingerprints found on the murder weapon.
-
Good grief Steve you aren't getting your information from that forum are you? No wonder you're all over the place with the facts. ::)
I would read the diary entries first if I were you.
-
It's in Julie's diary here,with that telling remark from Jeremy:"the trick is to tell the truth as much as possible"..http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
Whilst I wouldn't dispute those words being in her diary, whose word were they?
-
It's in Julie's diary here,with that telling remark from Jeremy:"the trick is to tell the truth as much as possible"..http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
I wouldn't believe anything Mugford spouts!
-
I can understand that people think that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for the murders. What I cannot understand is the glorification of Julie Mugford. According to her, she did get those sleeping pills for Jeremy to KILL his family + she was a thief (along with Jeremy) and a fraudster (on her own with a girlfriend). How can she be regarded as a nice person??
Is it because you HAVE to think she is, because most of the case hinged on her testimony?
No she got the sleeping pills because of the stress of teaching in Inner London in the 1980s and took them to Goldhanger which was her second home for much of the time. It's evident to me that even at this embryonic stage Jeremy was attempting to rope Julie in as an accessory and thereby ensure her silence.
Most of the case did not hinge on Julie's testimony,but it was certainly the most dramatic in the courtroom as her story bore the hallmarks of the human tragedy it was. To my mind the non-existent telephone call from Nevill was Jeremy's downfall,though of course difficult if not impossible to prove as Jeremy knew full well.
-
I would read the diary entries first if I were you.
I tried to find the diaries. But found myself wading through a big pile of s**t to get to them.
-
She got pills because she was doing exams at college....nothing to do with teaching. Anyway she was dismissed in the end! Sad to say. :) :) :) :) :(
-
Whilst I wouldn't dispute those words being in her diary, whose word were they?
"The trick is to tell the truth as much as possible" are Jeremy's words april1,uttered to Julie in all seriousness in one of their few times alone after the murders as they walk around the block of Julie's parents house. They could well be the subject of a new thread in themselves,but give an indication as to how Jeremy's mind is working after the crimes as he attempts to keep one step ahead of Police. Of course we know this is exactly what he did manage to do as he had the lead man in the investigation fooled,DCI Taff Jones,and this must have given him succour especially after his lame questioning of Jeremy on Sunday 9 September.
-
No she got the sleeping pills because of the stress of teaching in Inner London in the 1980s and took them to Goldhanger which was her second home for much of the time. It's evident to me that even at this embryonic stage Jeremy was attempting to rope Julie in as an accessory and thereby ensure her silence.
Most of the case did not hinge on Julie's testimony,but it was certainly the most dramatic in the courtroom as her story bore the hallmarks of the human tragedy it was. To my mind the non-existent telephone call from Nevill was Jeremy's downfall,though of course difficult if not impossible to prove as Jeremy knew full well.
She gave Jeremy permission to use the pills on his family. To KILL them. She is soooo nice!
-
It's in Julie's diary here,with that telling remark from Jeremy:"the trick is to tell the truth as much as possible"..http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
What utter rubbish! That was so obviously written LONG after the fact. Hook, line and sinker springs to mind!!
-
No she got the sleeping pills because of the stress of teaching in Inner London in the 1980s and took them the Goldhanger which was her second home for much of the time. It's evident to me that even at this embryonic stage Jeremy was attempting to rope Julie in as an accessory and thereby ensure her silence.
Most of the case did not hinge on Julie's testimony,but it was certainly the most dramatic in the courtroom as her story bore the hallmarks of the human tragedy it was. To my mind the non-existent telephone call from Nevill was Jeremy's downfall,though of course difficult if not impossible to prove as Jeremy knew full well.
According to what you have previously told us Steve, she said Jeremy asked her to get them for him and I feel perfectly certain that of the two of them it was she who was more likely to be obsessed with lack of money, because it had never been as available to her as it had to Jeremy, who probably took having money for granted. Now if you had said that JM encouraged him to get more for her own benefit, because it's beginning to look like she was going through his fairly quickly, I'd feel more inclined to believe you. I believe she also accepted money for giving statements to the police. How very public spirited of her.
-
"The trick is to tell the truth as much as possible" are Jeremy's words april1,uttered to Julie in all seriousness in one of their few times alone after the murders as they walk around the block of Julie's parents house. They could well be the subject of a new thread in themselves,but give an indication as to how Jeremy's mind is working after the crimes as he attempts to keep one step ahead of Police. Of course we know this is exactly what he did manage to do as he had the lead man in the investigation fooled,DCI Taff Jones,and this must have given him succour especially after his lame questioning of Jeremy on Sunday 9 September.
Steve, unless you were there at the time, the best you can say is that JM said he said those words.
-
She got pills because she was doing exams at college....nothing to do with teaching. Anyway she was dismissed in the end! Sad to say. :) :) :) :) :(
Part of training to be a teacher is attending college,being placed in a school with a part-timetable but planning lessons with self-criticism whilst attempting to juggle the academic demands of both places. It's an impossible job at the best of times and no wonder Julie went to the doctor to ask for something to help her get a decent night's sleep of an evening. She probably ended up with some placebo or other which was far too mild to give her the good night's sleep she required or to put Nevill to sleep after he had drunk his gin and tonic.
Julie was not dismissed patti as you allege but she was moved to another school in the authority after the case which as we all know on this forum attracted considerable notoriety at the time and is still doing to this day.Julie taught for a further two years before meeting her future husband on a round the world trip,went back to Canada with him and still managed to juggle career and family in a way which I personally have never been skillful enough to achieve.
-
It's easy to write into a blank diary after the event.With help of course. Any fool can do that.
I don't believe a damn word of it.
-
Part of training to be a teacher is attending college,being placed in a school with a part-timetable but planning lessons with self-criticism whilst attempting to juggle the academic demands of both places. It's an impossible job at the best of times and no wonder Julie went to the doctor to ask for something to help her get a decent night's sleep of an evening. She probably ended up with some placebo or other which was far too mild to give her the good night's sleep she required or to put Nevill to sleep after he had drunk his gin and tonic.
Julie was not dismissed patti as you allege but she was moved to another school in the authority after the case which as we all know on this forum attracted considerable notoriety at the time and is still doing to this day.Julie taught for a further two years before meeting her future husband on a round the world trip,went back to Canada with him and still managed to juggle career and family in a way which I personally have never been skillful enough to achieve.
Not to mention tripping the light fantastic with Jeremy at the weekends. ;)
She was dismissed Steve. They told her that they could not keep her due to her involvement in the Bamber murders. She was given her pay and left. Se told her solicitor all of this it is documented. :) :) :) :)
-
Part of training to be a teacher is attending college,being placed in a school with a part-timetable but planning lessons with self-criticism whilst attempting to juggle the academic demands of both places. It's an impossible job at the best of times and no wonder Julie went to the doctor to ask for something to help her get a decent night's sleep of an evening. She probably ended up with some placebo or other which was far too mild to give her the good night's sleep she required or to put Nevill to sleep after he had drunk his gin and tonic.
Julie was not dismissed patti as you allege but she was moved to another school in the authority after the case which as we all know on this forum attracted considerable notoriety at the time and is still doing to this day.Julie taught for a further two years before meeting her future husband on a round the world trip,went back to Canada with him and still managed to juggle career and family in a way which I personally have never been skillful enough to achieve.
So she decided it was a good idea to appear in News of the World in sexy poses and heavy makeup....
-
Part of training to be a teacher is attending college,being placed in a school with a part-timetable but planning lessons with self-criticism whilst attempting to juggle the academic demands of both places. It's an impossible job at the best of times and no wonder Julie went to the doctor to ask for something to help her get a decent night's sleep of an evening. She probably ended up with some placebo or other which was far too mild to give her the good night's sleep she required or to put Nevill to sleep after he had drunk his gin and tonic.
Julie was not dismissed patti as you allege but she was moved to another school in the authority after the case which as we all know on this forum attracted considerable notoriety at the time and is still doing to this day.Julie taught for a further two years before meeting her future husband on a round the world trip,went back to Canada with him and still managed to juggle career and family in a way which I personally have never been skillful enough to achieve.
And yet hundreds of people manage to get through the course 'without' sleeping pills!! After being told he was thinking of using sleeping pills to knock out the family, why would she then bring sleeping pills to JB's house? Or did she get the idea about him using the pills AFTER SHE introduced them into the equation??
You seem to have Julie on a pedestal for some reason which to me, is totally unfathomable as she would never receive anything other than my utter contempt!
-
So she decided it was a good idea to appear in News of the World in sexy poses and heavy makeup....
And get 25K for it....What a scoop! ;) :) :) :)
-
And get 25K for it....What a scoop! ;) :) :) :)
:) :) :)
-
And get 25K for it....What a scoop! ;) :) :) :)
Well Patti, she had to take the money! It would have been rude not to ;D ;D ;D ;D. And remember she HAD to have pictures taken - it said so in the contract!! You know, that contract that suddenly went missing?? I wonder if they told her that the pictures would have to be provocative? Perhaps not eh? I mean you can see just how uncomfortable she is - can't you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Part of training to be a teacher is attending college,being placed in a school with a part-timetable but planning lessons with self-criticism whilst attempting to juggle the academic demands of both places. It's an impossible job at the best of times and no wonder Julie went to the doctor to ask for something to help her get a decent night's sleep of an evening. She probably ended up with some placebo or other which was far too mild to give her the good night's sleep she required or to put Nevill to sleep after he had drunk his gin and tonic.
Julie was not dismissed patti as you allege but she was moved to another school in the authority after the case which as we all know on this forum attracted considerable notoriety at the time and is still doing to this day.Julie taught for a further two years before meeting her future husband on a round the world trip,went back to Canada with him and still managed to juggle career and family in a way which I personally have never been skillful enough to achieve.
Steve, the reasons she puts forward for obtaining the pills really aren't relevant. What is relevant is that she was fully prepared to hand them over for the express purpose of drugging a family to make killing them easier.
I feel certain that the authorities here really didn't know what to do with her. It would hardly be seemly to employ a woman who appeared to be a partner in crime to murder and then had the audacity to flash her thigh in the NOTW. Not that I imagine it mattered too much to her. With her ill gotten gains she could well afford to take a trip which may have been part of the package any way.
I am truly saddened that thus far you haven't believed yourself skillful enough to juggle career and family. I can't help but feel you to be more deserving than JM, but for now I wish you a fond good night and wish you sweet dreams.
-
It's easy to write into a blank diary after the event.With help of course. Any fool can do that.
I don't believe a damn word of it.
Ha, ha Lookout, the diary is basically her statement broken up!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
After the emotional rollercoaster Jeremy put Julie through for well over a year I don't begrudge her a penny. There's a procedure to go through to dismiss teachers which at the time was convoluted,and had Julie not been up to scratch and the victim of the notoriety which the Jeremy Bamber case brought in its wake she would not have been offered a position within the same authority,where she taught for a further two years.
-
Seriously, what a sick, nasty thing to do. Pose suggestively as the girlfriend of a mass killer. Those brutally slain people - and then Julie as practically a centerfold in the wake of that, making money of it. And before anyone says anything, I know that Jeremy wanted to take money for an exclusive story as well. What greed in both of them. And no shame.
Gives me the creeps!
-
Well Patti, she had to take the money! It would have been rude not to ;D ;D ;D ;D. And remember she HAD to have pictures taken - it said so in the contract!! You know, that contract that suddenly went missing?? I wonder if they told her that the pictures would have to be provocative? Perhaps not eh? I mean you can see just how uncomfortable she is - can't you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I wonder how she really felt when when Stan the man telephoned her at her hotel to tell her the verdict? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Do you think she was force into taking those pictures? ;) :) :) :) :)
At least she wasn't crying eh? :o :D :D :D :D
-
I wonder how she really felt when when Stan the man telephoned her at her hotel to tell her the verdict? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Do you think she was force into taking those pictures? ;) :) :) :) :)
At least she wasn't crying eh? :o :D :D :D :D
Hehehe
-
After the emotional rollercoaster Jeremy put Julie through for well over a year I don't begrudge her a penny. There's a procedure to go through to dismiss teachers which at the time was convoluted,and had Julie not been up to scratch and the victim of the notoriety which the Jeremy Bamber case brought in its wake she would not have been offered a position within the same authority,where she taught for a further two years.
She doesn't claim notoriety now though, no one does.
Hello Steve by the way ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Steve, the reasons she puts forward for obtaining the pills really aren't relevant. What is relevant is that she was fully prepared to hand them over for the express purpose of drugging a family to make killing them easier.
I feel certain that the authorities here really didn't know what to do with her. It would hardly be seemly to employ a woman who appeared to be a partner in crime to murder and then had the audacity to flash her thigh in the NOTW. Not that I imagine it mattered too much to her. With her ill gotten gains she could well afford to take a trip which may have been part of the package any way.
I am truly saddened that thus far you haven't believed yourself skillful enough to juggle career and family. I can't help but feel you to be more deserving than JM, but for now I wish you a fond good night and wish you sweet dreams.
With the advent of mass unemployment and the breakdown of society including the abolition of corporal punishment in schools teaching was made even tougher a job than it had already been heretofore. As for Julie and her sleeping pills there is no evidence that she connived in planning to drug Jeremy's parents and it was natural for her to take them to Goldhanger during the holidays if her sleeping pattern was still being disrupted.
-
Hehehe
Larfing all the way to bank.....My manners are awful tonight..... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
With the advent of mass unemployment and the breakdown of society including the abolition of corporal punishment in schools teaching was made even tougher a job than it had already been heretofore. As for Julie and her sleeping pills there is no evidence that she connived in planning to drug Jeremy's parents and it was natural for her to take them to Goldhanger during the holidays if her sleeping pattern was still being disrupted.
She was only 22 and cool as a cucumber. I think she could sleep well enough!
-
Larfing all the way to bank.....My manners are awful tonight..... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Keep it up!
-
I wonder how she really felt when when Stan the man telephoned her at her hotel to tell her the verdict? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Do you think she was force into taking those pictures? ;) :) :) :) :)
At least she wasn't crying eh? :o :D :D :D :D
She would have been over the moon! 1. JB was going to prison so her curse of 'if I can't have him no one will' came good and 2. She was quids in!! I don't think she was forced Patti, I think she saw a new career for herself ;).
-
Ah! She took one pill, finds they were too big to take. Then! A week later, she takes the said pills to Jeremy's...Why? She say she wanted to show them to him....Why? Who is plotting what here? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Ah! She took one pill, finds they were too big to take. Then! A week later, she takes the said pills to Jeremy's...Why? She say she wanted to show them to him....Why? Who is plotting what here? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Because Jeremy was a pushover when it came to being framed. He was a patsy.
-
Ah! She took one pill, finds they were too big to take. Then! A week later, she takes the said pills to Jeremy's...Why? She say she wanted to show them to him....Why? Who is plotting what here? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
I smell a rat (non-strangled).
-
She would have been over the moon! 1. JB was going to prison so her curse of 'if I can't have him no one will' came good and 2. She was quids in!! I don't think she was forced Patti, I think she saw a new career for herself ;).
What the Jeremy supporters don't like to be reminded of is Anji Greaves arranging a £50,000 deal with a similar newspaper waiting in a top London hotel suite with a 15 foot banner reading "Faith,love,truth,freedom. Welcome home Jeremy".
Of course as soon as Anji realized that Jeremy wasn't going to inherit she reverted to type and dumped him.
-
It gives me headache.... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
I smell a rat (non-strangled).
LOL................ :) :) :) :)
-
What the Jeremy supporters don't like to be reminded of is Anji Greaves arranging a £50,000 deal with a similar newspaper waiting in a top London hotel suite with a 15 foot banner reading "Faith,love,truth,freedom. Welcome home Jeremy".
Of course as soon as Anji realized that Jeremy wasn't going to inherit she reverted to type and dumped him.
I just mentioned it.
-
She would have been over the moon! 1. JB was going to prison so her curse of 'if I can't have him no one will' came good and 2. She was quids in!! I don't think she was forced Patti, I think she saw a new career for herself ;).
So said the pillow that she placed over his face :D....Not to mention the bar of soap she chucked at him in Tesco's lol :o
She was deffo forced...forced in the check fraud, the theft at Osea and the page glamour model... 8) 8) 8) ;) ;)
-
So said the pillow that she placed over his face :D....Not to mention the bar of soap she chucked at him in Tesco's lol :o
She was deffo forced...forced in the check fraud, the theft at Osea and the page glamour model... 8) 8) 8) ;) ;)
You only know of this story because Julie disclosed it. To my mind it's an indication that her statement as a whole is truthful.
-
You only know of this story because Julie disclosed it. To my mind it's an indication that her statement as a whole is truthful.
All 32 of them Steve.? Scribbled out and rewritten.
-
What is the truth Steve, are you so sure in what you say.
-
What is the truth Steve, are you so sure in what you say.
Smoke and mirrors,Mertol.
-
What is the truth Steve, are you so sure in what you say.
Yes I'm quite content about Julie's statement,which even the Defence at trial had to admit "had the ring of truth about it." I quote it courtesy of Hartley here and thank him in advance.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1647.0
-
What the Jeremy supporters don't like to be reminded of is Anji Greaves arranging a £50,000 deal with a similar newspaper waiting in a top London hotel suite with a 15 foot banner reading "Faith,love,truth,freedom. Welcome home Jeremy".
Of course as soon as Anji realized that Jeremy wasn't going to inherit she reverted to type and dumped him.
But then she didn't 'either' keep a murder plot secret for over a year OR put an innocent man behind bars!!!!
-
If you depress the page a little more,,,you'll see who wrote JM's confession.None other than Stan Jones.!
Corroboration.? You bet.
-
It's typewritten here(it starts on #7):http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.0.html
-
You only know of this story because Julie disclosed it. To my mind it's an indication that her statement as a whole is truthful.
Ha, ha!! She OBVIOUSLY mentioned it because she was concerned if if came from him it would set her in a bad light ::)
-
But then she didn't 'either' keep a murder plot secret for over a year OR put an innocent man behind bars!!!!
Caroline she would soon have found out what the real Jeremy Bamber was like as he dumped her for a younger model at the earliest opportunity..
-
Ha, ha!! She OBVIOUSLY mentioned it because she was concerned if if came from him it would set her in a bad light ::)
Of course Jeremy just has to deny all knowledge doesn't he,as once he starts to attack Julie he incriminates himself by degrees..
-
Caroline she would soon have found out what the real Jeremy Bamber was like as he dumped her for a younger model at the earliest opportunity..
Steve,,,there's no law which forbids you to swap partners. That's a weak excuse and isn't relevant to the case. He was only 24.
-
Steve,,,there's no law which forbids you to swap partners. That's a weak excuse and isn't relevant to the case. He was only 24.
Lookout Julie evidently had something going for her as they met in November 1983 and split in September 1985. I'd be interested in just what Jeremy was looking for.
-
Yes Steve,and it was when he dumped her,that she went straight to Liz Rimmington and declared that Jeremy was evil and psychotic etc etc. Coincidence?
-
Lookout Julie evidently had something going for her as they met in November 1983 and split in September 1985. I'd be interested in just what Jeremy was looking for.
Yep, probably - then she became jealous and possessive!!
-
Lookout Julie evidently had something going for her as they met in November 1983 and split in September 1985. I'd be interested in just what Jeremy was looking for.
Yes,Steve,,she was partial to the smell of money. The biggest attraction I'd have said. When things went sour,,her true colours showed. Is that a genuine person.? It isn't to me.
-
Yes,Steve,,she was partial to the smell of money. The biggest attraction I'd have said. When things went sour,,her true colours showed. Is that a genuine person.? It isn't to me.
Liz Rimington went to Police and told them Julie was withholding information in the Bamber investigation. Julie did not directly contact them. I thought Julie was attracted to Jeremy physically before she found about about his expectations. In any case she dismissed June's offer of a flat for them both on condition they moved out of the village.
-
Lookout Julie evidently had something going for her as they met in November 1983 and split in September 1985. I'd be interested in just what Jeremy was looking for.
Well she had ample time to find out what Jeremy was really like didn't she? Steve my advice is that you listen to the women of this forum. They can see through other women when men are foolishly taken in by them.
-
Well she had ample time to find out what Jeremy was really like didn't she? Steve my advice is that you listen to the women of this forum. They can see through other women when men are foolishly taken in by them.
Well said Lugg! Julie is more blatant than most and I'm sure the other women will agree!!
-
Liz Rimington went to Police and told them Julie was withholding information in the Bamber investigation. Julie did not directly contact them. I thought Julie was attracted to Jeremy physically before she found about about his expectations. In any case she dismissed June's offer of a flat for them both on condition they moved out of the village.
I bet Julie almost shat herself when she found out Liz had gone to the police! Had to think on her feet then didn't she? Obviously she turned down the flat, JB had a house and she couldn't be seen to admit to being a 'gold digger' so soon!
-
Well she had ample time to find out what Jeremy was really like didn't she? Steve my advice is that you listen to the women of this forum. They can see through other women when men are foolishly taken in by them.
Jeremy was a practical joker who had an uncanny knack of making the women he took a fancy to feel special. Why do you think Jimmy Saville and allegedly Stuart Hall and all the rest got away with what they did for so long? I cannot blame a 19 year old girl for not taking her boyfriend seriously that he was going to exterminate five members of his family. In the immediate aftermath Julie had two offences hanging over her as well as wondering whether she would be believed if she went to Police,as the official verdict by DCI Taff Jones (who must ex cathedra have intimidated her somewhat) was four murders and a suicide and who was she,a Northerner and an outsider to gainsay?
-
Caroline she would soon have found out what the real Jeremy Bamber was like as he dumped her for a younger model at the earliest opportunity..
I dont see this as a concern, he could have 10 girlfriends a month as far as im concerned , what happened to the freedom of choice, he was single , no kids , no baggage what is wrong with that.
-
I bet Julie almost shat herself when she found out Liz had gone to the police! Had to think on her feet then didn't she? Obviously she turned down the flat, JB had a house and she couldn't be seen to admit to being a 'gold digger' so soon!
Even June saw through these women and the bad influence they were having on Jeremy.
-
Well said Lugg! Julie is more blatant than most and I'm sure the other women will agree!!
Yes Caroline/Lugg. I think women are more likely to be understanding of a younger women going through the sort of emotional stuff we've all experienced, eventhough this is a bit more extreme. It's interesting that none of us support Julie. We all recognise this is not the behaviour of a stable loving woman.....this is something else.
The problem is, it's really all about Julie, but if he did kill the family it should have been all about saving them, those little boys. It doesn't make sense steve. If Jeremy was talking of killing those little boys who she apparently read bedtime stories to and put to bed how could she ever, ever ignore those threats, it doesn't ring true. It just wouldn't happen unless she was as bad as him and hoping for the money.....that is the only explanation imo
-
I dont see this as a concern, he could have 10 girlfriends a month as far as im concerned , what happened to the freedom of choice, he was single , no kids , no baggage what is wrong with that.
Nothing really mertol,just it's symptomatic of Jeremy Bamber not thinking clearly about future events. I read today somewhere Jeremy contracted a sexual disease due to his promiscuity,which I am sorry about. I'm sorry about his incarceration in Long Sutton where I'm not sure he's getting the rehabilitation he needs. My views are well known on this subject.
What I am not sorry about and which there can be no excuses for is killing five people who were not blood relations,and causing havoc and uncertainty for the remaining relatives as they experience the heat from Jeremy supporters who continue to clamour for Jeremy's release.
-
Even June saw through these women and the bad influence they were having on Jeremy.
I'm not sure any girl in June's mind would have been good enough for Jeremy.
-
Jeremy was a practical joker who had an uncanny knack of making the women he took a fancy to feel special. Why do you think Jimmy Saville and allegedly Stuart Hall and all the rest got away with what they did for so long? I cannot blame a 19 year old girl for not taking her boyfriend seriously that he was going to exterminate five members of his family. In the immediate aftermath Julie had two offences hanging over her as well as wondering whether she would be believed if she went to Police,as the official verdict by DCI Taff Jones (who must ex cathedra have intimidated her somewhat) was four murders and a suicide and who was she,a Northerner and an outsider to gainsay?
I don't get that Steve 'a Northerner', what are you talking about, she was a well educated woman, one would expect her communication skills to be good. We are not all morons north of Watford whatever some say. :o :o :o ::)
-
Jeremy was a practical joker who had an uncanny knack of making the women he took a fancy to feel special. Why do you think Jimmy Saville and allegedly Stuart Hall and all the rest got away with what they did for so long? I cannot blame a 19 year old girl for not taking her boyfriend seriously that he was going to exterminate five members of his family. In the immediate aftermath Julie had two offences hanging over her as well as wondering whether she would be believed if she went to Police,as the official verdict by DCI Taff Jones (who must ex cathedra have intimidated her somewhat) was four murders and a suicide and who was she,a Northerner and an outsider to gainsay?
What the hell has beings Northerner got to do with it!!!!!! AND Predators are charming but not ALL charming people are predators!! Julie got dumped and she couldn't handle it!
-
Yes Caroline/Lugg. I think women are more likely to be understanding of a younger women going through the sort of emotional stuff we've all experienced, eventhough this is a bit more extreme. It's interesting that none of us support Julie. We all recognise this is not the behaviour of a stable loving woman.....this is something else.
The problem is, it's really all about Julie, but if he did kill the family it should have been all about saving them, those little boys. It doesn't make sense steve. If Jeremy was talking of killing those little boys who she apparently read bedtime stories to and put to bed how could she ever, ever ignore those threats, it doesn't ring true. It just wouldn't happen unless she was as bad as him and hoping for the money.....that is the only explanation imo
I think Julie thought this was all in his head,a phase he would grow out of. And he nearly did. The first telephone call to Julie was the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" call,and it very nearly was "never". This is the tragedy of the Jeremy Bamber story,that a man has thrown away his life even if he's released tomorrow he can never get the best years of his life back.
-
I think Julie thought this was all in his head,a phase he would grow out of. And he nearly did. The first telephone call to Julie was the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" call,and it very nearly was "never". This is the tragedy of the Jeremy Bamber story,that a man has thrown away his life even if he's released tomorrow he can never get the best years of his life back.
And so much more of a tragedy if an innocent man lost those years even partly because of a woman scorned!!
-
Nothing really mertol,just it's symptomatic of Jeremy Bamber not thinking clearly about future events. I read today somewhere Jeremy contracted a sexual disease due to his promiscuity,which I am sorry about. I'm sorry about his incarceration in Long Sutton where I'm not sure he's getting the rehabilitation he needs. My views are well known on this subject.
What I am not sorry about and which there can be no excuses for is killing five people who were not blood relations,and causing havoc and uncertainty for the remaining relatives as they experience the heat from Jeremy supporters who continue to clamour for Jeremy's release.
Why is the fact they weren't blood relations of any significance, steve. That' a real insult to a lot of people both parents and children. Would it have been a lesser crime if Sheila and Jeremy had been natural children?
-
I don't get that Steve 'a Northerner', what are you talking about, she was a well educated woman, one would expect her communication skills to be good. We are not all morons north of Watford whatever some say. :o :o :o ::)
She knew her own abilities to be sure and must have realized she was of above average intelligence but I think Julie was trying to "fit in" and "go with the flow" when she moved to Colchester. It was this mentality which led to tragedy as she went along with Jeremy,who admittedly must have seemed a good catch for her. However I can't subscribe to the view that she was out for all she could get and turned a blind eye to Jeremy's criminal intent;I think she was just naive. Her hard work career-wise and for charity in Canada is testament to the real character of Julie.
-
Why is the fact they weren't blood relations of any significance, steve. That' a real insult to a lot of people both parents and children. Would it have been a lesser crime if Sheila and Jeremy had been natural children?
It was easier for Jeremy to rationalize their destruction because they were that much more remote from him. As Liz Rimington said the real motive for the murders was money,but Jeremy fell back on the excuse that he was doing everyone a favour by getting rid of them all.
-
She knew her own abilities to be sure and must have realized she was of above average intelligence but I think Julie was trying to "fit in" and "go with the flow" when she moved to Colchester. It was this mentality which led to tragedy as she went along with Jeremy,who admittedly must have seemed a good catch for her. However I can't subscribe to the view that she was out for all she could get and turned a blind eye to Jeremy's criminal intent;I think she was just naive. Her hard work career-wise and for charity in Canada is testament to the real character of Julie.
Not particularly steve because some psychopaths are pillars of the community all their lives. They enjoy careers in a position of power and control also charity work gives them status, who knows steve........
-
It was easier for Jeremy to rationalize their destruction because they were that much more remote from him. As Liz Rimington said the real motive for the murders was money,but Jeremy fell back on the excuse that he was doing everyone a favour by getting rid of them all.
How do you know they were remote from them or is this about prejudice that an adopted child cannot love the parents who adopted them as their own. Some do and some obviously don't but you really do not know whether Jeremy loved his mum and dad etc..
-
How do you know they were remote from them or is this about prejudice that an adopted child cannot love the parents who adopted them as their own. Some do and some obviously don't but you really do not know whether Jeremy loved his mum and dad etc..
The overwhelming body of evidence is that Jeremy disliked his parents to put it mildly and tolerated them because he would have too much to lose if he made a complete break. The fact that Julie broached this possibility suggests to my mind that she would have been happy to stay with Jeremy minus the money.
Of course that was before the murders.
-
The overwhelming body of evidence is that Jeremy disliked his parents to put it mildly and tolerated them because he would have too much to lose if he made a complete break. The fact that Julie broached this possibility suggests to my mind that she would have been happy to stay with Jeremy minus the money.
Of course that was before the murders.
There is no overwhelming evidence steve. We know Jeremy had trouble with June when she was struggling with her own mental illness and a manic about religion, that doesn't prove anything would imagine that is normal enough behaviour by a late teen early 20s son. Apart from that most of the rest is hearsay and no doubt the usual teenage angst etc. It was Sheila who had huge difficulties and resentment of her mother which seems to have become tragically tangled up with her own mental illness.
-
There is no overwhelming evidence steve. We know Jeremy had trouble with June when she was struggling with her own mental illness and a manic about religion, that doesn't prove anything would imagine that is normal enough behaviour by a late teen early 20s son. Apart from that most of the rest is hearsay and no doubt the usual teenage angst etc. It was Sheila who had huge difficulties and resentment of her mother which seems to have become tragically tangled up with her own mental illness.
There are so many independent witnesses who are not linked to one another and yet when one reads their testimonies it's possible to build up a picture of Jeremy's relations with his parents:
Jeremy to Goldsmiths student James Richards: "I f***ing hate my parents"
Liz Rimington:"It's important to have money whilst you're young"(the subliminal message here is "money is wasted upon my elderly parents as they are too old to enjoy it")
Nevill Bamber:"The shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen.."
June's hospitalization and her demeanour those last few months,constantly in tears as she gave up on any instruction of her children and tried to look on the bright side,just going through the motions of existence as Jeremy and Sheila ignored her..
Robert Boutflour:"Oh no Uncle Bobby,I could easily kill my parents.."
Jeremy to Doris Foakes: "I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila.." Had this comment found its way surreptitiously to June?
Of course Nevill and June liked to keep up appearances which were important in the village. But neither were fools and they were not fooled..
-
You didn't let me down steve....every quote is there just ascexpected but none of them are more than hearsay. There is no evidence either Ralph or June distrusted Jeremy ....none. ;D
-
You didn't let me down steve....every quote is there just ascexpected but none of them are more than hearsay. There is no evidence either Ralph or June distrusted Jeremy ....none. ;D
Nevill told farm secretary Barbara Wilson to find a new hiding place for the safe key. In my opinion this was because Jeremy had been sniffing around reading confidential documents such as the wills. If you can't work out how Nevill's mind was functioning with the comment about the shooting season coming up,combined with his comment "I must never turn my back on that young man" then you are being disingenuous.
-
Nevill told farm secretary Barbara Wilson to find a new hiding place for the safe key. In my opinion this was because Jeremy had been sniffing around reading confidential documents such as the wills. If you can't work out how Nevill's mind was functioning with the comment about the shooting season coming up,combined with his comment "I must never turn my back on that young man" then you are being disingenuous.
Lets leave the reverse psychology aside, not pretend to be mind readers and just stick to facts!!
-
Nevill told farm secretary Barbara Wilson to find a new hiding place for the safe key. In my opinion this was because Jeremy had been sniffing around reading confidential documents such as the wills. If you can't work out how Nevill's mind was functioning with the comment about the shooting season coming up,combined with his comment "I must never turn my back on that young man" then you are being disingenuous.
Steve my dear, you are the very LAST person to suggest us incapable of working out how anothers' mind works.
Reading through last nights threads objectively it struck me that you were in conversation with numerous people who ALL had the same thoughts regarding JM and her motives which to us probably show in more subtle ways than you can translate. Lugg put it beautifully. Women understand women. I would be intrigued to know why you defend this woman at every turn and are willing to manipulate evidence and translate others' thoughts to do so. I would be interested to know what you find in her self oriented personality to like. Do you admire her brand of selfishness under the headings of her being determined and driven. Perhaps you are attracted to those very things about her that Jeremy was attracted to. From every picture I've seen of her she certainly comes across as a powerful woman and many men are turned on by such. I believe she used him, however, there are none as used as those who allow themselves to be.
Finally, the picture you paint of Nevill running down his son who anybody within hearing distance doesn't fit with the man who liked to keep family business private.
-
There are so many independent witnesses who are not linked to one another and yet when one reads their testimonies it's possible to build up a picture of Jeremy's relations with his parents:
Jeremy to Goldsmiths student James Richards: "I f***ing hate my parents"
Liz Rimington:"It's important to have money whilst you're young"(the subliminal message here is "money is wasted upon my elderly parents as they are too old to enjoy it")
Nevill Bamber:"The shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen.."
June's hospitalization and her demeanour those last few months,constantly in tears as she gave up on any instruction of her children and tried to look on the bright side,just going through the motions of existence as Jeremy and Sheila ignored her..
Robert Boutflour:"Oh no Uncle Bobby,I could easily kill my parents.."
Jeremy to Doris Foakes: "I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila.." Had this comment found its way surreptitiously to June?
Of course Nevill and June liked to keep up appearances which were important in the village. But neither were fools and they were not fooled..
So far you've only shown us witnesses who ARE linked to one another. The rest is just your own interpretation that you choose to put upon their words.
-
There are so many independent witnesses who are not linked to one another and yet when one reads their testimonies it's possible to build up a picture of Jeremy's relations with his parents:
Jeremy to Goldsmiths student James Richards: "I f***ing hate my parents"
Liz Rimington:"It's important to have money whilst you're young"(the subliminal message here is "money is wasted upon my elderly parents as they are too old to enjoy it")
Nevill Bamber:"The shooting season is coming up..accidents do happen.."
June's hospitalization and her demeanour those last few months,constantly in tears as she gave up on any instruction of her children and tried to look on the bright side,just going through the motions of existence as Jeremy and Sheila ignored her..
Robert Boutflour:"Oh no Uncle Bobby,I could easily kill my parents.."
Jeremy to Doris Foakes: "I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila.." Had this comment found its way surreptitiously to June?
Of course Nevill and June liked to keep up appearances which were important in the village. But neither were fools and they were not fooled..
I would like to know why you put motivations of evil onto Jeremy's words, albeit they have been taken out of context, yet you dismiss, as being said in the heat of the moment, JM's words, "If I can't have you, nobody else will" when there is living proof that she carried out that threat.
-
Steve,,I can only come to the conclusion that you have something " personal " against Jeremy as a person,,because of your vitriolic posts.
-
Steve,,I can only come to the conclusion that you have something " personal " against Jeremy as a person,,because of your vitriolic posts.
Well, if Steve thinks Jeremy is the killer, I don´t think his posts are particularly vitriolic, natural not to like him if you are convinced of that.
I don´t understand the JM glorification though, and Steve, you speculate a lot...
-
Steve,,I can only come to the conclusion that you have something " personal " against Jeremy as a person,,because of your vitriolic posts.
OR lookout he's laughing his head off at us all taking him seriously!!!!! ????
-
I don't get that Steve 'a Northerner', what are you talking about, she was a well educated woman, one would expect her communication skills to be good. We are not all morons north of Watford whatever some say. :o :o :o ::)
No Maggie the 'real' morons are to be found in Wurzel country. A place full of cider guzzling numpties, morris dancers and oddities like Pam Ayers. All set against a backdrop of vote 'Lib Dem' boards and trains of caravans. A hell hole if ever there was one. And to think as a child my parents took me there on holiday. B******s. Is it any wonder my head is so f****d?. ;)
-
OR lookout he's laughing his head off at us all taking him seriously!!!!! ????
Yes,,Maggie,,,I do believe he is. He's a clever man. ;)
-
No Maggie the 'real' morons are to be found in Wurzel country. A place full of cider guzzling numpties, morris dancers and oddities like Pam Ayers. All set against a backdrop of vote 'Lib Dem' boards and trains of caravans. A hell hole if ever there was one. And to think as a child my parents took me there on holiday. B******s. Is it any wonder my head is so f****d?. ;)
Disagree!!! Trouble! :o :) :) :)
-
OR lookout he's laughing his head off at us all taking him seriously!!!!! ????
Yeah I gave up playing his game a while back. It got kinda boring.
-
Well, if Steve thinks Jeremy is the killer, I don´t think his posts are particularly vitriolic, natural not to like him if you are convinced of that.
I don´t understand the JM glorification though, and Steve, you speculate a lot...
Alias,,,Steve's made some stinging attacks towards Jeremy. He literally loathes the man.
-
Disagree!!! Trouble! :o :) :) :)
Moi trouble? :P
-
No Maggie the 'real' morons are to be found in Wurzel country. A place full of cider guzzling numpties, morris dancers and oddities like Pam Ayers. All set against a backdrop of vote 'Lib Dem' boards and trains of caravans. A hell hole if ever there was one. And to think as a child my parents took me there on holiday. B******s. Is it any wonder my head is so f****d?. ;)
NN,,I can agree with you to a point,,as the " yokels " can be dangerously thick,,,,if you get my drift.
-
NN,,I can agree with you to a point,,as the " yokels " can be dangerously thick,,,,if you get my drift.
Pretty similar to those who live insular, island lives.They're a breed on their own.
-
Alias,,,Steve's made some stinging attacks towards Jeremy. He literally loathes the man.
If Steve thinks that Jeremy butchered his whole family in cold blood, he has every reason to loathe him.
-
Pretty similar to those who live insular, island lives.They're a breed on their own.
Actually I live in the west country and I cant say Ive noticed any of that. Its very beautiful.
-
If Steve thinks that Jeremy butchered his whole family in cold blood, he has every reason to loathe him.
Maybe it's more a question of loathing him because of what he believes JB did to JM who he only sees through rose tints.
-
Maybe it's more a question of loathing him because of what he believes JB did to JM who he only sees through rose tints.
And in that - he's a stand alone!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie I have spent many happy holidays in the West Country infact had we not had business commitments in Scotland we would have moved there. Who knows we may retire there and be your neighbour ;D ;D ;D
-
NN,,I can agree with you to a point,,as the " yokels " can be dangerously thick,,,,if you get my drift.
Eh? Disagree Lookout! The people are no different from you or me. :'( :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Patti the only difference between people is they talk with a different accent, we all dress in clothes, all eat the same food we all bleed and we all cry ;D and I would suspect we were all created by the same God.
-
Hi Patti the only difference between people is they talk with a different accent, we all dress in clothes, all eat the same food we all bleed and we all cry ;D and I would suspect we were all created by the same God.
We are indeed the same and did you know that we all share the same DNA.....So yes, one man did the jobbo..... :) :) :) :) :)
-
If Steve thinks that Jeremy butchered his whole family in cold blood, he has every reason to loathe him.
Okay,,Alias...I got the message.!!!
-
Hi Maggie I have spent many happy holidays in the West Country infact had we not had business commitments in Scotland we would have moved there. Who knows we may retire there and be your neighbour ;D ;D ;D
Thank you Susie, that would be fun, Patti one side and you the other, hope you have your bikini ironed and ready for dancing on the terrace, ;D ;D ;D
-
We are indeed the same and did you know that we all share the same DNA.....So yes, one man did the jobbo..... :) :) :) :) :)
One MAN????
OK, lookout. ;D
-
Hi Mags will bring the pole and Patti and I can entertain you and Patti can continue with her Morris dancing ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank you Susie, that would be fun, Patti one side and you the other, hope you have your bikini ironed and ready for dancing on the terrace, ;D ;D ;D
Lol.........So long as we can go surfing at Fristal Beach...and surf the highest surf in Country! Yeeeeeeeeee!
Awww on the other hand we might miss the goings on at the sea wall with Lookout, Steve, April and Hartley.....Dilemma's!
Now must go and finish of my chores, I hate housework :(
Maggie, I though we were going mud dancing.....to swing our knickers in the air...lol :) :) :) :)
-
One MAN????
OK, lookout. ;D
Yeah, if you read Susan's post about we all come from god....
I said: Did you know that we are share the same DNA......therefore one man could have done the first jobbo.....what I mean is that gods DNA was passed on to all of us... ;) :o :) :) :) :)
-
Thank you Susie, that would be fun, Patti one side and you the other, hope you have your bikini ironed and ready for dancing on the terrace, ;D ;D ;D
Hope she has her No No at the ready and reluctantly casts aside her rusty garden shears. There's trimming and there's trimming. ;D ;D ;D
-
Hope she has her No No at the ready and reluctantly casts aside her rusty garden shears. There's trimming and there's trimming. ;D ;D ;D
What's a " No No ".?
-
What's a " No No ".?
The reason you don't meet the criteria for Filly membership ;) ;D. Ask Caroline.
-
Hope she has her No No at the ready and reluctantly casts aside her rusty garden shears. There's trimming and there's trimming. ;D ;D ;D
Laser is the answer in my experience much less messy and totally permanent. NoNo is sooooo down market imo
-
The reason you don't meet the criteria for Filly membership ;) ;D. Ask Caroline.
This a school-yard game.?
-
Lol.........So long as we can go surfing at Fristal Beach...and surf the highest surf in Country! Yeeeeeeeeee!
Awww on the other hand we might miss the goings on at the sea wall with Lookout, Steve, April and Hartley.....Dilemma's!
Now must go and finish of my chores, I hate housework :(
Maggie, I though we were going mud dancing.....to swing our knickers in the air...lol :) :) :) :)
Yes, have a ticket for Glastonbury, the days of climbing over the fence have sadly gone, due to increased security. I have invited Susie too patti......so if she brings her pole you two could try a pole vault over the fence....that should work???? Glastonbury is in June Patti so you could still squeeze both of them in. ;D ;Dxxxxxxx
-
Hi Patti the only difference between people is they talk with a different accent, we all dress in clothes, all eat the same food we all bleed and we all cry ;D and I would suspect we were all created by the same God.
Hmm!! Not sure Susan, there are a few exceptions ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hope she has her No No at the ready and reluctantly casts aside her rusty garden shears. There's trimming and there's trimming. ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D!!
-
What's a " No No ".?
https://www.trynono.com/uk_j4/?MID=807751&gclid=CKDC99yomrUCFVHLtAodOW4A9g&referrer=https://aolbroadband.search.aol.co.uk/aol/search?s_it=aolbb-webmail3&s_chn=wm&q=nono ;D ;D
-
Laser is the answer in my experience much less messy and totally permanent. NoNo is sooooo down market imo
It cost me a fortune Maggie and it's BRILLIANT!! Can't get ya legs lasered every week - you only need to use Nono once a month (if that). :D
-
Hmm!! Not sure Susan, there are a few exceptions ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Think I just MAY have to agree with that, Caroline :D :D :D
-
Yeah, if you read Susan's post about we all come from god....
I said: Did you know that we are share the same DNA......therefore one man could have done the first jobbo.....what I mean is that gods DNA was passed on to all of us... ;) :o :) :) :) :)
So god is a man! That´s news to me!! ;)
-
It cost me a fortune Maggie and it's BRILLIANT!! Can't get ya legs lasered every week - you only need to use Nono once a month (if that). :D
yES but 6 laser treatments and its done for ever caroline ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So god is a man! That´s news to me!! ;)
I mean Jesus...Could we all be his blood line? I am a none believer, but I am interested in the Priory of Sion and the film with Tom Hanks in it...The Da Vinci Code.. lol :) :) :) :)
-
I mean Jesus...Could we all be his blood line? I am a none believer, but I am interested in the Priory of Sion and the film with Tom Hanks in it...The Da Vinci Code.. lol :) :) :) :)
LOL. According to that, the prince consort, Henrik of Denmark is a direct descendent of Jesus Christ himself, and thus, as a father of the next king of Denmark, he produced an heir (crown prince Frederik) who is practically Jesus! A lazy, self-indulgent and booze-happy version, but still... :D
-
LOL. According to that, the prince consort, Henrik of Denmark is a direct descendent of Jesus Christ himself, and thus, as a father of the next king of Denmark, he produced an heir (crown prince Frederik) who is practically Jesus! A lazy, self-indulgent and booze-happy version, but still... :D
Well, didn't Jesus like wine? Turned water into it (kinda like home brew on a large scale) and his blood is represented by it!! Sometimes, so is mine!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, didn't Jesus like wine? Turned water into it (kinda like home brew on a large scale) and his blood is represented by it!! Sometimes, so is mine!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yep, yep, know the feeling!
We are AWFULLY off topic! Where are the mods?
-
Yep, yep, know the feeling!
We are AWFULLY off topic! Where are the mods?
I am one! ;D And yes we are!!
-
I am one! ;D And yes we are!!
Oh, sorry, hadn´t noticed! I´ll behave now. :-[
-
I am one! ;D And yes we are!!
Caroline, I'm SO glad it's you for a change. I'm usually the one who's in the middle of off topicness. Does it make it OK when a mod is present ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Caroline, I'm SO glad it's you for a change. I'm usually the one who's in the middle of off topicness. Does it make it OK when a mod is present ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Yes, can we be serious please for 10 minutes....All off piste, no wonder its difficult to find stuff...Hahahhaha
Carry on girls! :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Yes, can we be serious please for 10 minutes....All off piste, no wonder its difficult to find stuff...Hahahhaha
Carry on girls! :D :D :D :D :D :D
Thanks Patti :D :D :D
-
Thanks Patti :D :D :D
You're very welcome lovely april1 ;) :D :D :D :D :D
-
Steve my dear, you are the very LAST person to suggest us incapable of working out how anothers' mind works.
Reading through last nights threads objectively it struck me that you were in conversation with numerous people who ALL had the same thoughts regarding JM and her motives which to us probably show in more subtle ways than you can translate. Lugg put it beautifully. Women understand women. I would be intrigued to know why you defend this woman at every turn and are willing to manipulate evidence and translate others' thoughts to do so. I would be interested to know what you find in her self oriented personality to like. Do you admire her brand of selfishness under the headings of her being determined and driven. Perhaps you are attracted to those very things about her that Jeremy was attracted to. From every picture I've seen of her she certainly comes across as a powerful woman and many men are turned on by such. I believe she used him, however, there are none as used as those who allow themselves to be.
Finally, the picture you paint of Nevill running down his son who anybody within hearing distance doesn't fit with the man who liked to keep family business private.
So many comments to deal with from the aftermath of the truth,which however Jeremy tries to hoodwink will out in the end. Leaving people in the West country aside and the water to wine story which occurs in only John's gospel,you should all ask yourselves just what was the purpose of Julie in Jeremy's life for a period of almost two years.
You should ask yourself just why Jeremy stuck with her not just before the tragedy(which I have called the "prelude" for the purposes of this thread),but also in the direct aftermath of the tragedy it was Julie whom Jeremy summoned for whatever reason the Jeremy supporters can ascertain you can let me know,when he specifically asked DS Stan Jones and Mick Clark if he could have a few moments alone with his girlfriend at Bourtree Cottage that first morning.
What possible reason could Jeremy have to associate with Julie after the murders? What possible reason did he have to telephone her around 10pm on the Tuesday night,then again around 3am on the Wednesday morning and finally around 5:30am from the callbox at Goldhanger. Was Jeremy so emotionally insecure that he needed Julie for support,this girl who had been fagging away at pleasing Jeremy since November 1983,and who we are led to believe had no knowledge of any murder plot Jeremy may have harboured?
It seems to me the Jeremy supporters want it both ways,which should no longer surprise me knowing this site,but as there are so many of you resolute in your support for Jeremy I would say this:either there never was any murder plan in Jeremy's mind and therefore Julie knew nothing and has made the bulk of her statement to Police up,or Jeremy bounced his murder plans off Julie and Julie is at least implicated to some degree and guilty of omission,but by the same token this also incriminates Jeremy as the source of the evil scheme in the first place. What possible motive does Julie have to admit to the damning evidence that she could have gone to Police,that she was at least an accessory before the fact and that she could have stopped the murders of five people if only she had acted earlier. Any titbits she heard from Ann Eaton and the relatives would not have been dressed up by Julie in a formal statement to Police:who needed all that hassle?
In an answer to my own question I am quite certain in my own mind that the only explanation for Jeremy's conduct in the wake of the murders was to keep Julie on board,to keep her sweet until such time as he could pay her off,the memories of the murders faded and Julie would no longer have a hold on him. He did the same with Charles Marsden whom he must have regretted making the remark about the Farm burning down to,because true to type Jeremy also contacted him shortly after the murders in an attempt to keep him on side.
I believe Julie's statement,it's a statement spoken from the heart of a 19 year old girl who had transgressed and had hoped to avoid contact with Police until her hand was forced. It does not portray her in a perfect light by any means,but the truth is so much easier to cope with in one's inner conscience;a full confession means there's no need for the constant stream of "don't knows" or "no comments" to the more dangerous questions asking why Jeremy telephoned Julie at all three times in a matter of hours,whilst ostensibly nonchalantly picking threads from a red Arran sweater,whilst inside secretly trembling with fear that the truth would surface.
-
Hi steve a true Arran sweater is cream so Jeremy's must have been a copycat version. Was Julie paid off with a £400 cheque she sold herself cheap if she knew he was responsible for the murders at WHF. We also have another case scenario to your theories Jeremy did not commit the murders and that is why he was able to dispose of Julie without fear of any comeback. The £400 was a kind gesture towards her holiday to Malta she cashed the cheque then sold him down the river. In my mind Julie was a woman scorned eaten up with jealousy and she made sure no other woman would become the Lady of the Manor. I think in fairness to Julie she never expected her actions to go as far as they did but it was too late for a turn around but the £25.000 would help to compensate her guilt for helping to send an innocent man to prison for life. You must now remember steve I am entitled to my opinion as well as you it is not a one sided opinion on this forum. I respect your views and you must do the same with mine.
-
Hi steve a true Arran sweater is cream so Jeremy's must have been a copycat version. Was Julie paid off with a £400 cheque she sold herself cheap if she knew he was responsible for the murders at WHF. We also have another case scenario to your theories Jeremy did not commit the murders and that is why he was able to dispose of Julie without fear of any comeback. The £400 was a kind gesture towards her holiday to Malta she cashed the cheque then sold him down the river. In my mind Julie was a woman scorned eaten up with jealousy and she made sure no other woman would become the Lady of the Manor. I think in fairness to Julie she never expected her actions to go as far as they did but it was too late for a turn around but the £25.000 would help to compensate her guilt for helping to send an innocent man to prison for life. You must now remember steve I am entitled to my opinion as well as you it is not a one sided opinion on this forum. I respect your views and you must do the same with mine.
I don't accept any financial motive on Julie's part as the newspaper deal must have seemed a long way off and was probably the last thing on Julie's mind as she pondered the aftermath of Jeremy's crimes. It would be strange if after all this time the real psychopath was Julie and not Jeremy,but of course you're entitled to your point of view.
As they dined together according to Julie Jeremy told her:"I would have gone ahead with it anyway;don't blame yourself.." which I'm sure did not alleviate in any way Julie's troubled conscience. After the murders she was guilty of no more than importuning for the truth,and as she delved deeper into Jeremy's psyche she finally realized that her worst incubus had materialized,and that she was indeed dealing with a true psychopath who felt no remorse whatsoever for the crimes.
All in all I don't blame Julie:she might as well have attempted extrication from the Devil himself.
-
Yeah, if you read Susan's post about we all come from god....
I said: Did you know that we are share the same DNA......therefore one man could have done the first jobbo.....what I mean is that gods DNA was passed on to all of us... ;) :o :) :) :) :)
As a non-believer I'll stick to my theory that I evolved, well sort of evolved, from a swamp. Ty kindly.
-
Hi steve by the sound of it Julie was well rid of Jeremy imagine looking into his eyes and seeing evil poor girl. You have said Julie is involved in charity work in Canada I would have thought more of her if she had given the £25.000 she was given for selling her story to some charity how could she enjoy spending one penny of that money knowing the man she had tried to please and love was serving life in prison.
-
Steve this is a p*** take, it has to be. You are speaking about a woman who went out to dinner with someone who she knew had murdered 5 of his closest relatives and it slowly dawns on her that he may be a psychopath........who are you kidding??
-
So many comments to deal with from the aftermath of the truth,which however Jeremy tries to hoodwink will out in the end. Leaving people in the West country aside and the water to wine story which occurs in only John's gospel,you should all ask yourselves just what was the purpose of Julie in Jeremy's life for a period of almost two years.
You should ask yourself just why Jeremy stuck with her not just before the tragedy(which I have called the "prelude" for the purposes of this thread),but also in the direct aftermath of the tragedy it was Julie whom Jeremy summoned for whatever reason the Jeremy supporters can ascertain you can let me know,when he specifically asked DS Stan Jones and Mick Clark if he could have a few moments alone with his girlfriend at Bourtree Cottage that first morning.
What possible reason could Jeremy have to associate with Julie after the murders? What possible reason did he have to telephone her around 10pm on the Tuesday night,then again around 3am on the Wednesday morning and finally around 5:30am from the callbox at Goldhanger. Was Jeremy so emotionally insecure that he needed Julie for support,this girl who had been fagging away at pleasing Jeremy since November 1983,and who we are led to believe had no knowledge of any murder plot Jeremy may have harboured?
It seems to me the Jeremy supporters want it both ways,which should no longer surprise me knowing this site,but as there are so many of you resolute in your support for Jeremy I would say this:either there never was any murder plan in Jeremy's mind and therefore Julie knew nothing and has made the bulk of her statement to Police up,or Jeremy bounced his murder plans off Julie and Julie is at least implicated to some degree and guilty of omission,but by the same token this also incriminates Jeremy as the source of the evil scheme in the first place. What possible motive does Julie have to admit to the damning evidence that she could have gone to Police,that she was at least an accessory before the fact and that she could have stopped the murders of five people if only she had acted earlier. Any titbits she heard from Ann Eaton and the relatives would not have been dressed up by Julie in a formal statement to Police:who needed all that hassle?
In an answer to my own question I am quite certain in my own mind that the only explanation for Jeremy's conduct in the wake of the murders was to keep Julie on board,to keep her sweet until such time as he could pay her off,the memories of the murders faded and Julie would no longer have a hold on him. He did the same with Charles Marsden whom he must have regretted making the remark about the Farm burning down to,because true to type Jeremy also contacted him shortly after the murders in an attempt to keep him on side.
I believe Julie's statement,it's a statement spoken from the heart of a 19 year old girl who had transgressed and had hoped to avoid contact with Police until her hand was forced. It does not portray her in a perfect light by any means,but the truth is so much easier to cope with in one's inner conscience;a full confession means there's no need for the constant stream of "don't knows" or "no comments" to the more dangerous questions asking why Jeremy telephoned Julie at all three times in a matter of hours,whilst ostensibly nonchalantly picking threads from a red Arran sweater,whilst inside secretly trembling with fear that the truth would surface.
Good evening Steve. If you had asked the question a couple of days ago, I'm not certain that I could have given you a clear answer, but yesterday when I started to see the lengths to which JM was prepared to go for financial gain, it struck me that here was a very determined young woman, who, perhaps had not had those things in life that money can provide, and once given the opportunity, would stop at nothing to obtain it.
Jeremy, a none too strong character, needed a dominant woman in the same way that she, being a strong character, needed a man she could dominate. In that, they were a perfect match. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that she gave him some really interesting ideas of how to make money. She seemed to haver no problems in spending that which he had. The comment you made about her being happy to be with him if he had no money couldn't be tested. Being discalculea, I have problems envisaging amounts, but when I stopped to think how much Jeremy gave/spent on her in the course of that year, it is a mindblowing sum. It might not sound much now, but it was in the mid 80's and we are talking hundreds of £s and that's just what we know about. I believe it possible that he received encouragement from her to accrue more. After the altercation during which June called her a harlot it wouldn't be surprising to learn that she planned some form of revenge which may have been why she refused June's offer. She could have had her eyes on a bigger prize.
I think she was a very clever woman (and maybe a shade more than the 19yrs you give her) and I think if it hadn't been for the promise of money, which despite you telling us she didn't know about, she would have known from what he said and how he said it, I think eventually she would have dumped him because he was never her intellectual equal. However, I don't believe she would have been as willing for him to dump her and as you insist on turning everything Jermy said into something evil, her words in which she said no one else would have him if she couldn't can be seen as being equally so and she made very sure it would happen, didn't she.
-
Good evening Steve. If you had asked the question a couple of days ago, I'm not certain that I could have given you a clear answer, but yesterday when I started to see the lengths to which JM was prepared to go for financial gain, it struck me that here was a very determined young woman, who, perhaps had not had those things in life that money can provide, and once given the opportunity, would stop at nothing to obtain it.
Jeremy, a none too strong character, needed a dominant woman in the same way that she, being a strong character, needed a man she could dominate. In that, they were a perfect match. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that she gave him some really interesting ideas of how to make money. She seemed to haver no problems in spending that which he had. The comment you made about her being happy to be with him if he had no money couldn't be tested. Being discalculea, I have problems envisaging amounts, but when I stopped to think how much Jeremy gave/spent on her in the course of that year, it is a mindblowing sum. It might not sound much now, but it was in the mid 80's and we are talking hundreds of £s and that's just what we know about. I believe it possible that he received encouragement from her to accrue more. After the altercation during which June called her a harlot it wouldn't be surprising to learn that she planned some form of revenge which may have been why she refused June's offer. She could have had her eyes on a bigger prize.
I think she was a very clever woman (and maybe a shade more than the 19yrs you give her) and I think if it hadn't been for the promise of money, which despite you telling us she didn't know about, she would have known from what he said and how he said it, I think eventually she would have dumped him because he was never her intellectual equal. However, I don't believe she would have been as willing for him to dump her and as you insist on turning everything Jermy said into something evil, her words in which she said no one else would have him if she couldn't can be seen as being equally so and she made very sure it would happen, didn't she.
Brilliant post April.....even I can't add to that :) :) :) :)
-
Hi april brilliant post and Patti lost for words that is a first in my book ;D
-
Good evening Steve. If you had asked the question a couple of days ago, I'm not certain that I could have given you a clear answer, but yesterday when I started to see the lengths to which JM was prepared to go for financial gain, it struck me that here was a very determined young woman, who, perhaps had not had those things in life that money can provide, and once given the opportunity, would stop at nothing to obtain it.
Jeremy, a none too strong character, needed a dominant woman in the same way that she, being a strong character, needed a man she could dominate. In that, they were a perfect match. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that she gave him some really interesting ideas of how to make money. She seemed to haver no problems in spending that which he had. The comment you made about her being happy to be with him if he had no money couldn't be tested. Being discalculea, I have problems envisaging amounts, but when I stopped to think how much Jeremy gave/spent on her in the course of that year, it is a mindblowing sum. It might not sound much now, but it was in the mid 80's and we are talking hundreds of £s and that's just what we know about. I believe it possible that he received encouragement from her to accrue more. After the altercation during which June called her a harlot it wouldn't be surprising to learn that she planned some form of revenge which may have been why she refused June's offer. She could have had her eyes on a bigger prize.
I think she was a very clever woman (and maybe a shade more than the 19yrs you give her) and I think if it hadn't been for the promise of money, which despite you telling us she didn't know about, she would have known from what he said and how he said it, I think eventually she would have dumped him because he was never her intellectual equal. However, I don't believe she would have been as willing for him to dump her and as you insist on turning everything Jermy said into something evil, her words in which she said no one else would have him if she couldn't can be seen as being equally so and she made very sure it would happen, didn't she.
Well said April! I think she feared him becoming independent after the deaths of his parents and she could see her hold on him weakening. The way she talks about Brett, you can almost feel the jealously in her words as she tries to suggest that there might be more than just friendship between them, It reminds me of the old clique of a guy asking out a woman and on being rejected he calls her a lesbian. IMO Julie is the kind of person you don't cross and who will stop at nothing to get what she wants!!
-
I will certainly hand it to Steve. He remains steadfast in his quest to find Jeremy guilty of this crime,,,but has failed to see the many anomalies that clearly exist.
First of all to begin with,from a religious point of view.it was a Wednesday in AD33 that The Last Supper took place,,,as it was a Wednesday that the killings also took place,,possibly after Sheila had taken her last meal.
(((There is a " not so nice question ",,,,,,so please be warned. My apologies,,but these are visible signs in the deceased,,and there's been no mention of such.))) **
Where is/are the suicide letters that were allegedly inside the bible.?
Why wasn't the blood on the bible forensically tested.?
Whose blood was on who that night.?
Where was the decomposition fluid if the bodies had been dead for the length of time that's been stated? **
What happened to the letter that Sheila had written to her birth mother before Sheilas' death.?
An action was raised during the original investigation to obtain the said letter,however no further action was ever taken.
" Freddie ",friend of Sheila who'd witnessed violence in her company and had put forward to appear in Jeremys' defence ,,wasn't called as a witness.
Sue Ford,,,a former girlfriend also never made it to court after having spoken highly of Jeremy.
Det.Supt. Kinnealy had assured D,Supt Ainsley that Sheila was responsible for the murders. He'd said during a meeting with Cons.R.Bunyard,Mr Peter Simpson( ACC )Det.Supt. Kinnealy and Ainsley that the review of Supt. Kinnealy was that the EVIDENCE indicated that Sheila was responsible.
Jeremy has in his possession,documents which were inadvertantly sent to him. The said documents were never intended for release in the public arena,,,and it was soon discovered by COLP that Glynis Howard along with her assistant Leslie Tucker,John Hayward and his assistant Louise Float and Malcolm Fletcher,,all signed a set of falsified documents for a second sound moderator to create a chain of evidence capable of deceiving the jury--------------------and it did.
Steve,,,what are your views on the above behaviour given the enormity of the case and a mans' sentence hanging in the balance regarding the corrupt management in bringing this to a court of law,,knowing that it was NOTHING like the truth.?
These are just a drop in the ocean of irregularities involved.
-
I will certainly hand it to Steve. He remains steadfast in his quest to find Jeremy guilty of this crime,,,but has failed to see the many anomalies that clearly exist.
First of all to begin with,from a religious point of view.it was a Wednesday in AD33 that The Last Supper took place,,,as it was a Wednesday that the killings also took place,,possibly after Sheila had taken her last meal.
(((There is a " not so nice question ",,,,,,so please be warned. My apologies,,but these are visible signs in the deceased,,and there's been no mention of such.))) **
Where is/are the suicide letters that were allegedly inside the bible.?
Why wasn't the blood on the bible forensically tested.?
Whose blood was on who that night.?
Where was the decomposition fluid if the bodies had been dead for the length of time that's been stated? **
What happened to the letter that Sheila had written to her birth mother before Sheilas' death.?
An action was raised during the original investigation to obtain the said letter,however no further action was ever taken.
" Freddie ",friend of Sheila who'd witnessed violence in her company and had put forward to appear in Jeremys' defence ,,wasn't called as a witness.
Sue Ford,,,a former girlfriend also never made it to court after having spoken highly of Jeremy.
Det.Supt. Kinnealy had assured D,Supt Ainsley that Sheila was responsible for the murders. He'd said during a meeting with Cons.R.Bunyard,Mr Peter Simpson( ACC )Det.Supt. Kinnealy and Ainsley that the review of Supt. Kinnealy was that the EVIDENCE indicated that Sheila was responsible.
Jeremy has in his possession,documents which were inadvertantly sent to him. The said documents were never intended for release in the public arena,,,and it was soon discovered by COLP that Glynis Howard along with her assistant Leslie Tucker,John Hayward and his assistant Louise Float and Malcolm Fletcher,,all signed a set of falsified documents for a second sound moderator to create a chain of evidence capable of deceiving the jury--------------------and it did.
Steve,,,what are your views on the above behaviour given the enormity of the case and a mans' sentence hanging in the balance regarding the corrupt management in bringing this to a court of law,,knowing that it was NOTHING like the truth.?
These are just a drop in the ocean of irregularities involved.
Another brilliant post where I am lost for words....Crikey! :) :) :) :) :)
-
Another brilliant post where I am lost for words....Crikey! :) :) :) :) :)
Yes brill posts from April1 and Lookout. Well done ladies.
-
Caroline/Susan/Patti/ Magggie/NaNu, thankyou all SO much for your kind words. Do lookout and I get a prize ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Answers on a postage stamp, please 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
Steve likes what he reads and all of us are enriched by his almost daily quotes from books, however is steve aware he is easily blinded by what considered the truth, even steve can make a mistake , i very much doubt he knows JM that well, in her eyes i saw £££signs nothing more.
-
As a non-believer I'll stick to my theory that I evolved, well sort of evolved, from a swamp. Ty kindly.
The swamp of the stellar universe NN
-
So many comments to deal with from the aftermath of the truth,which however Jeremy tries to hoodwink will out in the end. Leaving people in the West country aside and the water to wine story which occurs in only John's gospel,you should all ask yourselves just what was the purpose of Julie in Jeremy's life for a period of almost two years.
You should ask yourself just why Jeremy stuck with her not just before the tragedy(which I have called the "prelude" for the purposes of this thread),but also in the direct aftermath of the tragedy it was Julie whom Jeremy summoned for whatever reason the Jeremy supporters can ascertain you can let me know,when he specifically asked DS Stan Jones and Mick Clark if he could have a few moments alone with his girlfriend at Bourtree Cottage that first morning.
What possible reason could Jeremy have to associate with Julie after the murders? What possible reason did he have to telephone her around 10pm on the Tuesday night,then again around 3am on the Wednesday morning and finally around 5:30am from the callbox at Goldhanger. Was Jeremy so emotionally insecure that he needed Julie for support,this girl who had been fagging away at pleasing Jeremy since November 1983,and who we are led to believe had no knowledge of any murder plot Jeremy may have harboured?
It seems to me the Jeremy supporters want it both ways,which should no longer surprise me knowing this site,but as there are so many of you resolute in your support for Jeremy I would say this:either there never was any murder plan in Jeremy's mind and therefore Julie knew nothing and has made the bulk of her statement to Police up,or Jeremy bounced his murder plans off Julie and Julie is at least implicated to some degree and guilty of omission,but by the same token this also incriminates Jeremy as the source of the evil scheme in the first place. What possible motive does Julie have to admit to the damning evidence that she could have gone to Police,that she was at least an accessory before the fact and that she could have stopped the murders of five people if only she had acted earlier. Any titbits she heard from Ann Eaton and the relatives would not have been dressed up by Julie in a formal statement to Police:who needed all that hassle?
In an answer to my own question I am quite certain in my own mind that the only explanation for Jeremy's conduct in the wake of the murders was to keep Julie on board,to keep her sweet until such time as he could pay her off,the memories of the murders faded and Julie would no longer have a hold on him. He did the same with Charles Marsden whom he must have regretted making the remark about the Farm burning down to,because true to type Jeremy also contacted him shortly after the murders in an attempt to keep him on side.
I believe Julie's statement,it's a statement spoken from the heart of a 19 year old girl who had transgressed and had hoped to avoid contact with Police until her hand was forced. It does not portray her in a perfect light by any means,but the truth is so much easier to cope with in one's inner conscience;a full confession means there's no need for the constant stream of "don't knows" or "no comments" to the more dangerous questions asking why Jeremy telephoned Julie at all three times in a matter of hours,whilst ostensibly nonchalantly picking threads from a red Arran sweater,whilst inside secretly trembling with fear that the truth would surface.
Another lovely story, Steve.
Jeremy called Julie, presumably, because she was his girlfriend of the past 2 years, so she would be his first 'port of call', so nothing strange about that. However, her response of 'go back to sleep' surely is?
No, there was no murder plan and therefore Julie DID make it up. otherwise they would both be equally evil, and Julie obviously did dress up tidbits from AE.
Jeremy did not keep Julie 'on board' - he dumped her! Sadly, many marriages do not survive terrible tragedies let alone courtships. Who knows, maybe the fact that she could identify the bodies without much emotion put Jeremy off her (see I can embellish stories too).
IMO Julie's statement is that of an evil, jealous cow who couldn't accept the fact the Jeremy no longer wanted her (she would have gone on seeing him otherwise).
She was 'lucky' enough to be offered 25K if he was convicted, so maybe her tears in court were because she was finally actually facing him and she knew she was lying, so the tears were twofold - due to her lying and that perhaps she wouldn't get the money - she didn't know if he would be found guilty or not guilty. But she soon perked up as we saw in the drag queen look a like NOTW pics.
Jeremy wrote to her after the trial and asked her to tell the truth - he had no idea why she said what she did.
Poor Jeremy, except for killing him, that must be the ultimate experience of a woman scorned.
-
Steve likes what he reads and all of us are enriched by his almost daily quotes from books, however is steve aware he is easily blinded by what considered the truth, even steve can make a mistake , i very much doubt he knows JM that well, in her eyes i saw £££signs nothing more.
Mertol, hi. Yes, we get to read books that we wouldn't buy :D :D :D and yes, I think we feel ourselves to be enriched by his quotes. Sadly though, I feel that Steve sees Julie through a soft focus lens (could that be a replacement for rose tinted glasses?) and that could put him in a state rather like being in love.........or at the very least, besotted. But powerful women can do that to some men and they never do see the £££££signs in their eyes.
-
Mertol, hi. Yes, we get to read books that we wouldn't buy :D :D :D and yes, I think we feel ourselves to be enriched by his quotes. Sadly though, I feel that Steve sees Julie through a soft focus lens (could that be a replacement for rose tinted glasses?) and that could put him in a state rather like being in love.........or at the very least, besotted. But powerful women can do that to some men and they never do see the £££££signs in their eyes.
Hello April, thats the point im making , in the case of Jeremy he did not see £££signs in JM perhaps he had not encountered anyone like her before, a clue is in their early days while both at S Joes working just had to happen, today jeremy was a fool even to gullable when you play with the devil the devil mostly wins.
-
Mertol, hi. Yes, we get to read books that we wouldn't buy :D :D :D and yes, I think we feel ourselves to be enriched by his quotes. Sadly though, I feel that Steve sees Julie through a soft focus lens (could that be a replacement for rose tinted glasses?) and that could put him in a state rather like being in love.........or at the very least, besotted. But powerful women can do that to some men and they never do see the £££££signs in their eyes.
I do wonder where Steve's love for Julie comes from. Is he an ex of hers or something?!!
-
I dont think so , i think he does ponder the books on the case and colins book the most, from there he has all he wants jeremy guilty without any doubt, a bold path to take using books as the key.
-
In Clare Powell's book we get the incident of the smuggled out letter from prison in which Jeremy threatens Julie..of course one pays one's money and takes one's choice whilst reading them..the silencers may well have been merged into one and if there ever was a retrial there would certainly be enough evidence to confuse a jury,if not to release.
I don't accept that Julie's statement is a tissue of lies as it's corroborated in parts by other witnesses(James Richards,Charles Marsden,Liz Rimington,Doris Foakes)and this was one of the three pillars of the case along with the silencer and the non-existent telephone call from Nevill.
-
I do wonder where Steve's love for Julie comes from. Is he an ex of hers or something?!!
Perhaps it's more admiration but frankly, I don't see as admirable, anything about her.
-
After looking at the Luke Mtchell Lie detector test which he passed, I believe that Bamber is innocent of those murders at WHF. He also took the test and passed. What I would like to see is for Julie Mugford to consent to take the same test.
-
Another lovely story, Steve.
Jeremy called Julie, presumably, because she was his girlfriend of the past 2 years, so she would be his first 'port of call', so nothing strange about that. However, her response of 'go back to sleep' surely is?
No, there was no murder plan and therefore Julie DID make it up. otherwise they would both be equally evil, and Julie obviously did dress up tidbits from AE.
Jeremy did not keep Julie 'on board' - he dumped her! Sadly, many marriages do not survive terrible tragedies let alone courtships. Who knows, maybe the fact that she could identify the bodies without much emotion put Jeremy off her (see I can embellish stories too).
IMO Julie's statement is that of an evil, jealous cow who couldn't accept the fact the Jeremy no longer wanted her (she would have gone on seeing him otherwise).
She was 'lucky' enough to be offered 25K if he was convicted, so maybe her tears in court were because she was finally actually facing him and she knew she was lying, so the tears were twofold - due to her lying and that perhaps she wouldn't get the money - she didn't know if he would be found guilty or not guilty. But she soon perked up as we saw in the drag queen look a like NOTW pics.
Jeremy wrote to her after the trial and asked her to tell the truth - he had no idea why she said what she did.
Poor Jeremy, except for killing him, that must be the ultimate experience of a woman scorned.
At least you try to answer the question. But you get confused as to Jeremy's motives. Was he dumping her or running to her in a time of distress? Make your mind up.
In my opinion Julie was too dangerous in Jeremy's eyes to dump. He two-timed her yes,yet he was on call to move her settee to her new flat in Hither Green. The next thing he knew she had rightly gone to the Police.
-
In Clare Powell's book we get the incident of the smuggled out letter from prison in which Jeremy threatens Julie..of course one pays one's money and takes one's choice whilst reading them..the silencers may well have been merged into one and if there ever was a retrial there would certainly be enough evidence to confuse a jury,if not to release.
I don't accept that Julie's statement is a tissue of lies as it's corroborated in parts by other witnesses(James Richards,Charles Marsden,Liz Rimington,Doris Foakes)and this was one of the three pillars of the case along with the silencer and the non-existent telephone call from Nevill.
So a re trial could raise doubts then ? so there is a per cent unsure , if its a mere 1% uncertain is that a concern for you,given claire powells book { which i have } is a demolition of jeremy from where is the doubt from.
-
So a re trial could raise doubts then ? so there is a per cent unsure , if its a mere 1% uncertain is that a concern for you,given claire powells book { which i have } is a demolition of jeremy from where is the doubt from.
Mertol22 there are 4 million documents associated with this case,so you could say a jury might be confused to put it mildly.
-
Mertol22 there are 4 million documents associated with this case,so you could say a jury might be confused to put it mildly.
2 were confused at the 1986 trial steve.
-
After looking at the Luke Mtchell Lie detector test which he passed, I believe that Bamber is innocent of those murders at WHF. He also took the test and passed. What I would like to see is for Julie Mugford to consent to take the same test.
Hear, hear, Lugg!
-
Hello April, thats the point im making , in the case of Jeremy he did not see £££signs in JM perhaps he had not encountered anyone like her before, a clue is in their early days while both at S Joes working just had to happen, today jeremy was a fool even to gullable when you play with the devil the devil mostly wins.
I think you're right Mertol. The circle of Jeremy's peer group didn't contain girls like Julie and I think she must have stood out as being very different. He must have been blinded by her.
-
Steve likes what he reads and all of us are enriched by his almost daily quotes from books, however is steve aware he is easily blinded by what considered the truth, even steve can make a mistake , i very much doubt he knows JM that well, in her eyes i saw £££signs nothing more.
You're so right,Mertol.
-
At least you try to answer the question. But you get confused as to Jeremy's motives. Was he dumping her or running to her in a time of distress? Make your mind up.
In my opinion Julie was too dangerous in Jeremy's eyes to dump. He two-timed her yes,yet he was on call to move her settee to her new flat in Hither Green. The next thing he knew she had rightly gone to the Police.
I'm not confused.
He turned to her at the night of the events.
He dumped her weeks later.
Therefore she wasn't too dangerous to dump. Maybe you're confused!
-
At least you try to answer the question. But you get confused as to Jeremy's motives. Was he dumping her or running to her in a time of distress? Make your mind up.
In my opinion Julie was too dangerous in Jeremy's eyes to dump. He two-timed her yes,yet he was on call to move her settee to her new flat in Hither Green. The next thing he knew she had rightly gone to the Police.
Someone here is certainly confused!! ::) ::)
-
If a rich or well dressed woman was also back then working at Sloppy Joes who was a stunner it would be easy to guess who jeremy would have made a move on, JM would not have been the one, yet with her edge a challenge and with no other girl in sight jeremy went for it, a challenge with a later price tag.
-
If a rich or well dressed woman was also back then working at Sloppy Joes who was a stunner it would be easy to guess who jeremy would have made a move on, JM would not have been the one, yet with her edge a challenge and with no other girl in sight jeremy went for it, a challenge with a later price tag.
We have to look at what their respective agendas were. We can be reasonably certain that Jeremy's, because he was already accustomed to a "certain"style, was not about finding a woman who would keep him. Whereas Julie, once she had taken stock of the way he presented himself, the way he spoke, the way he dressed, would have sensed wealth. She probably had him in her sights before he noticed her and would have made a point of getting him to notice her. I cannot believe for one moment that the desire to teach would have been quite so strong if the chance had arisen for her to become young Mrs Bamber.
-
If a rich or well dressed woman was also back then working at Sloppy Joes who was a stunner it would be easy to guess who jeremy would have made a move on, JM would not have been the one, yet with her edge a challenge and with no other girl in sight jeremy went for it, a challenge with a later price tag.
Yes, very interesting. I bet JM hated Suzy?!
-
I'm not confused.
He turned to her at the night of the events.
He dumped her weeks later.
Therefore she wasn't too dangerous to dump. Maybe you're confused!
So his attitude towards her is perplexing. If he has no murderous intent they exchange pleasantries during call 1 for twenty minutes,in call 2 Julie is dear enough to Jeremy's heart to wake her in the middle of the night,and in call 3 he needs her physically by his side. By mid-morning he wants to be alone with her.A month later Jeremy takes out Anji Greaves. There were no conversations at any time regarding the perpetrator of five deaths,no speculation on Jeremy's part to Julie as to why Sheila took four lives and then her own. There were no conversations on this subject because at that stage Julie had guessed Jeremy was responsible and he knew that Julie had realized just what he had done.
-
So his attitude towards her is perplexing. If he has no murderous intent they exchange pleasantries during call 1 for twenty minutes,in call 2 Julie is dear enough to Jeremy's heart to wake her in the middle of the night,and in call 3 he needs her physically by his side. By mid-morning he wants to be alone with her.A month later Jeremy takes out Anji Greaves. There were no conversations at any time regarding the perpetrator of five deaths,no speculation on Jeremy's part to Julie as to why Sheila took four lives and then her own. There were no conversations on this subject because at that stage Julie had guessed Jeremy was responsible and he knew that Julie had realized just what he had done.
Give the woman a medal!!!!! If as you have continually told ud, Jeremy had been talking to her about his plans for the previous 6months or more, would she not at the very least have needed to be thick NOT to have guessed that he was responsible, and telling him to go to bed shows little concern given that she now supposedly knew for the first time that Jeremy was responsible.
-
Give the woman a medal!!!!! If as you have continually told ud, Jeremy had been talking to her about his plans for the previous 6months or more, would she not at the very least have needed to be thick NOT to have guessed that he was responsible, and telling him to go to bed shows little concern given that she now supposedly knew for the first time that Jeremy was responsible.
It seems unlikely that Jeremy would have been so dumb as to call Julie to, 1. tell her: TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT!! 2. later tell her: EVERYTHING WENT WELL AT THE FARM!
He might as well have taken a megaphone to a rooftop and yelled it out for all to hear.
+ her response : "Go back to bed." seems unlikely.
I think she made this up - perhaps goaded by the EP. Too odd otherwise!
-
So his attitude towards her is perplexing. If he has no murderous intent they exchange pleasantries during call 1 for twenty minutes,in call 2 Julie is dear enough to Jeremy's heart to wake her in the middle of the night,and in call 3 he needs her physically by his side. By mid-morning he wants to be alone with her.A month later Jeremy takes out Anji Greaves. There were no conversations at any time regarding the perpetrator of five deaths,no speculation on Jeremy's part to Julie as to why Sheila took four lives and then her own. There were no conversations on this subject because at that stage Julie had guessed Jeremy was responsible and he knew that Julie had realized just what he had done.
[/color]
Or, Julie knew he WAS NOT responsible and she knew Sheila had done it!
-
So his attitude towards her is perplexing. If he has no murderous intent they exchange pleasantries during call 1 for twenty minutes,in call 2 Julie is dear enough to Jeremy's heart to wake her in the middle of the night,and in call 3 he needs her physically by his side. By mid-morning he wants to be alone with her.A month later Jeremy takes out Anji Greaves. There were no conversations at any time regarding the perpetrator of five deaths,no speculation on Jeremy's part to Julie as to why Sheila took four lives and then her own. There were no conversations on this subject because at that stage Julie had guessed Jeremy was responsible and he knew that Julie had realized just what he had done.
Steve,,,Jeremy was an entirely free agent when it came to women. The law didn't state that he must stay with JM. His " philandering ways " had got nothing whatsoever to do with the case,nor anybody else. You're forgetting that he was only 24 and happily, and normally playing the field,,,and good for him.
Thank Heaven he didn't marry the woman. I think June would have put her spoke in before that came into fruition.
Take a look at the cocktail of medication that Sheila was taking,,,which was vital for her condition.:
Anafranil------------anti-depressant
Noctec-----------to aid sleep
Procyclidine---------to treat the side-effects of Haloperidol.
Triludan-------------for allergic reactions
Haloperidol-----------anti-psychotic
The toxicologist had made a report stating that there would have been an interaction between Haloperidol and Cannabis,,,both of which was found to be present.
Which proves that Sheila hadn't taken any prescription drugs that she should have done to avoid a psychotic outburst.
In the words of the judge,,it was either Sheila or Jeremy.! Given Sheilas' sad but volatile history,,,a blind man on a galloping horse would see who was responsible for those murders.
-
Another lovely story, Steve.
Jeremy called Julie, presumably, because she was his girlfriend of the past 2 years, so she would be his first 'port of call', so nothing strange about that. However, her response of 'go back to sleep' surely is?
No, there was no murder plan and therefore Julie DID make it up. otherwise they would both be equally evil, and Julie obviously did dress up tidbits from AE.
Jeremy did not keep Julie 'on board' - he dumped her! Sadly, many marriages do not survive terrible tragedies let alone courtships. Who knows, maybe the fact that she could identify the bodies without much emotion put Jeremy off her (see I can embellish stories too).
IMO Julie's statement is that of an evil, jealous cow who couldn't accept the fact the Jeremy no longer wanted her (she would have gone on seeing him otherwise).
She was 'lucky' enough to be offered 25K if he was convicted, so maybe her tears in court were because she was finally actually facing him and she knew she was lying, so the tears were twofold - due to her lying and that perhaps she wouldn't get the money - she didn't know if he would be found guilty or not guilty. But she soon perked up as we saw in the drag queen look a like NOTW pics.
Jeremy wrote to her after the trial and asked her to tell the truth - he had no idea why she said what she did.
Poor Jeremy, except for killing him, that must be the ultimate experience of a woman scorned.
Hi HMEssex
Truly one of your finest. Well done my friend :).
Btw you have always been on the Filly list. Your good self, Caroline, a n other who may not wish to be named at this stage and Naughty Nun. Two others have been short-listed for approval. ;) ;) ;). They happen to be guilty posters but Fillies don't discriminate based on opinions, beliefs and views held. We will then be a true fighting force against you know who ;)
-
Give the woman a medal!!!!! If as you have continually told ud, Jeremy had been talking to her about his plans for the previous 6months or more, would she not at the very least have needed to be thick NOT to have guessed that he was responsible, and telling him to go to bed shows little concern given that she now supposedly knew for the first time that Jeremy was responsible.
Julie met Jeremy in November 1983 and they broke up in September 1985. Julie's life with him is condensed into fourteen pages and we just don't know exactly when and on how many occasions Jeremy mentioned the subject of killing his parents to her.
-
Hi HMEssex
Truly one of your finest. Well done my friend :).
Btw you have always been on the Filly list. Your good self, Caroline, a n other who may not wish to be named at this stage and Naughty Nun. Two others have been short-listed for approval. ;) ;) ;). They happen to be guilty posters but Fillies don't discriminate based on opinions, beliefs and views held. We will then be a true fighting force against you know who ;)
Gee, thanks!!
Neigh!! :D
When's the party?
-
Julie met Jeremy in November 1983 and they broke up in September 1985. Julie's life with him is condensed into fourteen pages and we just don't know exactly when and on how many occasions Jeremy mentioned the subject of killing his parents to her.
Steve, I'm so glad you've finally taken that point on board, I've been saying it long enough. However, if we had chosen to listen to what you have consistantly told us, certainly from the time she says Jeremy first spoke of murdering his family, it took up the whole of their life together.For now, I wish you good night and sweet dreams :)
-
Steve,,,Jeremy was an entirely free agent when it came to women. The law didn't state that he must stay with JM. His " philandering ways " had got nothing whatsoever to do with the case,nor anybody else. You're forgetting that he was only 24 and happily, and normally playing the field,,,and good for him.
Thank Heaven he didn't marry the woman. I think June would have put her spoke in before that came into fruition.
Take a look at the cocktail of medication that Sheila was taking,,,which was vital for her condition.:
Anafranil------------anti-depressant
Noctec-----------to aid sleep
Procyclidine---------to treat the side-effects of Haloperidol.
Triludan-------------for allergic reactions
Haloperidol-----------anti-psychotic
The toxicologist had made a report stating that there would have been an interaction between Haloperidol and Cannabis,,,both of which was found to be present.
Which proves that Sheila hadn't taken any prescription drugs that she should have done to avoid a psychotic outburst.
In the words of the judge,,it was either Sheila or Jeremy.! Given Sheilas' sad but volatile history,,,a blind man on a galloping horse would see who was responsible for those murders.
The way Jeremy sniffed around everything and everyone I bet he knew exactly what she was prescribed and learned that "she hasn't been taking her medication" as June told the electrician earlier in the week. Jeremy's natural father was in the Army Medical Corps and Jeremy's favourite subject at school was chemistry and I wouldn't have put it past him to read up on schizophrenia and the possibilities this opened up to him in using Sheila as a scapegoat.
No blood down the front of her nightie,no lead on hands,perfect nails,no sign she had been in a struggle with anyone,involuntary body movements making the reloading of a gun difficult if not impossible,and Nevill alive at 3:26am with the Police arriving at 3:48am when no sound of running water was heard,no shouts or screams.
I have told you before:a woman such as Sheila might have looked out of the window and seen Police arrive. She would then have taken the corpses of Nicholas and Daniel outside in her arms to show them and tell them how she had saved their souls. Such are the actions conducive of a schizophrenic,not scarpering upstairs to shoot herself twice and lay to rest alongside the one person she really did not get along with,her mother June.
-
The way Jeremy sniffed around everything and everyone I bet he knew exactly what she was prescribed and learned that "she hasn't been taking her medication" as June told the electrician earlier in the week. Jeremy's natural father was in the Army Medical Corps and Jeremy's favourite subject at school was chemistry and I wouldn't have put it past him to read up on schizophrenia and the possibilities this opened up to him in using Sheila as a scapegoat.
No blood down the front of her nightie,no lead on hands,perfect nails,no sign she had been in a struggle with anyone,involuntary body movements making the reloading of a gun difficult if not impossible,and Nevill alive at 3:26am with the Police arriving at 3:48am when no sound of running water was heard,no shouts or screams.
I have told you before:a woman such as Sheila might have looked out of the window and seen Police arrive. She would then have taken the corpses of Nicholas and Daniel outside in her arms to show them and tell them how she had saved their souls. Such are the actions conducive of a schizophrenic,not scarpering upstairs to shoot herself twice and lay to rest alongside the one person she really did not get along with,her mother June.
Surely then if someone else had killed the family they would have put blood on her and made sure she looked like she had done it.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Hi By the way ;) ;)
-
Surely then if someone else had killed the family they would have put blood on her and made sure she looked like she had done it.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Hi By the way ;) ;)
Hi Patti,Jeremy did scatter Sheila's notes and threw the New English Bible on her. Didn't he also do the same with June,which would have been a King James version.
-
The bible was found by Sheilas' right side on entry into the farmhouse.
Steve,,,you must have read that it isn't unusual for a mother to kill her children,,,out of love,not hatred,,,then turn the gun on themselves. Sadly,it was rarely heard of back in 1985.
-
Hi Patti,Jeremy did scatter Sheila's notes and threw the New English Bible on her. Didn't he also do the same with June,which would have been a King James version.
The bible could have been moved when the connecting door was opened, this was explained by one of the raid team...In fact several of the raid team said the position of the bible was not how they had seen it, it was they said nearer her waist...
Assumptions Steve are no good we needs concrete evidence....not imagination....Anyway good night to you, don't have nightmares.... ;) :) :) :) :)
-
The way Jeremy sniffed around everything and everyone I bet he knew exactly what she was prescribed and learned that "she hasn't been taking her medication" as June told the electrician earlier in the week. Jeremy's natural father was in the Army Medical Corps and Jeremy's favourite subject at school was chemistry and I wouldn't have put it past him to read up on schizophrenia and the possibilities this opened up to him in using Sheila as a scapegoat.
No blood down the front of her nightie,no lead on hands,perfect nails,no sign she had been in a struggle with anyone,involuntary body movements making the reloading of a gun difficult if not impossible,and Nevill alive at 3:26am with the Police arriving at 3:48am when no sound of running water was heard,no shouts or screams.
I have told you before:a woman such as Sheila might have looked out of the window and seen Police arrive. She would then have taken the corpses of Nicholas and Daniel outside in her arms to show them and tell them how she had saved their souls. Such are the actions conducive of a schizophrenic,not scarpering upstairs to shoot herself twice and lay to rest alongside the one person she really did not get along with,her mother June.
Steve, I always enjoy a piece of good fiction - and this is exactly what this is.
I could use my imagination too and say that Sheila did this to "please" her mother. It was June who had called Sheila "the Devil´s child", and following that, Sheila saw her sons as "the Devil´s children." She could have done this as a "sacrifice" to clean the world of all this Devil´s spawn! In her schizophrenic mind, she could have thought they were all going to heaven together, cleansed. Mixed with feelings of resentment and revenge perhaps.
But that is fiction too...
-
The bible was found by Sheilas' right side on entry into the farmhouse.
Steve,,,you must have read that it isn't unusual for a mother to kill her children,,,out of love,not hatred,,,then turn the gun on themselves. Sadly,it was rarely heard of back in 1985.
Why are the diaries and suicide notes/letters being withheld do you think,after all these years.?
-
The bible was found by Sheilas' right side on entry into the farmhouse.
Steve,,,you must have read that it isn't unusual for a mother to kill her children,,,out of love,not hatred,,,then turn the gun on themselves. Sadly,it was rarely heard of back in 1985.
ait still happened tho lookout. Someone I knew as a child attempted to kill herself and her children. It was kept very quiet. No headlines in the local paper.....nothing. So no doubt it happened but it was dealt with quietly. ....How times have changed.
-
ait still happened tho lookout. Someone I knew as a child attempted to kill herself and her children. It was kept very quiet. No headlines in the local paper.....nothing. So no doubt it happened but it was dealt with quietly. ....How times have changed.
Hi Maggie,,there was very little understanding of it then,,and sadly,,they're not much further on 27 years later,,but at least it's been made aware of because of things like this happening such as blame falling on others.
-
Hi Maggie,,there was very little understanding of it then,,and sadly,,they're not much further on 27 years later,,but at least it's been made aware of because of things like this happening such as blame falling on others.
I think women understood and felt sympathy but it was a mans world and they didnt get it at all.
-
(Ooooh,,Schindlers List is on,,,an oldish black and white version.) ITV3.
-
I think women understood and felt sympathy but it was a mans world and they didnt get it at all.
That was usually the way,Maggie,,,yes,it was a mans' world once upon a time.
-
The bible was found by Sheilas' right side on entry into the farmhouse.
Steve,,,you must have read that it isn't unusual for a mother to kill her children,,,out of love,not hatred,,,then turn the gun on themselves. Sadly,it was rarely heard of back in 1985.
Lookout you talk of turning the gun on themselves..how many women with schizophrenia in America where the gun culture as you know is far more prevalent have used guns to kill their children and then themselves? Did Catherine Murch have schizophrenia..it's the only case I can recall out of the 150 million or so women in America,because using firearms is a man's crime.
-
Lookout you talk of turning the gun on themselves..how many women with schizophrenia in America where the gun culture as you know is far more prevalent have used guns to kill their children and then themselves? Did Catherine Murch have schizophrenia..it's the only case I can recall out of the 150 million or so women in America,because using firearms is a man's crime.
Steve,,it's quite a high percentage in America of course,,but I suppose if you google the subject,,you'd get an overall picture. I'll have a go.
-
Lookout you talk of turning the gun on themselves..how many women with schizophrenia in America where the gun culture as you know is far more prevalent have used guns to kill their children and then themselves? Did Catherine Murch have schizophrenia..it's the only case I can recall out of the 150 million or so women in America,because using firearms is a man's crime.
Just because it doesnt happen very often doesnt mean it doesnt happen at all steve. ;D
-
Lookout you talk of turning the gun on themselves..how many women with schizophrenia in America where the gun culture as you know is far more prevalent have used guns to kill their children and then themselves? Did Catherine Murch have schizophrenia..it's the only case I can recall out of the 150 million or so women in America,because using firearms is a man's crime.
Well, the whole topic of murder is something we ladies shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about ::). What a ridiculous thing to say Steve!!
-
Steve, I always enjoy a piece of good fiction - and this is exactly what this is.
I could use my imagination too and say that Sheila did this to "please" her mother. It was June who had called Sheila "the Devil´s child", and following that, Sheila saw her sons as "the Devil´s children." She could have done this as a "sacrifice" to clean the world of all this Devil´s spawn! In her schizophrenic mind, she could have thought they were all going to heaven together, cleansed. Mixed with feelings of resentment and revenge perhaps.
But that is fiction too...
But according to the Defence Sheila was still wandering around inside the farmhouse when the Police arrived. Paranoid schizophrenics do not act to our rules,they don't fall into the category of "I've been wronged by my family and I'm going to teach them a lesson" suicide. They follow their own logic. Sheila might well have been proud of what she had accomplished and what better way to show it than to inform the Police Officers on arrival of what she had done.
-
Lookout you talk of turning the gun on themselves..how many women with schizophrenia in America where the gun culture as you know is far more prevalent have used guns to kill their children and then themselves? Did Catherine Murch have schizophrenia..it's the only case I can recall out of the 150 million or so women in America,because using firearms is a man's crime.
The subject is called Filicide---Suicide. Parents/mothers who kill their children,then themselves. Majority have psychotic problems or some sort of mental-health issues.
-
But according to the Defence Sheila was still wandering around inside the farmhouse when the Police arrived. Paranoid schizophrenics do not act to our rules,they don't fall into the category of "I've been wronged by my family and I'm going to teach them a lesson" suicide. They follow their own logic. Sheila might well have been proud of what she had accomplished and what better way to show it than to inform the Police Officers on arrival of what she had done.
Having lived with one for most of my life whilst growing up, I can say with confidence that you don't know anything about paranoid schizophrenics. And no one said that Sheila killed the family out of revenge, it's you who keeps talking about revenge!! She was ill, she lost it whatever her reason at the time, they made sense to her but it was NOTHING to do with revenge!!! probably more to do with fear!!
-
Well, the whole topic of murder is something we ladies shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about ::). What a ridiculous thing to say Steve!!
Caroline I'm looking at the statistics for suicide among schizophrenic women who kill their children with a gun.
-
Having lived with one for most of my life whilst growing up, I can say with confidence that you don't know anything about paranoid schizophrenics. And no one said that Sheila killed the family out of revenge, it's you who keeps talking about revenge!! She was ill, she lost it whatever her reason at the time, they made sense to her but it was NOTHING to do with revenge!!! probably more to do with fear!!
I not once used the word "revenge". Of course Sheila had mentioned suicide to Helen Grimster-I'm not trying to cover up facts-and it's well known that people who talk of suicide are statistically more prone to it. I just wonder how much Jeremy knew of Sheila's conversations and her medical history. Quite a lot would be my guess.
-
Caroline I'm looking at the statistics for suicide among schizophrenic women who kill their children with a gun.
Sheila would have been described as a psychotic filicide/suicide,, such is the expulsion of energy in killing,that they forget to commit suicide and end up with a half-hearted attempt when shooting themselves.
-
Sheila would have been described as a psychotic filicide/suicide,, such is the expulsion of energy in killing,that they forget to commit suicide and end up with a half-hearted attempt when shooting themselves.
Sorry lookout it just doesn't happen that way. Paranoid schizophrenics don't plan to kill five people in advance,the twins murdered conveniently in their beds so that Jeremy doesn't have to face them running around the Farm. It's so obviously Jeremy's handiwork even putting Julie's statement to one side for the minute.
-
73% killed their children by shooting.
-
But according to the Defence Sheila was still wandering around inside the farmhouse when the Police arrived. Paranoid schizophrenics do not act to our rules,they don't fall into the category of "I've been wronged by my family and I'm going to teach them a lesson" suicide. They follow their own logic. Sheila might well have been proud of what she had accomplished and what better way to show it than to inform the Police Officers on arrival of what she had done.
That's probably what did happen, well done Steve...at last....
-
Having lived with one for most of my life whilst growing up, I can say with confidence that you don't know anything about paranoid schizophrenics. And no one said that Sheila killed the family out of revenge, it's you who keeps talking about revenge!! She was ill, she lost it whatever her reason at the time, they made sense to her but it was NOTHING to do with revenge!!! probably more to do with fear!!
Caroline I have never had personal involvement with a paranoid schizophrenic but that does not exclude me from the discussion however much you would like it to be so. From what I can make out Sheila's schizophrenia was not typified by remarks such as "I wish I were dead","I am going to kill myself","I wish I had never been born";moreover I recall that Dr. Hugh Ferguson did not regard Sheila as a suicide risk because "she had too much to live for".http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/192621.php
-
Caroline I'm looking at the statistics for suicide among schizophrenic women who kill their children with a gun.
Steve, the problem with statistics is that they are cold facts. They tell you nothing of circumstances. How many of the women who killed their children had access to a gun? The stats don't tell you that do they? Sheila did have access.
-
Sorry lookout it just doesn't happen that way. Paranoid schizophrenics don't plan to kill five people in advance,the twins murdered conveniently in their beds so that Jeremy doesn't have to face them running around the Farm. It's so obviously Jeremy's handiwork even putting Julie's statement to one side for the minute.
That's right,Steve,,they don't plan,,,they do it on impulse,spur of the moment and can annihilate a whole family. It would have spilled over out of control after their evening meal when Jeremy had gone.
-
Sorry lookout it just doesn't happen that way. Paranoid schizophrenics don't plan to kill five people in advance,the twins murdered conveniently in their beds so that Jeremy doesn't have to face them running around the Farm. It's so obviously Jeremy's handiwork even putting Julie's statement to one side for the minute.
Who said she planned anything in advance?
-
Caroline I have never had personal involvement with a paranoid schizophrenic but that does not exclude me from the discussion however much you would like it to be so. From what I can make out Sheila's schizophrenia was not typified by remarks such as "I wish I were dead","I am going to kill myself","I wish I had never been born";moreover I recall that Dr. Hugh Ferguson did not regard Sheila as a suicide risk because "she had too much to live for".http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/192621.php
Steve there are witness statements where she was reported to have spoken of suicide.....we have been here before.....about 6 mobths ago.
-
Steve, the problem with statistics is that they are cold facts. They tell you nothing of circumstances. How many of the women who killed their children had access to a gun? The stats don't tell you that do they? Sheila did have access.
I doubt Nevill or June would have left that rifle where Jeremy claims he put it along with the ammunition spilled out on the blue and white chequered kitchen worktop,but leaving that aside there must be hundreds of thousands of mentally ill women in America with access to firearms,yet I'm having difficulty in finding concrete examples who share but a tenuous link to the Sheila Caffell case.
-
For more information on filicide/suicide,,read what Resnick has to write. It's an excellent insight.
-
Who said she planned anything in advance?
Sheila didn't plan anything in advance,but Jeremy had it all thought out. He had thought it out all day on the tractor..
-
For more information on filicide/suicide,,read what Resnick has to write. It's an excellent insight.
The woman who as a girl was squeamish about a chicken having its neck wrung would not have used a gun,however well written and researched Resnick's work is.
-
The woman who as a girl was squeamish about a chicken having its neck wrung would not have used a gun,however well written and researched Resnick's work is.
Most girls would be more than squeamish at a chicken having its neck rung and quite a few men too. It has no baring on the tragedy of schizophrenia, psychosis and severe depression steve.
-
The woman who as a girl was squeamish about a chicken having its neck wrung would not have used a gun,however well written and researched Resnick's work is.
My dear Steve,,,she was a girl.Most girls run if they see a hen running after them. Sheilas' problems started from her teenage years,,and at 17,we all know what happened to the promiscuous lass.
-
Most girls would be more than squeamish at a chicken having its neck rung and quite a few men too. It has no baring on the tragedy of schizophrenia, psychosis and severe depression steve.
Sheila had never harmed anybody before,nor had she threatened suicide.
-
My dear Steve,,,she was a girl.Most girls run if they see a hen running after them. Sheilas' problems started from her teenage years,,and at 17,we all know what happened to the promiscuous lass.
I have always believed she was in the early development of scizophrenia from puberty onward lookout. This would account for her chaos and difficulty in mixing. Also her promiscuity and ultra sensitivity??
-
Sheila had never harmed anybody before,nor had she threatened suicide.
Steve,,,she told the doctor she was suicidal and could easily kill the children.Nobody took a blind bit of notice.
-
Sheila had never harmed anybody before,nor had she threatened suicide.
Steve her friend or cousin made a statement which is in the archives . This person states that Sheila did speak to her about suicide. You have seen it before. Will find it tomorrow. Most schizophrenics are first diagnosed after a failed suicide attempt.
-
3x4ths of parents had psychiatric symptoms prior to committing filicide and 40% had recently seen a physician or psychiatrist. In fact,some mothers talked openly of suicide and even concern about the future of their children. If multiple, commonly occurring factors can be identified in filicide/suicide offenders,,by clinicians,prior to the act,,,there is hope that some deaths may be prevented.
-
Steve,,,she told the doctor she was suicidal and could easily kill the children.Nobody took a blind bit of notice.
I think she said she thought the Devil had given them power to exercise evil over people,not nice admittedly but not quite what you said. That was in any case her first stay at St. Andrews' in Autumn 1983. By March 1985 she had more of a religious fervour and said positive things about the twins.
No doubt Jeremy had got wind of all of this and distorted the whole thing in his mind. It is indicative of how his brain was working that the idea to do away with his family and blame Sheila had taken hold by the Christmas of 1984,as corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden and of course directly by Julie in her statement.
-
I doubt Nevill or June would have left that rifle where Jeremy claims he put it along with the ammunition spilled out on the blue and white chequered kitchen worktop,but leaving that aside there must be hundreds of thousands of mentally ill women in America with access to firearms,yet I'm having difficulty in finding concrete examples who share but a tenuous link to the Sheila Caffell case.
There doesn't have to be a link, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule!
-
Caroline I'm looking at the statistics for suicide among schizophrenic women who kill their children with a gun.
Hi Steve :)
We can't compare gun crimes here in the UK, because we are not a gun nation. Most mentally ill people that kill their children use alternate methods, sad to say and, it is most rife........I would not compare with the USA....because that nation has guns coming out their ears. :( :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Steve her friend or cousin made a statement which is in the archives . This person states that Sheila did speak to her about suicide. You have seen it before. Will find it tomorrow. Most schizophrenics are first diagnosed after a failed suicide attempt.
There was no failed suicide attempt if that's what you're trying to allege. She did put her hand through glass,and whilst unpleasant and a sign that Sheila was ill it's more indicative of the self-harm which schizophrenics as a whole are prone to.
-
Steve,,,she told the doctor she was suicidal and could easily kill the children.Nobody took a blind bit of notice.
Sheila and the rest of the family were totally let down by the professionals. They were all left to get on with it best they could. I dont wonder June and Ralph were worn out by it all. They must have been worn out with worry sbout Sheila and the twins.
-
Hi Steve :)
We can't compare gun crimes here in the UK, because we are not a gun nation. Most mentally ill people that kill there children use alternate methods, sad to say and, it is most rife........I would not compare with the USA....because that nation has guns coming out their ears. :( :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
But the socio-economic policies of laissez-faire were similar Patti with Thatcherism and Reaganomics which as a consequence led to an increase in crime and hence the prison population. I just find it strange that there were not more mentally ill American women on the edge as Sheila undoubtedly was in March 1985 who took up firearms and in the process killed their children.
-
I think she said she thought the Devil had given them power to exercise evil over people,not nice admittedly but not quite what you said. That was in any case her first stay at St. Andrews' in Autumn 1983. By March 1985 she had more of a religious fervour and said positive things about the twins.
No doubt Jeremy had got wind of all of this and distorted the whole thing in his mind. It is indicative of how his brain was working that the idea to do away with his family and blame Sheila had taken hold by the Christmas of 1984,as corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden and of course directly by Julie in her statement.
Steve,,,Jeremy didn't have a clue about Sheilas' illness at all,,,nor did the GP's know much either,,so very little information was passed on because of that reason.
Nor would I imagine that Jeremy would be very interested in all things medical when he had a demanding girlfriend and a farm to help with,,then his entertainment at weekends,etc. No siree.
-
There was no failed suicide attempt if that's what you're trying to allege. She did put her hand through glass,and whilst unpleasant and a sign that Sheila was ill it's more indicative of the self-harm which suicides as a whole are prone to.
I am not 'trying to allege' anything steve I just said there is a statement by a cousin, i think, who speaks about some time she spent with Sheila who spoke about suicide and scared her. Its too late tonight but will find it tomorrow.
-
Sheila and the rest of the family were totally let down by the professionals. They were all left to get on with it best they could. I dont wonder June and Ralph were worn out by it all. They must have been worn out with worry sbout Sheila and the twins.
Yes maggie,and this is one of the reasons why they took their eye off the ball with Jeremy.
-
Steve,,,Jeremy didn't have a clue about Sheilas' illness at all,,,nor did the GP's know much either,,so very little information was passed on because of that reason.
Nor would I imagine that Jeremy would be very interested in all things medical when he had a demanding girlfriend and a farm to help with,,then his entertainment at weekends,etc. No siree.
No I don't believe that at all lookout. Sheila's illness was the pretext Jeremy was looking for to do away with his family and gain his freedom. It may have crossed his mind briefly on occasions and each time he brought it up in front of Julie she told him not to talk about it. Unfortunately this only emboldened him and he began to devise a foolproof scheme as he described it to Julie whereby he would become the main beneficiary of his parents' estate.
-
Sheila and the rest of the family were totally let down by the professionals. They were all left to get on with it best they could. I dont wonder June and Ralph were worn out by it all. They must have been worn out with worry sbout Sheila and the twins.
Yes,Maggie,,they were all badly let down,,and those professionals who treated Sheila in various clinics/hospitals ought to be ashamed.
Well that day particularly,Maggie,,as all didn't appear too well with one thing and another.
-
Yes maggie,and this is one of the reasons why they took their eye off the ball with Jeremy.
Oh God!
Jeremy wasn't the problem, Sheila was.
'It' had been building up with Sheila all week.
Sheila had been going crazy all week: let down by Colin (notwithstanding he had to take her to the farm as she couldn't look after the twins by herself full-time;, running screaming from the monastery and scaring the hell out of the witness who hid; withdrawn whilst shopping etc; shouting at the electricity guy (wonder what happened to him - we need him on this thread!); not taking her correct dosage of medication, etc etc....poor girl she was a time-bomb waiting to go off.
-
No I don't believe that at all lookout. Sheila's illness was the pretext Jeremy was looking for to do away with his family and gain his freedom. It may have crossed his mind briefly on occasions and each time he brought it up in front of Julie she told him not to talk about it. Unfortunately this only emboldened him and he began to devise a foolproof scheme as he described it to Julie whereby he would become the main beneficiary of his parents' estate.
Do you know what Steve.? The more you come up with some of your own images of what took place,,the less I'm believing you,,even if you appeared to be correct. When some things are too good to be true,,,they usually are.
-
But the socio-economic policies of laissez-faire were similar Patti with Thatcherism and Reaganomics which as a consequence led to an increase in crime and hence the prison population. I just find it strange that there were not more mentally ill American women on the edge as Sheila undoubtedly was in March 1985 who took up firearms and in the process killed their children.
Nothing to do with politics Steve...its to do with an illness that you me and most of this Country is oblivious to....We are ignorant when it comes to the make up of schizophrenia and paranoia....psychotic episodes etc....We are not medically trained in this field, we can't really judge someone at the end of the day, yet we read about parents killing their children and families all the time.....
I honestly do not understand why people ignore this, because it is fact.....it has happened since to my knowledge, since the early 1800's and it will continue to happen if people ignore the signs of mental illness....
You see, when you are having an psychotic episode, you are not aware of what you are doing....your personality becomes divided.....you imagine things that are not real.....for goodness sake wake up and smell the coffee....
Jeremy had no mantel illness, he had not been in trouble with police, although some would love to believe it, but the fact is he wasn't......Anyone can see that the killings were done in a frenzy, by someone who had completely lost the plot....who taunted their victims....
So did Jeremy suddenly become a mentally ill, frenzied killer...Or did Shelia, bless her!! Or did some other lunatic pull the trigger.......its a guessing game and we might never know....So we are left with Jeremy did it, because he was found guilty in a court of law....so that is it! For some it is, for me I will continue to research this till I find the truth....And, I am sure that Jeremy did not do it...he couldn't do it he had no guts to do it...Oh yes, he was the arrogant sod and maybe still is....but that is part of his makeup, whether it be genetic or not....Phew! lol :) :) :) :)
-
Oh God!
Jeremy wasn't the problem, Sheila was.
'It' had been building up with Sheila all week.
Sheila had been going crazy all week: let down by Colin (notwithstanding he had to take her to the farm as she couldn't look after the twins by herself full-time;, running screaming from the monastery and scaring the hell out of the witness who hid; withdrawn whilst shopping etc; shouting at the electricity guy (wonder what happened to him - we need him on this thread!); not taking her correct dosage of medication, etc etc....poor girl she was a time-bomb waiting to go off.
That's true HMEssex but Jeremy was observing all this from his vantage point and must not have been able to believe his luck. This was the opportunity he had been waiting for for months,this was the execution of the workings going on inside his head and which could finally be realized. He ran it by Julie in the first telephone call(the "tonight's the night..it's now or never call)and Julie being tired from work and probably not taking him seriously as he had in the past been a relentless practical joker did not slap him down the way she should have.
You can't possibly believe that there were two potential killers inside one house. When you look at the evidence of Sheila's well-manicured nails and appearance,her unfamiliarity with guns and her immaculate facial appearance along with just one fingerprint on the gun it's impossible that she did the deed.
-
Thought you were going to bed hours ago Patti. Tut tut..
-
Steve,,are you sure you're not writing a book and putting in your own version of events.?
It's good mind you,,but not necessarily correct.
-
Nothing to do with politics Steve...its to do with an illness that you me and most of this Country is oblivious to....We are ignorant when it comes to the make up of schizophrenia and paranoia....psychotic episodes etc....We are not medically trained in this field, we can't really judge someone at the end of the day, yet we read about parents killing their children and families all the time.....
I honestly do not understand why people ignore this, because it is fact.....it has happened since to my knowledge, since the early 1800's and it will continue to happen if people ignore the signs of mental illness....
You see, when you are having an psychotic episode, you are not aware of what you are doing....your personality becomes divided.....you imagine things that are not real.....for goodness sake wake up and smell the coffee....
Jeremy had no mantel illness, he had not been in trouble with police, although some would love to believe it, but the fact is he wasn't......Anyone can see that the killings were done in a frenzy, by someone who had completely lost the plot....who taunted their victims....
So did Jeremy suddenly become a mentally ill, frenzied killer...Or did Shelia, bless her!! Or did some other lunatic pull the trigger.......its a guessing game and we might never know....So we are left with Jeremy did it, because he was found guilty in a court of law....so that is it! For some it is, for me I will continue to research this till I find the truth....And, I am sure that Jeremy did not do it...he couldn't do it he had no guts to do it...Oh yes, he was the arrogant sod and maybe still is....but that is part of his makeup, whether it be genetic or not....Phew! lol :) :) :) :)
He probably did it with the lights off Patti..he wasn't up to identifying the bodies..the hard work had been done which was why his tongue was rather looser than it should have been that first morning at Goldhanger.
Of course when he was considered a suspect he clammed up altogether.
-
Thought you eere going to bed hours ago Patti. Tut tut..
You said good night first...lol I like it here..Ha! I never sleep well on Sunday night anyway and, I'm not looking forward to tomorrow...or the rest of the week. ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
He probably did it with the lights off Patti..he wasn't up to identifying the bodies..the hard work had been done which was why his tongue was rather looser than it should have been that first morning at Goldhanger.
Of course when he was considered a suspect he clammed up altogether.
So who put the lights on???????? :P
-
You said good night first...lol I like it here..Ha! I never sleep well on Sunday night anyway and, I'm not looking forward to tomorrow...or the rest of the week. ;) ;) ;) ;)
It's crap patti......sorryxx
-
So who put the lights on???????? :P
This is another area we need to get the facts straight,along with the trick of the light,the scruffy hunched up man,the burn marks on Nevill's back and many other irregularities.
-
I'm watching a film that doesn't finish until 1.50.It started at 10pm.
-
So who put the lights on???????? :P
I read something the other day Patti. You know how the police kept saying the lights were on then two lights were on etc then all the lights were on. The suggestion was that someone inside the house was moving around turning them on and off. Before Hartley blows a gasket I am not suggesting this happened. Just saying it never entered my mind before. ;D
-
I'm watching a film that doesn't finish until 1.50.It started at 10pm.
You might as well have your brekkie before you go to hit the pillow...lol :) :) :) :)
-
That's true HMEssex but Jeremy was observing all this from his vantage point and must not have been able to believe his luck. This was the opportunity he had been waiting for for months,this was the execution of the workings going on inside his head and which could finally be realized. He ran it by Julie in the first telephone call(the "tonight's the night..it's now or never call)and Julie being tired from work and probably not taking him seriously as he had in the past been a relentless practical joker did not slap him down the way she should have.
You can't possibly believe that there were two potential killers inside one house. When you look at the evidence of Sheila's well-manicured nails and appearance,her unfamiliarity with guns and her immaculate facial appearance along with just one fingerprint on the gun it's impossible that she did the deed.
Oh Steve!
Twist everything.
But you are sort of funny...who are you??
-
I read something the other day Patti. You know how the police kept saying the lights were on then two lights were on etc then all the lights were on. The suggestion was that someone inside the house was moving around turning them on and off. Before Hartley blows a gasket I am not suggesting this happened. Just saying it never entered my mind before. ;D
It is odd that different people see the lights on some say they are off....Only one of the raid team says the main bedroom light was on. This was supposed to be the room that had the trick of the light....You can't see tricks of light though, when a light is on, only when it is off.....
Ha! Our Hartley has more than one gasket though lolol :) :) :) :) :)
-
Oh Steve!
Twist everything.
But you are sort of funny...who are you??
Hi HME its hilarious dont you think? ;D I am convinced steve is joking.
-
Hi HME its hilarious dont you think? ;D I am convinced steve is joking.
Yes,,he's pulling our legs,,tee hee hee. Clever Steve.
-
It is odd that different people see the lights on some say they are off....Only one of the raid team says the main bedroom light was on. This was supposed to be the room that had the trick of the light....You can't see tricks of light though, when a light is on, only when it is off.....
Ha! Our Hartley has more than one gasket though lolol :) :) :) :) :)
Where was the moon pattie...I thought the moon was at the other side of the house. Hard to have a trick of the light without any light ;D
-
But according to the Defence Sheila was still wandering around inside the farmhouse when the Police arrived. Paranoid schizophrenics do not act to our rules,they don't fall into the category of "I've been wronged by my family and I'm going to teach them a lesson" suicide. They follow their own logic. Sheila might well have been proud of what she had accomplished and what better way to show it than to inform the Police Officers on arrival of what she had done.
Actually they do. They might not use common logic, but rather their own skewed one. Many such murders committed by schizophrenics are actually planned - and mostly their families or family members are the targets.
For now this has to stand as my claim (I am working), but when I have time, I will find material on this.
-
Actually they do. They might not use common logic, but rather their own skewed one. Many such murders committed by schizophrenics are actually planned - and mostly their families or family members are the targets.
For now this has to stand as my claim (I am working), but when I have time, I will find material on this.
Well said Alias, Steve isn't bothered by facts if they don't fit into his scenario's. He doesn't listen when people who have experienced living with a paranoid Schizophrenic tell him the effects time after time. But go ahead, give it a shot :)
-
Actually they do. They might not use common logic, but rather their own skewed one. Many such murders committed by schizophrenics are actually planned - and mostly their families or family members are the targets.
For now this has to stand as my claim (I am working), but when I have time, I will find material on this.
Alias,,you're right in what you say about them targeting families..Schizophrenics will only attack if ( 1),they haven't taken their prescribed medication,,or ( 2 ),,if they've taken any form of substance,if taken alongside their medication, will immediately cancel out the effect of the medication. So however long Sheila had relied on substance abuse,,she may as well have not been taking medication at all.
The Haloperidol,an old medication by todays standards of treatment,,would give off side effects worse than her illness itself,,as without her other medication to stop these side effects,,,she was a bigger danger to others as one would realise.
-
all other evidence points to SC not being the murderess , so despite her illness i doubt she was responible for that night in 1985
-
all other evidence points to SC not being the murderess , so despite her illness i doubt she was responible for that night in 1985
BG,,,can you write as much information giving evidence that Jeremy did it.?
-
BG,,,can you write as much information giving evidence that Jeremy did it.?
No :( he didnt leave much evidence and was quite a good actor
-
No :( he didnt leave much evidence and was quite a good actor
No evidence--------no crime...How was he a good actor.? Because he happened to admit it himself.? What does it prove.?
-
Steve, you say, with no little pride, that what you offer is based on a balance of probabilities. Last night you appeared to be clutching at very fragile straws. You, rather vulgarly, spoke of "....the way Jeremy sniffed around everybody and everything......." You elevated him to the status of chemist when you suggested that he had taken on board all 5 of Sheila's meds and furthermore how they would interact with recreational drugs. I thought I detected panic when you said you were looking for statisics of schizophrenics committing suicide using guns. I'm certain you don't need me to tell you that stats will always prove that which they are required to.
I was amazed when you had the temerity to tell a psych nurse "schizophrenia doesn't work like that........" Lookout and several others of us have been telling you that for as long as it has been debated. I wouldn't deny anyone the right to express their opinion. If we stuck to what we know we wouldn't advance any further, but we're on rather shakey ground if we spout theories at varience to those who have personal, daily experience.
You have, on numerous occasions, said that Dr Ferguson said Sheila had too much to live for to attempt suicide, but he was basing that on his last meeting with her, middle/end of March. He had no way of knowing the path her life would take over the following 12/16 weeks. A schizophrenic may never have previously shown signs of wanting to commit suicide, so it would be easy to assume that person was not suicidal, but if the same person became fearful enough of a given/imagined situation, the fear itself MAY be enough of a trigger. I can only say I feel that Sheila was in a very fearful place and may have been looking for somewhere safe for her and the boys.
-
only 5-13% of schizophrenics actually commit suicide , well known figures show that women are actually less likely to commit suicide , it's more likely for men to commit suicide.
I think we're looking at less than 5% of schizophrenic women commiting suicide
So here we have SC who allegedly in that very small % , not only that but murders her entire family. the percentages here keep getting smaller and smaller
-
only 5-13% of schizophrenics actually commit suicide , well known figures show that women are actually less likely to commit suicide , it's more likely for men to commit suicide.
I think we're looking at less than 5% of schizophrenic women commiting suicide
So here we have SC who allegedly in that very small % , not only that but murders her entire family. the percentages here keep getting smaller and smaller
I not entirely certain that percentages are applicable in this case. For starters we have no way of knowing which variables had been part of the equation. We have no way of knowing what life circumstances were in place. We don't know if meds were appropriate. We don't know if meds were being taken. We don't know what was happening emotionally. We know quite a lot about what was happening with Sheila.
-
I not entirely certain that percentages are applicable in this case. For starters we have no way of knowing which variables had been part of the equation. We have no way of knowing what life circumstances were in place. We don't know if meds were appropriate. We don't know if meds were being taken. We don't know what was happening emotionally. We know quite a lot about what was happening with Sheila.
i find the percentages only going down here , what increases the % is the amount of people who want to believe that SC was a killer... But believing is not enough to equal the equation.
I came to this site because there is so much doubt over this case , but i find it hard to believe that SC did this.
Women are crazy but not this crazy.
-
only 5-13% of schizophrenics actually commit suicide , well known figures show that women are actually less likely to commit suicide , it's more likely for men to commit suicide.
I think we're looking at less than 5% of schizophrenic women commiting suicide
So here we have SC who allegedly in that very small % , not only that but murders her entire family. the percentages here keep getting smaller and smaller
True but having access to away of suicide does increase the likely hood, plus 80's drugs were have more side-effects!
My mates wife has schizophrenia same build as Sheila, her husband built like a tank, didn't give a shit about police or anyone, always did what he like! When she had a violent turn, even he phone the police and came running out the house in fear, he got in the police car with the kids and even ambulance etc doctors etc just needed to control one women!
-
i dont fully understand the causes and effects of schizophrenia but SC doesnt seem to meet the most average of criteria. Maybe if we had a psychiatrist on here who could explain the possibilties of a schizophrenic not only wanting to kill themselves but everyone in the house.
http://www.annals-general-psychiatry.com/content/6/1/10
-
only 5-13% of schizophrenics actually commit suicide , well known figures show that women are actually less likely to commit suicide , it's more likely for men to commit suicide.
I think we're looking at less than 5% of schizophrenic women commiting suicide
So here we have SC who allegedly in that very small % , not only that but murders her entire family. the percentages here keep getting smaller and smaller
That still brings Sheila into the 5%. I don't see anyone here discussing any other schizoprenics killing their families here?
-
i find the percentages only going down here , what increases the % is the amount of people who want to believe that SC was a killer... But believing is not enough to equal the equation.
I came to this site because there is so much doubt over this case , but i find it hard to believe that SC did this.
Women are crazy but not this crazy.
I would agree entirely that simply wanting something to be does not make it so, but please remember that there is NO proof that Jeremy did or not commit the crime and all we know of what he supposedly did/said comes from the mouth of his jilted girlfriend. We have much less doubtful knowledge regarding Sheila and several people, at the time, registered no doubts about her having carried out the killings. That you want her not to have done it doesn't make it so.
-
I would agree entirely that simply wanting something to be does not make it so, but please remember that there is NO proof that Jeremy did or not commit the crime and all we know of what he supposedly did/said comes from the mouth of his jilted girlfriend. We have much less doubtful knowledge regarding Sheila and several people, at the time, registered no doubts about her having carried out the killings. That you want her not to have done it doesn't make it so.
true , what im saying is that once you rule out SC as a suicide case then you have to look elsewhere for the murderer , i cant fully condemn JB but all evidence points to him until something new does come to light
-
That still brings Sheila into the 5%. I don't see anyone here discussing any other schizoprenics killing their families here?
if you had 100% of that 5% of female schizophrenics killing themselves and thier entire family then there could be a good case agianst SC
Otherwise SC is the only 1 of 5% that commited familycide
-
true , what im saying is that once you rule out SC as a suicide case then you have to look elsewhere for the murderer , i cant fully condemn JB but all evidence points to him until something new does come to light
BG,,what is " all the evidence pointing to him " ?. Please list it.
-
ive put it in other threads. its weak at best but he's the most likely culprit
-
true , what im saying is that once you rule out SC as a suicide case then you have to look elsewhere for the murderer , i cant fully condemn JB but all evidence points to him until something new does come to light
But Sheila CAN'T be ruled out of being a suicidal risk, and if you have evidence that Jeremy did it then you must have knowledge that many of us don't. May I ask, if this case was bought to court now, do you believe, in light of the possibilites that have been revealed since 1985, that the outcome would be the same?
-
ive put it in other threads. its weak at best but he's the most likely culprit
" most likely " ?. You must admit,BG,,that it's not good enough in a court of law. I expect a list of evidence as long as my arm before I hold my hands up.
-
I beleive JB knowing he was the only person that knew the truth of what really happened that night knew that anyone had to prove that he was lying , he even said so in court.
-
:) :) :) As others say there's evidence to show the scene was played with, the scene wasn't protected. and silly cooky screwed the sound moderator on the end of the bloody threaded muzzle. before sending the thing to be tested as is alleged?
There just as much evidence as me point a finger at you big-goolies and say you did it!
-
I beleive JB knowing he was the only person that knew the truth of what really happened that night knew that anyone had to prove that he was lying , he even said so in court.
BG,,how do you know that Jeremy was the only one who knew the truth.? And you think he got a fair trial by him asking for proof that he was lying.?
-
I promised earlier that I would find some material on schizophrenia. This absolutely does not prove that Sheila committed those murders; but reading the article, you go, check, that was Sheila, check, that was like Sheila and so forth, on most points actually.
It is too significant to just rule out Sheila easily. I apologize to the memory of Sheila if this is all wrong. Please read if you can be bothered, it is interesting.
I promised to find material about mentally ill also being capable of planning killings and going about it methodically. I have read and posted such links earlier, but that will have to be another day. TOO DAMNED TIRED NOW!
http://www.schizophrenia.com/New/Dec2002/violenceDec02.htm
-
It would be easy enough to label SC as the schizophrenic murderer of her family as JB did but that still doesnt make the 'suicide' shots to SC as plausible
-
It would be easy enough to label SC as the schizophrenic murderer of her family as JB did but that still doesnt make the 'suicide' shots to SC as plausible
It does you know,BG,,,for believe it or not after the " energy " having been used killing a family,,schizophrenics forget that they're supposed to commit suicide so end up usually doing a botched job on themselves.
-
I promised earlier that I would find some material on schizophrenia. This absolutely does not prove that Sheila committed those murders; but reading the article, you go, check, that was Sheila, check, that was like Sheila and so forth, on most points actually.
It is too significant to just rule out Sheila easily. I apologize to the memory of Sheila if this is all wrong. Please read if you can be bothered, it is interesting.
I promised to find material about mentally ill also being capable of planning killings and going about it methodically. I have read and posted such links earlier, but that will have to be another day. TOO DAMNED TIRED NOW!
http://www.schizophrenia.com/New/Dec2002/violenceDec02.htm
Thank you for that, Alias. I found a link today that talks about how fear can trigger murder and suicide in schizophrenics with no previous history of violence, but it looks as if yours has a human element to it that makes it easy to relate to.
-
I promised earlier that I would find some material on schizophrenia. This absolutely does not prove that Sheila committed those murders; but reading the article, you go, check, that was Sheila, check, that was like Sheila and so forth, on most points actually.
It is too significant to just rule out Sheila easily. I apologize to the memory of Sheila if this is all wrong. Please read if you can be bothered, it is interesting.
I promised to find material about mentally ill also being capable of planning killings and going about it methodically. I have read and posted such links earlier, but that will have to be another day. TOO DAMNED TIRED NOW!
http://www.schizophrenia.com/New/Dec2002/violenceDec02.htm
Alias :)
Thank you for posting this. I do hope everyone reads it. Its a very sad insight to the real world of Schizophrenia.....There are so many similarities...Its also nice that you value Sheila's name. I do hope that one day we will know the full truth. :(
This bit particularly interested me:
A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.
-
It would be easy enough to label SC as the schizophrenic murderer of her family as JB did but that still doesnt make the 'suicide' shots to SC as plausible
I find them equally, if not less, possible in the case of Jeremy Bamber shooting her. How was he positioned to make those shots, how did he make her cooperate to lie down in such an awkward position? TWhy was there no struggle at THAT point?? And finally, WHERE was Sheila while Jeremy was killing the rest of the family - why didn´t she run, it must have taken some time?
I don´t buy that she was frozen in fear somewhere just waiting in line to be shot. People do fight for their lives - even petite women. In fact I think it is an insult to women in general and Sheila in particular to claim she was too feeble and weak to do the slightest to save her children or herself.
-
Thanks April and Patti.
The last sentence in your post struck me too, Patti.
It is such a sad illness, yes. I don´t think we can come close to imagining what it is like.
-
In fact I think it is an insult to women in general and Sheila in particular to claim she was too feeble and weak to do the slightest to save her children or herself.
I find it a bigger insult to women and SC labeling them as killers because they maybe schizophrenic
-
I find them equally, if not less, possible in the case of Jeremy Bamber shooting her. How was he positioned to make those shots, how did he make her cooperate to lie down in such an awkward position? TWhy was there no struggle at THAT point?? And finally, WHERE was Sheila while Jeremy was killing the rest of the family - why didn´t she run, it must have taken some time?
I don´t buy that she was frozen in fear somewhere just waiting in line to be shot. People do fight for their lives - even petite women. In fact I think it is an insult to women in general and Sheila in particular to claim she was too feeble and weak to do the slightest to save her children or herself.
She would have fought any attacker like a cat with her claws out. She would have done anything to damage any attacker who were hurting her children.
-
I find it a bigger insult to women and SC labeling them as killers because they maybe schizophrenic
That is not gender-specific. 8)
-
I find it a bigger insult to women and SC labeling them as killers because they maybe schizophrenic
Its not nice really is it. :(
-
She would have fought any attacker like a cat with her claws out. She would have done anything to damage any attacker who were hurting her children.
Of course she would! She would have been aware of what was going on - the awful noises and going ons on the same floor would have woken her up (if she was asleep), the first thing she would have done would have been to check on her boys. Any mother, any parent would.
Could she have been locked in her bedroom (don´t know if the room could be locked)? If she had, wouldn´t she have kicked the door - or jumped out the window, SOMETHING! Not just waited in line to get shot, then looking very peaceful after the fact, as the photos show.
-
There are some very good threads posted tonight and forgive me if I don't get to every point but feel free to recapitulate if there's something nagging which makes you feel uneasy. I have been accused in the past of simplifying schizophrenia,of not taking on board what the professionals in the field have posted and of having no personal experience of the illness and therefore writing in a vacuum with little or no facts to back up my point of view.
In fact I have read quite a bit on the illness in the past and whilst not suffering from schizophrenia personally I do know someone who was struck with the illness at the age of 17 after a series of stressful examinations. Please don't ask me to elucidate further because I'm not going to,but I will describe a few of her symptoms: dancing outside at a bus stop whilst having no intention of catching a bus,calling a taxi to Manchester Airport and insisting to Passport Control that she board a plane to Germany whilst not in possession of a ticket or a passport,and again whilst off medication quoting the bible in a way any person in the street would realize after two minutes that she was not quite normal.
On medication she was totally normal,you could talk to her just like anyone else and not suspect she was a schizophrenic. There were side-effects to the medication such as hand tremors(fastening taps so tightly the next person to use the sink would have difficulty in unscrewing them)and weight gain.
When I compare this girl to Sheila I think of Ann Eaton's claim that Sheila "couldn't put beans on toast",and Freddi Emani's observation that when Sheila poured a drink she needed two hands to hold the glass and when she used her right hand her left hand moved involuntarily. This would obviously impair Sheila from using a gun were she still under the influence of any anti-psychotic medication,and we have all read the medical report where there were traces of Haloperidol in her liver and cannabis,although Dr. Hugh Ferguson does say the cannabis use would not have impacted on the Haloperidol if I have read it right.
Ah but you may say Sheila was totally off her medication and therefore she would not have been prone to any of the side-effects mentioned above. Her manual dexterity would have been back to normal and let's say for sake of argument that she was able to reload a gun twice and had malice aforethought to plot the ultimate revenge on all in the house that night.
The problem with this scenario is that under the non-influence of any medication whatsoever her mental state reverts to what she had demonstrated and experienced in the past. We know from her ex-husband Colin that she was difficult to live with,that she had put her hand through a pane glass window for whatever reason and had hurled pots and pans around the kitchen though aiming to miss at Colin. Later at the Maida Vale flat her ex-boyfriend Freddi Emani noted her religious mania(I'm not too sure how she was a danger to others when she imagined herself Joan of Arc,and to my mind when Jeremy got wind of this it was the germination of his plot to burn the house down and fittingly burn his sister as Joan was),nor can I see distressing as it might be to the neighbours who wanted a good night's sleep how Sheila howling like a wolf in the night hours was a danger to anyone in the vicinity.
Did she ever threaten to kill anybody,did she ever pick up a kitchen knife and threaten to kill Colin or the boys? Did she ever do this at White House Farm where she stayed for a time after her hospitalization,and would Nevill and June ever have felt safe at night at this stage had she done so?
Of course it's impossible to categorize schizophrenics into one homogeneous group and it would be foolish to do so. But when you look at the tragic cases of Lianne Smith and Melanie Ruddell to name but two there's no real mystery about schizophrenics whatever cohort they belong to medically.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148064/Melanie-Ruddell-heard-voices-head-just-killed-son-Christy.html#axzz2JyLGoxHd
Of course the Jeremy supporters will quote Helen Grimster,and I have no wish to hide any information so I post it here. The only thing I would say is that Sheila comments that she has a better relationship with Colin because of the divorce,so the motive some allege of getting back at him for leaving her or feeling suicidal because they were not back together does not in my opinion stand up.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=155.0
-
I think there is too much focus on the state of Sheilas mind, i dont believe she was anything of the sort, if she was that bad she would have been sectioned.
-
I think there is too much focus on the state of Sheilas mind, i dont believe she was anything of the sort, if she was that bad she would have been sectioned.
That's my opinion too mertol22 and I would hazard a guess that even if the Haloperidol had worn off she was still under the influence of Electroconvulsive Therapy which made her vacant at the shop in Tiptree and later at the dinner table if Jeremy is to be believed,and under these circumstances unlikely that she could have discharged a gun 25 times with accuracy and reloaded twice in the process.
-
That's my opinion too mertol22 and I would hazard a guess that even if the Haloperidol had worn off she was still under the influence of Electroconvulsive Therapy which made her vacant at the shop in Tiptree and later at the dinner table if Jeremy is to be believed,and under these circumstances unlikely that she could have discharged a gun 25 times with accuracy and reloaded twice in the process.
While i may agree with you in the first part of your post steve there are factors to balence things, her running/screaming from the monastery, the end of her relationship with colin, to kill those people in that way , something very warped and twisted occured, we have not found the last parts of this sad puzzle.
-
While i may agree with you in the first part of your post steve there are factors to balence things, her running/screaming from the monastery, the end of her relationship with colin, to kill those people in that way , something very warped and twisted occured, we have not found the last parts of this sad puzzle.
I've dealt with the relationship with Colin,and I don't want to pretend that Sheila was a well woman. As far as the monastery incident is concerned and the electrician it's strangers who frighten her in my view not family,and Sheila does not attempt to seriously harm either group in any way.
-
On a scale of 1-10 how reliable are witnesses in this case:
1) James Richards: Why would he lie Jeremy told him "several times with vehemence:I f***ing hate my parents" Credibility rating: 9
2) Charles Marsden: Testified under oath Jeremy speculated that if the Farm burned down at the period of Christmas 1984 then "everything would be mine". The occasion was significant because it was the only time before August 1985 that the whole family was together under one roof. Credibility rating: 9
3) Julie Mugford: The star witness for the Prosecution who gave an insight into the workings of Jeremy's mind which for whatever reason Jeremy kept concealed during trial. It made her testimony that much more poignant. Judge Mr. Justice Drake directed the jury to "treat her evidence with a great deal of caution". Credibility rating: 8
4) Robert Boutflour: Testified that Jeremy had told him "Oh no Uncle Bobby..I could easily kill my parents". Uncorroborated and Boutflour was one of the relatives who stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction. Credibility rating:6
5) Doris Foakes: Jeremy told her:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila" which begs the question how Jeremy was going to arrange that state of affairs to come about. What reason does Doris have to lie? Credibility rating: 9
6) Barbara Wilson: Testified Jeremy put his feet up on Nevill's desk after the murders and barked orders at her. This farm secretary has nothing to gain by disparaging her probable new employer. Credibility rating: 10
7) Helen Grimster: A distant relative of the Bambers she had a conversation with Sheila Caffell several weeks before the murders in which Sheila had spoken of suicide. No reason to lie. Credibility rating: 9
Jeremy Bamber: His testimony about receiving the telephone call,about not having spoken to Julie regarding killing his family,and about not having used a silencer is uncorroborated. His remark to Prosecution barrister Anthony Arlidge QC "that is what you have to establish" suggests the workings of Jeremy's mind in which he is trying to bluff it out. Credibility rating: 0
-
On a scale of 1-10 how reliable are witnesses in this case:
1) James Richards: Why would he lie Jeremy told him "several times with vehemence:I f***ing hate my parents" Credibility rating: 9
2) Charles Marsden: Testified under oath Jeremy speculated that if the Farm burned down at the period of Christmas 1984 then "everything would be mine". The occasion was significant because it was the only time before August 1985 that the whole family was together under one roof. Credibility rating: 9
3) Julie Mugford: The star witness for the Prosecution who gave an insight into the workings of Jeremy's mind which for whatever reason Jeremy kept concealed during trial. It made her testimony that much more poignant. Judge Mr. Justice Drake directed the jury to "treat her evidence with a great deal of caution". Credibility rating: 8
4) Robert Boutflour: Testified that Jeremy had told him "Oh no Uncle Bobby..I could easily kill my parents". Uncorroborated and Boutflour was one of the relatives who stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction. Credibility rating:6
5) Doris Foakes: Jeremy told her:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila" which begs the question how Jeremy was going to arrange that state of affairs to come about. What reason does Doris have to lie? Credibility rating: 9
6) Barbara Wilson: Testified Jeremy put his feet up on Nevill's desk after the murders and barked orders at her. This farm secretary has nothing to gain by disparaging her probable new employer. Credibility rating: 10
7) Helen Grimster: A distant relative of the Bambers she had a conversation with Sheila Caffell several weeks before the murders in which Sheila had spoken of suicide. No reason to lie. Credibility rating: 9
Jeremy Bamber: His testimony about receiving the telephone call,about not having spoken to Julie regarding killing his family,and about not having used a silencer is uncorroborated. His remark to Prosecution barrister Anthony Arlidge QC "that is what you have to establish" suggests the workings of Jeremy's mind in which he is trying to bluff it out. Credibility rating: 0
I don't get the credibility ratings :-\. Are you saying that JB was max and BW min or vice-versa?
-
On a scale of 1-10 how reliable are witnesses in this case:
1) James Richards: Why would he lie Jeremy told him "several times with vehemence:I f***ing hate my parents" Credibility rating: 9
2) Charles Marsden: Testified under oath Jeremy speculated that if the Farm burned down at the period of Christmas 1984 then "everything would be mine". The occasion was significant because it was the only time before August 1985 that the whole family was together under one roof. Credibility rating: 9
3) Julie Mugford: The star witness for the Prosecution who gave an insight into the workings of Jeremy's mind which for whatever reason Jeremy kept concealed during trial. It made her testimony that much more poignant. Judge Mr. Justice Drake directed the jury to "treat her evidence with a great deal of caution". Credibility rating: 8
4) Robert Boutflour: Testified that Jeremy had told him "Oh no Uncle Bobby..I could easily kill my parents". Uncorroborated and Boutflour was one of the relatives who stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction. Credibility rating:6
5) Doris Foakes: Jeremy told her:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila" which begs the question how Jeremy was going to arrange that state of affairs to come about. What reason does Doris have to lie? Credibility rating: 9
6) Barbara Wilson: Testified Jeremy put his feet up on Nevill's desk after the murders and barked orders at her. This farm secretary has nothing to gain by disparaging her probable new employer. Credibility rating: 10
7) Helen Grimster: A distant relative of the Bambers she had a conversation with Sheila Caffell several weeks before the murders in which Sheila had spoken of suicide. No reason to lie. Credibility rating: 9
Jeremy Bamber: His testimony about receiving the telephone call,about not having spoken to Julie regarding killing his family,and about not having used a silencer is uncorroborated. His remark to Prosecution barrister Anthony Arlidge QC "that is what you have to establish" suggests the workings of Jeremy's mind in which he is trying to bluff it out. Credibility rating: 0
Isn't it strange that those words said by Colin about Sheila being culpable are according to you just words said as a reaction. You are as dismissive of others' words. But when it comes to anyone saying anything defamatory about Jeremy you insist they are telling the truth.
-
It's the balance of evidence and for Jeremy to be innocent you have to engineer a situation whereby all the people above must be dissembling whilst Jeremy is the person telling the Gospel truth. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way.
-
It's the balance of evidence and for Jeremy to be innocent you have to engineer a situation whereby all the people above must be dissembling whilst Jeremy is the person telling the Gospel truth. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way.
Steve,,re. your post about schizophrenia,,,cannabis/heroin would have cancelled out any benefit towards the prescription drugs that Sheila was taking for her condition,,,thus making her more likely to be violent.
-
Steve,,re. your post about schizophrenia,,,cannabis/heroin would have cancelled out any benefit towards the prescription drugs that Sheila was taking for her condition,,,thus making her more likely to be violent.
Sheila would not have gone near heroin. There was an incident related in Clare Powell's book about one of the Maida Vale set leaving a bag of heroin in a drawer which the boys had attended and Sheila was horrified.
-
It's the balance of evidence and for Jeremy to be innocent you have to engineer a situation whereby all the people above must be dissembling whilst Jeremy is the person telling the Gospel truth. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way.
Steve dear, when it comes to "engineering" you are world class ;D ;D ;D
-
Steve dear, when it comes to "engineering" you are world class ;D ;D ;D
I don't know why the other witnesses bothered to turn up at Chelmsford Crown Court in October 1986 if you're not prepared to listen to them.
-
I think there is too much focus on the state of Sheilas mind, i dont believe she was anything of the sort, if she was that bad she would have been sectioned.
As she undoubtedly WOULD have been had the NHS been involved. This, preventing sectioning, may have been one of the reasons private care was chosen for her.
-
Sheila would not have gone near heroin. There was an incident related in Clare Powell's book about one of the Maida Vale set leaving a bag of heroin in a drawer which the boys had attended and Sheila was horrified.
Steve,,I don't think you'd get a " bill " for cannabis for £40.000,,,do you.? Not even back then.
-
Steve,,I don't think you'd get a " bill " for cannabis for £40.000,,,do you.? Not even back then.
That's uncorroborated by Clare Powell,who seems to have interviewed anyone and everyone involved in that Maida Vale set. In any case it would be more of a motive for Jeremy to get rid of them all before it ate yet further into his inheritance.
-
On a scale of 1-10 how reliable are witnesses in this case:
1) James Richards: Why would he lie Jeremy told him "several times with vehemence:I f***ing hate my parents" Credibility rating: 9
2) Charles Marsden: Testified under oath Jeremy speculated that if the Farm burned down at the period of Christmas 1984 then "everything would be mine". The occasion was significant because it was the only time before August 1985 that the whole family was together under one roof. Credibility rating: 9
3) Julie Mugford: The star witness for the Prosecution who gave an insight into the workings of Jeremy's mind which for whatever reason Jeremy kept concealed during trial. It made her testimony that much more poignant. Judge Mr. Justice Drake directed the jury to "treat her evidence with a great deal of caution". Credibility rating: 8
4) Robert Boutflour: Testified that Jeremy had told him "Oh no Uncle Bobby..I could easily kill my parents". Uncorroborated and Boutflour was one of the relatives who stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction. Credibility rating:6
5) Doris Foakes: Jeremy told her:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila" which begs the question how Jeremy was going to arrange that state of affairs to come about. What reason does Doris have to lie? Credibility rating: 9
6) Barbara Wilson: Testified Jeremy put his feet up on Nevill's desk after the murders and barked orders at her. This farm secretary has nothing to gain by disparaging her probable new employer. Credibility rating: 10
7) Helen Grimster: A distant relative of the Bambers she had a conversation with Sheila Caffell several weeks before the murders in which Sheila had spoken of suicide. No reason to lie. Credibility rating: 9
Jeremy Bamber: His testimony about receiving the telephone call,about not having spoken to Julie regarding killing his family,and about not having used a silencer is uncorroborated. His remark to Prosecution barrister Anthony Arlidge QC "that is what you have to establish" suggests the workings of Jeremy's mind in which he is trying to bluff it out. Credibility rating: 0
Hang on a minute. Who's rating all these people? If you've given JM a rating of 8 and we know that her testimony was very unreliable, how are we to judge a rating of 9?
-
Hang on a minute. Who's rating all these people? If you've given JM a rating of 8 and we know that her testimony was very unreliable, how are we to judge a rating of 9?
Julie's evidence has been looked at and not shown to be false,thanks.
-
I don't know why the other witnesses bothered to turn up at Chelmsford Crown Court in October 1986 if you're not prepared to listen to them.
It is very difficult to get any kind of truth from sound bites and I'm not prepared to base credibility on your somewhat tunnel visioned assessment.
-
Julie's evidence has been looked at and not shown to be false,thanks.
Then why only give her a rating of 8 then?
-
Then why only give her a rating of 8 then?
Because of the caveat from the judge:one likes to be even-handed in these things.
-
That's uncorroborated by Clare Powell,who seems to have interviewed anyone and everyone involved in that Maida Vale set. In any case it would be more of a motive for Jeremy to get rid of them all before it ate yet further into his inheritance.
Steve,,,June parted company with a cheque for £40,000. It was Sheilas bill that was paid.
-
Steve,,,June parted company with a cheque for £40,000. It was Sheilas bill that was paid.
I never heard about Sheila having been on heroine - cocaine and cannabis, yes (Jeremy too), heroine, no.
Where do you have that from?
-
Julie's evidence has been looked at and not shown to be false,thanks.
Yes Steve, we know you've probably gone over it till your eyes ache but nothing she said can be proved, there were no witnesses, there was pillow talk. It was all about what she said he said/did. I wonder if Jeremy was as fooled by her as you seem to have been.
-
Yes Steve, we know you've probably gone over it till your eyes ache but nothing she said can be proved, there were no witnesses, there was pillow talk. It was all about what she said he said/did. I wonder if Jeremy was as fooled by her as you seem to have been.
It's indirectly corroborated by some of the witnesses I quoted. Also the remark(or slip) Jeremy made about saying a glove came off in the fight was not divulged to any mass media source. How could Jeremy possibly have known this if it wasn't he himself who had struggled with and finally killed Nevill? Do you think Matthew McDonald had a conversation with Jeremy after the murders in which these matters were discussed? If not why would Julie risk looking ridiculous in front of Police by making this story up with the sum of £2000 if she was in the last chance saloon and trying to avoid being made an accessory to murder?
-
On a scale of 1-10 how reliable are witnesses in this case:
1) James Richards: Why would he lie Jeremy told him "several times with vehemence:I f***ing hate my parents" Credibility rating: 9 0
2) Charles Marsden: Testified under oath Jeremy speculated that if the Farm burned down at the period of Christmas 1984 then "everything would be mine". The occasion was significant because it was the only time before August 1985 that the whole family was together under one roof. Credibility rating: 9 0
3) Julie Mugford: The star witness for the Prosecution who gave an insight into the workings of Jeremy's mind which for whatever reason Jeremy kept concealed during trial. It made her testimony that much more poignant. Judge Mr. Justice Drake directed the jury to "treat her evidence with a great deal of caution". Credibility rating: 8 0
4) Robert Boutflour: Testified that Jeremy had told him "Oh no Uncle Bobby..I could easily kill my parents". Uncorroborated and Boutflour was one of the relatives who stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction. Credibility rating:6 0
5) Doris Foakes: Jeremy told her:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila" which begs the question how Jeremy was going to arrange that state of affairs to come about. What reason does Doris have to lie? Credibility rating: 9 1
6) Barbara Wilson: Testified Jeremy put his feet up on Nevill's desk after the murders and barked orders at her. This farm secretary has nothing to gain by disparaging her probable new employer. Credibility rating: 10 6
7) Helen Grimster: A distant relative of the Bambers she had a conversation with Sheila Caffell several weeks before the murders in which Sheila had spoken of suicide. No reason to lie. Credibility rating: 9 10
Jeremy Bamber: His testimony about receiving the telephone call,about not having spoken to Julie regarding killing his family,and about not having used a silencer is uncorroborated. His remark to Prosecution barrister Anthony Arlidge QC "that is what you have to establish" suggests the workings of Jeremy's mind in which he is trying to bluff it out. Credibility rating: 0 9
Above are my ratings in red. Hi btw. ;)
-
It's indirectly corroborated by some of the witnesses I quoted. Also the remark(or slip) Jeremy made about saying a glove came off in the fight was not divulged to any mass media source. How could Jeremy possibly have known this if it wasn't he himself who had struggled with and finally killed Nevill? Do you think Matthew McDonald had a conversation with Jeremy after the murders in which these matters were discussed? If not why would Julie risk looking ridiculous in front of Police by making this story up with the sum of £2000 if she was in the last chance saloon and trying to avoid being made an accessory to murder?
As you say Steve, "indirectly by some", and which one of the endless persons to tramp through the farmhouse later would corroborate that there had been a fight duing which a glove came off and it's odd that you cannot allow for julie making herself look ridiculous in front of police when you ridicule everything Jeremy says.
-
Because of the caveat from the judge:one likes to be even-handed in these things.
I don't like caviar meself. ::)
-
Above are my ratings in red. Hi btw. ;)
Yes, Patti, they would be my ratings, too :) :)
-
I never heard about Sheila having been on heroine - cocaine and cannabis, yes (Jeremy too), heroine, no.
Where do you have that from?
Sorry,Alias,,,cocaine it was.
-
Sorry,Alias,,,cocaine it was.
OK :)
-
"Rather a prickly boy..irritating..a relentless tease.."
The remarks come from Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart, Jeremy's former Headmaster at Gresham's public school,where Jeremy spent eight years in a confined space conducive to making accurate character observations one might think. Julie too noticed these traits in Jeremy,found him difficult to read and went along with him hook,line and sinker to her great cost.
What was it in Jeremy's mien,in his manner which drew people who met him to this unflattering conclusion? What was it which intimidated his own sister into not wishing to impose on him by asking for a lift back home at Colin's party..had she sensed the anger and frustration in his lineaments,or had he on a previous occasion averted his gaze from her not through teenage diffidence but through intention,as he realized that she was no longer a good financial proposition but a drain on family finances,suspicion having long since replaced curiosity each time the siblings met in any social setting.
This same presentiment may well have struck Nevill as he pondered the forthcoming shooting season,or the ascetic June as she set about to write her last will and testament with the heartfelt filial letter included. Had the parents realized that their adoptive children had not turned out as planned,as Nevill wept over the death of his sister Diana and kept those dear mementoes of yesteryear on the walnut work desk,and June became aware that Sheila's life chances had diminished and that both children were no match for Pamela's.
Did the parents blame themselves as they stole glances at their adoptive children that final August weekend? Did they quail at the thought of these individuals they had helped to create? Or did they wring their hands and blame outsiders for the influence on their offspring,as they sat down on those long evenings and pondered the nature versus nurture debate?
-
"Rather a prickly boy..irritating..a relentless tease.."
The remarks come from Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart, Jeremy's former Headmaster at Gresham's public school,where Jeremy spent eight years in a confined space conducive to making accurate character observations one might think. Julie too noticed these traits in Jeremy,found him difficult to read and went along with him hook,line and sinker to her great cost.
What was it in Jeremy's mien,in his manner which drew people who met him to this unflattering conclusion? What was it which intimidated his own sister into not wishing to impose on him by asking for a lift back home at Colin's party..had she sensed the anger and frustration in his lineaments,or had he on a previous occasion averted his gaze from her not through teenage diffidence but through intention,as he realized that she was no longer a good financial proposition but a drain on family finances,suspicion having long since replaced curiosity each time the siblings met in any social setting.
This same presentiment may well have struck Nevill as he pondered the forthcoming shooting season,or the ascetic June as she set about to write her last will and testament with the heartfelt filial letter included. Had the parents realized that their adoptive children had not turned out as planned,as Nevill wept over the death of his sister Diana and kept those dear mementoes of yesteryear on the walnut work desk,and June became aware that Sheila's life chances had diminished and that both children were no match for Pamela's.
Did the parents blame themselves as they stole glances at their adoptive children that final August weekend? Did they quail at the thought of these individuals they had helped to create? Or did they wring their hands and blame outsiders for the influence on their offspring,as they sat down on those long evenings and pondered the nature versus nurture debate?
I am sorry, Steve, but I resent this post for its discrimination towards adoptees. It is sad, really sad that people think like this.
If you adopt a child, that child is your child, not your adopted child.
-
"Rather a prickly boy..irritating..a relentless tease.."
The remarks come from Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart, Jeremy's former Headmaster at Gresham's public school,where Jeremy spent eight years in a confined space conducive to making accurate character observations one might think. Julie too noticed these traits in Jeremy,found him difficult to read and went along with him hook,line and sinker to her great cost.
What was it in Jeremy's mien,in his manner which drew people who met him to this unflattering conclusion? What was it which intimidated his own sister into not wishing to impose on him by asking for a lift back home at Colin's party..had she sensed the anger and frustration in his lineaments,or had he on a previous occasion averted his gaze from her not through teenage diffidence but through intention,as he realized that she was no longer a good financial proposition but a drain on family finances,suspicion having long since replaced curiosity each time the siblings met in any social setting.
This same presentiment may well have struck Nevill as he pondered the forthcoming shooting season,or the ascetic June as she set about to write her last will and testament with the heartfelt filial letter included. Had the parents realized that their adoptive children had not turned out as planned,as Nevill wept over the death of his sister Diana and kept those dear mementoes of yesteryear on the walnut work desk,and June became aware that Sheila's life chances had diminished and that both children were no match for Pamela's.
Did the parents blame themselves as they stole glances at their adoptive children that final August weekend? Did they quail at the thought of these individuals they had helped to create? Or did they wring their hands and blame outsiders for the influence on their offspring,as they sat down on those long evenings and pondered the nature versus nurture debate?
[/quote
STEVE.......................no! I won't dignify that with a response. Set it to music and play it on a violin, it might sound better. GOODNIGHT ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I am sorry, Steve, but I resent this post for its discrimination towards adoptees. It is sad, really sad that people think like this.
If you adopt a child, that child is your child, not your adopted child.
Adoptive Alias..we've discussed this before on this site,perhaps before your time.
-
"Rather a prickly boy..irritating..a relentless tease.."
The remarks come from Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart, Jeremy's former Headmaster at Gresham's public school,where Jeremy spent eight years in a confined space conducive to making accurate character observations one might think. Julie too noticed these traits in Jeremy,found him difficult to read and went along with him hook,line and sinker to her great cost.
What was it in Jeremy's mien,in his manner which drew people who met him to this unflattering conclusion? What was it which intimidated his own sister into not wishing to impose on him by asking for a lift back home at Colin's party..had she sensed the anger and frustration in his lineaments,or had he on a previous occasion averted his gaze from her not through teenage diffidence but through intention,as he realized that she was no longer a good financial proposition but a drain on family finances,suspicion having long since replaced curiosity each time the siblings met in any social setting.
This same presentiment may well have struck Nevill as he pondered the forthcoming shooting season,or the ascetic June as she set about to write her last will and testament with the heartfelt filial letter included. Had the parents realized that their adoptive children had not turned out as planned,as Nevill wept over the death of his sister Diana and kept those dear mementoes of yesteryear on the walnut work desk,and June became aware that Sheila's life chances had diminished and that both children were no match for Pamela's.
Did the parents blame themselves as they stole glances at their adoptive children that final August weekend? Did they quail at the thought of these individuals they had helped to create? Or did they wring their hands and blame outsiders for the influence on their offspring,as they sat down on those long evenings and pondered the nature versus nurture debate?
On the contrary my friend when he met him found him a quiet and informative person. If you expect to see your own values in the lives of others you will always be disappointed that they don't come up to your expectations. Indeed I had some terrible comments written about me by my former headmaster. The fact was we was just a horrible man and not many people liked him anyway.
-
On the contrary my friend when he met him found him a quiet and informative person. If you expect to see your own values in the lives of others you will always be disappointed that they don't come up to your expectations. Indeed I had some terrible comments written about me by my former headmaster. The fact was we was just a horrible man and not many people liked him anyway.
He's different things to different people depending on the context,whether they can be useful to him,whether they have any money. Sheila never had any side to her whilst free from psychosis. I don't wish Jeremy any harm but I can't respect someone who's killed five people and blusters his way through life when a simple "sorry" to Colin for one might be a start..
-
I am sorry, Steve, but I resent this post for its discrimination towards adoptees. It is sad, really sad that people think like this.
If you adopt a child, that child is your child, not your adopted child.
Exactly Alias. The majority of adoptive parents forget their children are not their natural children most of the time.
I wish steve would at least acknowledge this. unfortunately, I think it is in steve's interest to continually remind people that Jeremy particularly was 'adopted'.
-
Exactly Alias. The majority of adoptive parents forget their children are not their natural children most of the time.
I wish steve would at least acknowledge this. unfortunately, I think it is in steve's interest to continually remind people that Jeremy particularly was 'adopted'.
That's two people who now owe me apologies and I'm surprised at you maggie to say the least..
-
Exactly Alias. The majority of adoptive parents forget their children are not their natural children most of the time.
I wish steve would at least acknowledge this. unfortunately, I think it is in steve's interest to continually remind people that Jeremy particularly was 'adopted'.
As I said, it is sad that people think like that.
-
That's two people who now owe me apologies and I'm surprised at you maggie to say the least..
Steve I am not wishing to offend you but surely you can understand this continual repeating of the fact these two people were adopted is slightly over egged. Maybe I am a little sensitive due to my being an adoptive mother and I apologise if I have offended you.
-
He's different things to different people depending on the context,whether they can be useful to him,whether they have any money. Sheila never had any side to her whilst free from psychosis. I don't wish Jeremy any harm but I can't respect someone who's killed five people and blusters his way through life when a simple "sorry" to Colin for one might be a start..
With all due respect you could say that about anyone you don't like.
-
It's indirectly corroborated by some of the witnesses I quoted. Also the remark(or slip) Jeremy made about saying a glove came off in the fight was not divulged to any mass media source. How could Jeremy possibly have known this if it wasn't he himself who had struggled with and finally killed Nevill? Do you think Matthew McDonald had a conversation with Jeremy after the murders in which these matters were discussed? If not why would Julie risk looking ridiculous in front of Police by making this story up with the sum of £2000 if she was in the last chance saloon and trying to avoid being made an accessory to murder?
Who said the glove is a 'fact'? There is NOTHING to prove that anyone wore gloves or that a glove came off in a struggle OR that any struggle actually took place!! Why would Julie make it up? She had no choice after her friend went to the police, if she had denied everything, she would have looked like an idiot, she would have lost her friends, the papers would have made mincemeat of her and opps!! That would have been her career down the swanny!!
-
There's no honesty among thieves.
-
Who said the glove is a 'fact'? There is NOTHING to prove that anyone wore gloves or that a glove came off in a struggle OR that any struggle actually took place!! Why would Julie make it up? She had no choice after her friend went to the police, if she had denied everything, she would have looked like an idiot, she would have lost her friends, the papers would have made mincemeat of her and opps!! That would have been her career down the swanny!!
The fingerprint evidence backs up Julie's words,as the perpetrator had to wipe the gun after the glove came off. I don't see Jeremy receiving a telephone call from a third party,so I'm afraid this story implicates the main suspect in the case.
-
“A relentless tease”-was this Jeremy’s preferred form of entertainment at Gresham’s to while away an hour on a winter’s morn,a means of exciting attention from his peers as he made crude sexual remarks gleaned from his farmyard background about the new influx of girls as boarders,or was there a more sinister undertone to his bullying as he rose among the ranks and wielded his brand of vengeance among the younger,defenceless and more impressionable boys,as he became increasingly aware of his station:not on a par with the cleverest boys of the landed gentry,one of whom he might well have faced several years hence in that Chelmsford courtroom. Did Jeremy finally expunge the memory of those earliest years as he reflected on that little boy on the school bus with an apple in his satchel draped round his torso,frightened to converse lest he let slip his refined accent and draw more opprobrium from his coarser fellow passengers.
Jeremy thus found by chance his place in the social hierarchy and not in any intrinsic or extrinsic forces however benevolent their intention. Such forces were sadly lacking in Jeremy’s upbringing as Jeremy missed that benign human contact,that one person who could draw him aside,put a kindly hand on his shoulder and enquire genially as to the boy’s well-being. Jeremy reacted to the myriad of forces at play with alienated compliance tinged with a strange bitterness as he drew ever-closer to himself as he fantasised about an as yet unmorphed sense of revenge. This artificially monied atmosphere of Gresham’s was characterized on the tenets of most societal structures,namely money,power,status,authority,force. It was the latter which earned Jeremy a modicum of respect as he discharged a firearm on occasion alongside the Young Cadet Force and which became etched on his mind as he gradually came to realize that this could become a means to an end.
-
“A relentless tease”-was this Jeremy’s preferred form of entertainment at Gresham’s to while away an hour on a winter’s morn,a means of exciting attention from his peers as he made crude sexual remarks gleaned from his farmyard background about the new influx of girls as boarders,or was there a more sinister undertone to his bullying as he rose among the ranks and wielded his brand of vengeance among the younger,defenceless and more impressionable boys,as he became increasingly aware of his station:not on a par with the cleverest boys of the landed gentry,one of whom he might well have faced several years hence in that Chelmsford courtroom. Did Jeremy finally expunge the memory of those earliest years as he releflected on that little boy on the school bus with an apple in his satchel draped round his torso,frightened to converse lest he let slip his refined accent and draw more opprobrium from his coarser fellow passengers.
Jeremy thus found by chance his place in the social hierarchy and not in any intrinsic or extrinsic forces however benevolent their intention. Such forces were sadly lacking in Jeremy’s upbringing as Jeremy missed that benign human contact,that one person who could draw him aside,put a kindly hand on his shoulder and enquire genially as to the boy’s well-being. Jeremy reacted to the myriad of forces at play with alienated compliance tinged with a strange bitterness as he drew ever-closer to himself as he fantasised about an as yet unmorphed sense of revenge. This artificially monied atmosphere of Gresham’s was characterized on the tenets of most societal structures,namely money,power,status,authority,force. It was the latter which earned Jeremy a modicum of respect as he discharged a firearm on occasion alongside the Young Cadet Force and which became etched on his mind as he gradually came to realize that this could become a means to an end.
Steve, I compliment you on your flowing poetic prose but not on the sentiments contained therein. This is supposition and imagination running riot!!! :) :) :)
-
The fingerprint evidence backs up Julie's words,as the perpetrator had to wipe the gun after the glove came off. I don't see Jeremy receiving a telephone call from a third party,so I'm afraid this story implicates the main suspect in the case.
The is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to suggest the gun was wiped!! Seriously Steve, we havd visited this point many times and it is unhelpful to everyone to keep repeating it!
-
Steve needs a holiday at the Osea Caravan Park I think.
-
The fingerprint evidence backs up Julie's words,as the perpetrator had to wipe the gun after the glove came off. I don't see Jeremy receiving a telephone call from a third party,so I'm afraid this story implicates the main suspect in the case.
With all due respect Steve that doesn't make sense at all. Because he had already admitted to handling the gun the previous evening. So why use gloves and why wipe the gin clean. Gun I mean and not the gin. ::)
-
The is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to suggest the gun was wiped!! Seriously Steve, we havd visited this point many times and it is unhelpful to everyone to keep repeating it!
Sorry but the Jeremy supporters are in denial:there were two of Jeremy's fingerprints on the gun,one of Sheila's and three unidentified prints,possibly from Police. If Jeremy had taken the gun out to shoot rabbits immaterial of whether he shot any or not his fingerprints should be all over the gun;similarly with Sheila if she had struggled with Nevill and a ceiling light got smashed.
We are yet again instructed to swallow what the Defence imagined happened with Sheila in a state of psychosis,and not what the facts lead us otherwise to believe.
-
With all due respect Steve that doesn't make sense at all. Because he had already admitted to handling the gun the previous evening. So why use gloves and why wipe the gin clean. Gun I mean and not the gin. ::)
Because he wanted more of Sheila's prints on the gun,but he got a shock when Nevill put up such a struggle. "He put up quite a fight for an old man" he told Julie. Remember Jeremy had written off Nevill amongst others as having nothing to live for,as Nevill wistfully held the souvenirs of his past life:cards,theatre programmes,photographs of his siblings,with Jeremy coming way down the pecking order however much Nevill tried to conceal.
-
Someone tried to cover their tracks,,but it wasn't Jeremy.
Why would he,,,waste of time seeing as he spent most of his time at WHF. ? So I would have imagined that his DNA,etc was everywhere.
There were plenty of other fingerprints to which forensics had marked as impaired/contaminated.
The upshot of the whole case was that a professional crime scene wasn't carried out as it should have been,,,and the police relied on past hearsay and not the crime in hand.
As I've said before,,the police were all hanging on to their jobs by the skin of their teeth on account of not finding the murderer of Dr.Jones wife,Diane. They were held over a barrel on this one.
-
With all due respect Steve that doesn't make sense at all. Because he had already admitted to handling the gun the previous evening. So why use gloves and why wipe the gin clean. Gun I mean and not the gin. ::)
Hi Lugg, I see Steve's reasoning in so far as if only Jeremy's fingerprints were found on the rifle well it would be immaterial as to whether he had handled the gun the night before, he would have been the only person to have handled the gun.
However, if he was setting a scene trying to implicate Sheila surely he would have just pressed her palms, fingers etc. all over the gun without having to worry about his own. This would have been far more convincing and not hard to do.
My guess is that the police wiped the gun for some unexplained and incompetent reason.
-
Someone tried to cover their tracks,,but it wasn't Jeremy.
Why would he,,,waste of time seeing as he spent most of his time at WHF. ? So I would have imagined that his DNA,etc was everywhere.
There were plenty of other fingerprints to which forensics had marked as impaired/contaminated.
The upshot of the whole case was that a professional crime scene wasn't carried out as it should have been,,,and the police relied on past hearsay and not the crime in hand.
As I've said before,,the police were all hanging on to their jobs by the skin of their teeth on account of not finding the murderer of Dr.Jones wife,Diane. They were held over a barrel on this one.
Violent schizophrenics in a state of psychosis do not seek to cover their tracks:they are potty and dangerous and should be locked up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164366/Schizophrenic-killed-Jonathan-Zito-set-moved-high-security-prison.html#axzz2KDl2Sm3R
-
Hello Maggie
I always thought steve knew Jeremy now I know where they met at Greshams ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Lugg, I see Steve's reasoning in so far as if only Jeremy's fingerprints were found on the rifle well it would be immaterial as to whether he had handled the gun the night before, he would have been the only person to have handled the gun.
However, if he was setting a scene trying to implicate Sheila surely he would have just pressed her palms, fingers etc. all over the gun without having to worry about his own. This would have been far more convincing and not hard to do.
My guess is that the police wiped the gun for some unexplained and incompetent reason.
Jeremy must have had the jitters after the struggle with Nevill but still had Sheila to deal with. He led her by hand from her bedroom into June's room and shot her quickly unawares,then must have had a second fright as he realized she wasn't dead and was forced to shoot her again.
-
Because he wanted more of Sheila's prints on the gun,but he got a shock when Nevill put up such a struggle. "He put up quite a fight for an old man" he told Julie. Remember Jeremy had written off Nevill amongst others as having nothing to live for,as Nevill wistfully held the souvenirs of his past life:cards,theatre programmes,photographs of his siblings,with Jeremy coming way down the pecking order however much Nevill tried to conceal.
I'm sure Neville found a great deal of pleasure in happy memories and momentos Steve. I shall have to remember to hide sentimental memories from my children in case they decide it's time to shoot me and bury me under the patio. ;D
-
Jeremy must have had the jitters after the struggle with Nevill but still had Sheila to deal with. He led her by hand from her bedroom into June's room and shot her quickly unawares,then must have had a second fright as he realized she wasn't dead and was forced to shoot her again.
With respect steve, as I said before, beautiful prose....no substance ;D
-
Violent schizophrenics in a state of psychosis do not seek to cover their tracks:they are potty and dangerous and should be locked up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164366/Schizophrenic-killed-Jonathan-Zito-set-moved-high-security-prison.html#axzz2KDl2Sm3R
But Jeremy isn't a violent schizophrenic,,Steve.
-
Jeremy must have had the jitters after the struggle with Nevill but still had Sheila to deal with. He led her by hand from her bedroom into June's room and shot her quickly unawares,then must have had a second fright as he realized she wasn't dead and was forced to shoot her again.
Steve,,,at what time did all this occur.?
-
Hello Maggie
I always thought steve knew Jeremy now I know where they met at Greshams ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susie, I see the Patron of Gresham's School is non other than HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. ;) ;)
-
Maggie ;) ;) ;)
-
Violent schizophrenics in a state of psychosis do not seek to cover their tracks:they are potty and dangerous and should be locked up.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164366/Schizophrenic-killed-Jonathan-Zito-set-moved-high-security-prison.html#axzz2KDl2Sm3R
Interesting slip steve? Clunis was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and had not been taking his medication when the murder occurred.....sounds familiar :)
-
Steve,,,at what time did all this occur.?
Around 2:45am is my guess. Jeremy then cycled back to Goldhanger and telephoned Julie,the "something's wrong at the Farm call ".
-
Interesting slip steve? Clunis was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and had not been taking his medication when the murder occurred.....sounds familiar :)
The point is that Clunis wasn't running away from the scene of the crime:he heard voices inside his head which told him to kill and he killed.
-
Around 2:45am is my guess. Jeremy then cycled back to Goldhanger and telephoned Julie,the "something's wrong at the Farm call ".
So is that the time that Sheila died as well.?
-
The point is that Clunis wasn't running away from the scene of the crime:he heard voices inside his head which told him to kill and he killed.
Sorry Steve, the point is Sheila wasn't running away from the scene of the crime, she very well may have heard voices inside her head telling her to kill and she also killed and then she killed herself....poor girl. Jeremy isn't a schizophrenic. Don't understand your reasoning Steve? :-\
-
Around 2:45am is my guess. Jeremy then cycled back to Goldhanger and telephoned Julie,the "something's wrong at the Farm call ".
Steve,,,would you really argue against what the pathologist had stated,,,,,that Sheila had died at about 7am.? You see,,there was fresh " oxygenated " blood still pouring from her wound/s. Oxygenated being bright red as we know,,and not the black/brown hue that you'd get from someone having been dead for hours.
-
Sorry but the Jeremy supporters are in denial:there were two of Jeremy's fingerprints on the gun,one of Sheila's and three unidentified prints,possibly from Police. If Jeremy had taken the gun out to shoot rabbits immaterial of whether he shot any or not his fingerprints should be all over the gun;similarly with Sheila if she had struggled with Nevill and a ceiling light got smashed.
We are yet again instructed to swallow what the Defence imagined happened with Sheila in a state of psychosis,and not what the facts lead us otherwise to believe.
What facts? You stating ANY facts!! Just because only 2 of JB's prints were found and 1 of Sheila's, it doesn't mean the gun was wiped or that there were no other prints!! It simply means that they were not able to recover a full identifiable prinst because they were smudged etc. Please point out once and for all where IN THE EVIDENCE and not from a book it states the rifle had been wiped clean?
-
Sorry Steve, the point is Sheila wasn't running away from the scene of the crime, she very well may have heard voices inside her head telling her to kill and she also killed and then she killed herself....poor girl. Jeremy isn't a schizophrenic. Don't understand your reasoning Steve? :-\
But there's more to this case isn't there? Look what the Jeremy supporters have Sheila doing(perm any two from four): Sheila engages in a fight with Nevill in which a ceiling light is smashed,therefore it's a safe assumption that there was struggle for control of the rifle,yet no material damage to Sheila,Sheila prevents somehow her father from making a telephone call by pressing one of her dainty fingernails on the cradle of the telephone whilst Nevill is scared witless for the safety of his wife and grandchildren upstairs,Sheila removes all traces of gun oil and residue by scrubbing her hands,yet this glamour model dies knickerless with her private parts showing to all and sundry.
According to Jeremy Nevill is alive at 3:26am and the struggle in the kitchen has not yet taken place because Nevill is still able to speak,yet Nevill is allowing his daughter to run amok with a gun in another part of the house..the Police arrive at 3:48am yet there are no shouts or screams,no sound of gushing water down the drains as Sheila finishes her ablutions. She has therefore killed all four within 22 minutes.
I have lost track of the Defence scenario subsequently,but it's either Sheila shooting herself once in the kitchen and then running upstairs whilst four Police are guarding her,or the Police shoot her with the silencer attached after they've attempted CPR on the bed,yet the bloodstains on her nightie suggest she was shot both times whilst lying down and Dr. Peter Vanezis testified at trial that Sheila would have been incapable of movement up and downstairs after the first shot.
-
So is that the time that Sheila died as well.?
We don't know exactly except that Jeremy had to leave her for dead then,hope that she was dead and had bled to death by the time the emergency services arrived. Better for them not to be able to ascertain a time of death(hence your question not being able to be answered definitively),which is why Jeremy used every means at his disposal to stall entry into the Farm.
-
Steve,,,would you really argue against what the pathologist had stated,,,,,that Sheila had died at about 7am.? You see,,there was fresh " oxygenated " blood still pouring from her wound/s. Oxygenated being bright red as we know,,and not the black/brown hue that you'd get from someone having been dead for hours.
Can you post all these documents lookout,along with Sheila's £40,000 drug debts. As far as I was aware Sheila's body was moved if only to check for a pulse and it was then that the fresh plugs of blood occurred.
-
Sheila wasn't in control of her faculties,Steve.She was a very very sick young woman,,,who wouldn't have been concerned with what she was wearing/or wasn't wearing. Her psychosis blotted out all that was normal as she listened to her orders coming from her sick mind.
Like her family,,,you don't realise how really ill Sheila was,,,with half the time the drugs that she took was cancelling out the benefit of her prescription drugs.
-
What facts? You stating ANY facts!! Just because only 2 of JB's prints were found and 1 of Sheila's, it doesn't mean the gun was wiped or that there were no other prints!! It simply means that they were not able to recover a full identifiable prinst because they were smudged etc. Please point out once and for all where IN THE EVIDENCE and not from a book it states the rifle had been wiped clean?
It's not in any court evidence,but to suggest that Sheila did all the actions the Defence ascribes her within 22 minutes is incredible to say the least.
-
Can you post all these documents lookout,along with Sheila's £40,000 drug debts. As far as I was aware Sheila's body was moved if only to check for a pulse and it was then that the fresh plugs of blood occurred.
Information is in the Archives,Steve. Whatever you want to know is there.
-
Hi Lugg, I see Steve's reasoning in so far as if only Jeremy's fingerprints were found on the rifle well it would be immaterial as to whether he had handled the gun the night before, he would have been the only person to have handled the gun.
However, if he was setting a scene trying to implicate Sheila surely he would have just pressed her palms, fingers etc. all over the gun without having to worry about his own. This would have been far more convincing and not hard to do.
My guess is that the police wiped the gun for some unexplained and incompetent reason.
Of course the police wiped the gun clean. They were the last people to handle it and they weren't treating the scene like a crime scene. As you say Jeremy's prints were not a problem and even if he was in a struggle with Ralph then he would most certainly have plastered Sheila's prints all over it. Because how could someone shoot themselves without getting their fingerprints all over the gun? Two questions arise from this. (1) Why was even one of Sheila's prints on the gun? (2) Where do the gloves that he was supposed to have used fit into this senario? Because even if he was wearing gloves he would still have the problem of Ralph's prints being on the gun.
-
Of course the police wiped the gun clean. They were the last people to handle it and they weren't treating the scene like a crime scene. As you say Jeremy's prints were not a problem and even if he was in a struggle with Ralph then he would most certainly have plastered Sheila's prints all over it. Because how could someone shoot themselves without getting their fingerprints all over the gun? Two questions arise from this. (1) Why was even one of Sheila's prints on the gun? (2) Where do the gloves that he was supposed to have used fit into this senario? Because even if he was wearing gloves he would still have the problem of Ralph's prints being on the gun.
That's why Jeremy had to wipe the gun. The wearing of gloves and their destruction is a minor part to the proceedings and would present no problem to Jeremy,who was obviously in some cocaine-induced state oblivious to correct procedure inside the Farm,hence only the one fingerprint of Sheila's pressed onto the gun after death. The Defence has to explain why there was only one of Sheila's prints on the gun,not the Prosecution. To claim that the Police wiped the gun before fingerprinting took place is a lame excuse.
-
Of course the police wiped the gun clean. They were the last people to handle it and they weren't treating the scene like a crime scene. As you say Jeremy's prints were not a problem and even if he was in a struggle with Ralph then he would most certainly have plastered Sheila's prints all over it. Because how could someone shoot themselves without getting their fingerprints all over the gun? Two questions arise from this. (1) Why was even one of Sheila's prints on the gun? (2) Where do the gloves that he was supposed to have used fit into this senario? Because even if he was wearing gloves he would still have the problem of Ralph's prints being on the gun.
Correct Lugg ;D ;D You can almost see it. The police handling the gun and then ooops, maybe shouldn't have done that, have you got a hankie better give it a wipe. :-X :-X
-
That's why Jeremy had to wipe the gun. The wearing of gloves and their destruction is a minor part to the proceedings and would present no problem to Jeremy,who was obviously in some cocaine-induced state oblivious to correct procedure inside the Farm,hence only the one fingerprint of Sheila's pressed onto the gun after death. The Defence has to explain why there was only one of Sheila's prints on the gun,not the Prosecution. To claim that the Police wiped the gun before fingerprinting took place is a lame excuse.
Steve, suddenly we have Jeremy now in a cocaine induced state....how did he manage to turn up at the farm a very short time later in a calm and normal state, no sign of a 'cocaine induced state', shakes from adrenaline....nothing. A person on cocaine is not in control steve.
-
Steve, suddenly we have Jeremy now in a cocaine induced state....how did he manage to turn up at the farm a very short time later in a calm and normal state, no sign of a 'cocaine induced state', shakes from adrenaline....nothing. A person on cocaine is not in control steve.
No but they have dilated pupils as narrated by Ann Eaton. If I were you I would take the cocaine-induced Jeremy Bamber as an explanation for his crimes as a kind of plea bargain I have offered heretofore but which has as yet been rejected out of hand.
-
No but they have dilated pupils as narrated by Ann Eaton. If I were you I would take the cocaine-induced Jeremy Bamber as an explanation for his crimes as a kind of plea bargain I have offered heretofore but which has as yet been rejected out of hand.
And what did Ann Eaton know about dilated pupils.? Or better still,,how did she know.?
-
Steve, suddenly we have Jeremy now in a cocaine induced state....how did he manage to turn up at the farm a very short time later in a calm and normal state, no sign of a 'cocaine induced state', shakes from adrenaline....nothing. A person on cocaine is not in control steve.
A Cocaine 'high' lasts from between 30mins to 2 hours, not very long if within that time Jeremy had to get to and from WHF. With no idea how long his high would last it's all a bit unpredictable. Also it's taken for a good time, it makes people very talkative and happy. You tend to love everyone when on a high. The low afterward can be so bad it can cause suicidal thoughts.
I don't believe anyone would take cocaine on it's own to help them kill.
Maybe cocaine mixed with other drugs, possibly not even available back in 1985 and certainly the effects of these drugs could never have worn off in such a short time.imo
-
And what did Ann Eaton know about dilated pupils.? Or better still,,how did she know.?
Oh Lookout, the dilated pupils!!!
Lookout, when a person is up all night without food or with a small amount of food am I right in saying the body will become low in blood sugar? A physical sign of low blood sugar is dilated pupils. Jeremy Bamber would surely have been suffering from low blood sugar......hence dilated pupils......simple
Lookout I wonder if anyone thought Jeremy had been eating pear drops???
-
It's not in any court evidence,but to suggest that Sheila did all the actions the Defence ascribes her within 22 minutes is incredible to say the least.
Ok Thank you!! Had the gun been wiped by JB it would MOST CERTAINLY have been part of the evidence. If it had been 'wiped' or the prints 'damaged' then this is likely to have occurred during the police 'mishandling' of the evidence and nothing to do with Julie's 'story' of events.
-
Oh Lookout, the dilated pupils!!!
Lookout, when a person is up all night without food or with a small amount of food am I right in saying the body will become low in blood sugar? A physical sign of low blood sugar is dilated pupils. Jeremy Bamber would surely have been suffering from low blood sugar......hence dilated pupils......simple
Lookout I wonder if anyone thought Jeremy had been eating pear drops???
Maggie,emotion can make the pupils dilated.
All the rellies seemed to be doing was finding fault all the time . Why.? What had Jeremy done to them.?
-
Oh Lookout, the dilated pupils!!!
Lookout, when a person is up all night without food or with a small amount of food am I right in saying the body will become low in blood sugar? A physical sign of low blood sugar is dilated pupils. Jeremy Bamber would surely have been suffering from low blood sugar......hence dilated pupils......simple
Lookout I wonder if anyone thought Jeremy had been eating pear drops???
Ohhh,I'm so terribly sorry Maggie.I've only just noticed your status. Congratulations.
-
Maggie,emotion can make the pupils dilated.
All the rellies seemed to be doing was finding fault all the time . Why.? What had Jeremy done to them.?
Yes that's true lookout, so its unsurprising that morning Jeremy Bamber's pupils were dilated. I would be surprised if Anne Eaton had any more than the vaguest idea about drugs and pretty well everyone knows that they can dilate the pupils......as can many other things.
-
Ohhh,I'm so terribly sorry Maggie.I've only just noticed your status. Congratulations.
Thank you Lookout, no probs. After you said that I just went and had a look, hadn't seen it myself til now.....think I may need an avatar, must give it some thought. ;D ;D
-
Hi lookout hope Moddy Mags is not going to be deleting our posts all the time and throwing us off ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi lookout hope Moddy Mags is not going to be deleting our posts all the time and throwing us off ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susan,,,oh I shouldn't think so,,or I'll have to bash her.x
-
Hi lookout hope Moddy Mags is not going to be deleting our posts all the time and throwing us off ;D ;D ;D
You'd better watch your tongue, young susan >:( >:( ;)
-
Hi Susan,,,oh I shouldn't think so,,or I'll have to bash her.x
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mags speak to Roch on the Avatar he is a top man in this field. Would really like to see what he suggests for you. Hope it is not a stick of rhubarb ;D ;D ;D
-
Mags speak to Roch on the Avatar he is a top man in this field. Would really like to see what he suggests for you. Hope it is not a stick of rhubarb ;D ;D ;D
As long as it isn't limp,Susan.That's the main thing. ;D ;D ;D
-
That's why Jeremy had to wipe the gun. The wearing of gloves and their destruction is a minor part to the proceedings and would present no problem to Jeremy,who was obviously in some cocaine-induced state oblivious to correct procedure inside the Farm,hence only the one fingerprint of Sheila's pressed onto the gun after death. The Defence has to explain why there was only one of Sheila's prints on the gun,not the Prosecution. To claim that the Police wiped the gun before fingerprinting took place is a lame excuse.
Obviously ::) Strange the police never picked up on this though? Perhaps they were also in a cocaine induced state? Because neither were they aware of the correct proceedure at a crime scene. My argument is at least logical though. They were the last people to handle the gun therefore it is logically more than likely that they were the ones who wiped the gun clean. That is the simplest answer without having to jump through many hoops to arrive at that conclusion.
-
Hi Lugg ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Obviously ::) Strange the police never picked up on this though? Perhaps they were also in a cocaine induced state? Because neither were they aware of the correct proceedure at a crime scene.My argument is at least logical though. They were the last people to handle the gun therefore it is logically more than likely that they were the ones who wiped the gun clean. That is the simplest answer without having to jump through many hoops to arrive at that conclusion.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Obviously ::) Strange the police never picked up on this though? Perhaps they were also in a cocaine induced state? Because neither were they aware of the correct proceedure at a crime scene. My argument is at least logical though. They were the last people to handle the gun therefore it is logically more than likely that they were the ones who wiped the gun clean. That is the simplest answer without having to jump through many hoops to arrive at that conclusion.
Of course it's obvious, Lugg. Only someone as clever and knowledgable as AE would pick up that Jeremy pupil's were dilated. :D
-
Hi Lugg ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susan,
I was just reading one of the other cases on the forum and it made me think, at least they have the support of their families. Jeremy has no one from his family to support him. How easy it must be to turn against and believe to be guilty one who is not a blood relation? To be SO EASILY and quickly to be persuaded of his guilt? Just think for a moment. For Jeremy to have committed that awful crime. To kill everyone in his immediate family he must have been aware of the fact that none of his family would be there to support him through this tragedy. And that ALL of the remaining (non family members) are so convinced of his guilt and have persuaded all their friends that he is so that he has absolutely no one to care for him. Even that hypasensitive and tender in conscience girlfriend of his could only remember bad things to say about him and none of those good things that made her stay with him for two years. In fact nothing good about him has ever come out of her mouth. How strange? How easily that love turned to hate once he had dumped her? Amazing!
If I were Jeremy I just would not know how to cope if I was continually bullied and abused by those who both my former family and strangers with an over developed sense of self importance and a sanctimonious attitude towards this stranger. I find this both distressing and sad.
-
Of course it's obvious, Lugg. Only someone as clever and knowledgable as AE would pick up that Jeremy pupil's were dilated. :D
Adrenaline could do that. Its a pity she didn't think to look at her own pupils. She may have had a surprise?
-
Hi Susan,
I was just reading one of the other cases on the forum and it made me think, at least they have the support of their families. Jeremy has no one from his family to support him. How easy it must be to turn against and believe to be guilty one who is not a blood relation? To be SO EASILY and quickly to be persuaded of his guilt? Just think for a moment. For Jeremy to have committed that awful crime. To kill everyone in his immediate family he must have been aware of the fact that none of his family would be there to support him through this tragedy. And that ALL of the remaining (non family members) are so convinced of his guilt and have persuaded all their friends that he is so that he has absolutely no one to care for him. Even that hypasensitive and tender in conscience girlfriend of his could only remember bad things to say about him and none of those good things that made her stay with him for two years. In fact nothing good about him has ever come out of her mouth. How strange? How easily that love turned to hate once he had dumped her? Amazing!
If I were Jeremy I just would not know how to cope if I was continually bullied and abused by those who both my former family and strangers with an over developed sense of self importance and a sanctimonious attitude towards this stranger. I find this both distressing and sad.
It is a dreadful situation to be in, with no family to fight for him he must have spent years totally alone. He can't be such an ogre as people state tho' because he has actually managed to build a circle of friends even from within prison.'
-
Hi Lugg a post from the heart. I feel so sorry for Jeremy he has nobody at all and how lonely he must feel at times to have no close family who are willing to believe in him. I am sorry to say this but if I were his birth Mother I would be there for him after all she carried him for 9 months and he is a part of her. I would go against my husband if need be as my boy would always come first innocent or guilty. I have often wondered who took all his things when he first went to prison he kinda became a non person belonging to nobody I do hope he has some loyal friends around him. I guess over the lonely years he will have hardened himself up to the situation to become a survivor and he will fight to the death to prove he is innocent. Wonder if Julie ever at anytime thinks back to the 2 years she had with. Lugg she did not love Jeremy she just wanted to control him and when she lost the control she then set out to feather her own nest. How could she stand up in Court I wonder if she looked him in the eye at anytime no I suppose she was too busy crying. I also think Jeremy did not love her as they would have married and lived at WHF Jeremy was too young at 24 to be a husband and was I think immature as most are at that age.
-
;D
Adrenaline could do that. Its a pity she didn't think to look at her own pupils. She may have had a surprise?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D...what are you on Lugg??
-
Hi Susan,
I was just reading one of the other cases on the forum and it made me think, at least they have the support of their families. Jeremy has no one from his family to support him. How easy it must be to turn against and believe to be guilty one who is not a blood relation? To be SO EASILY and quickly to be persuaded of his guilt? Just think for a moment. For Jeremy to have committed that awful crime. To kill everyone in his immediate family he must have been aware of the fact that none of his family would be there to support him through this tragedy. And that ALL of the remaining (non family members) are so convinced of his guilt and have persuaded all their friends that he is so that he has absolutely no one to care for him. Even that hypasensitive and tender in conscience girlfriend of his could only remember bad things to say about him and none of those good things that made her stay with him for two years. In fact nothing good about him has ever come out of her mouth. How strange? How easily that love turned to hate once he had dumped her? Amazing!
If I were Jeremy I just would not know how to cope if I was continually bullied and abused by those who both my former family and strangers with an over developed sense of self importance and a sanctimonious attitude towards this stranger. I find this both distressing and sad.
No they were not blood relations,the irony in that book title of Roger Wilkes evident,as however much members who are adoptees or who have adopted may rail against a stereotype I’m afraid that this is pertinent to the discussion of this case whether they like it or not.
It was Jeremy who came to regard his parents as convenient milch cows with no love involved in the transaction. Was Jeremy Bear on the rebound from Wulie Woo? We will never know,and whether Jeremy has ever experienced real unconditional love in his life is again difficult to say: if Julie did proffer it him it was ultimately firmly rebuffed as Jeremy once more opted for the physical side of a relationship. This confirms my suspicion that Jeremy is indeed a psychopath who could never find real happiness with one person.
-
No they were not blood relations,the irony in that book title of Roger Wilkes evident,as however much members who are adoptees or who have adopted may rail against a stereotype I’m afraid that this is pertinent to the discussion of this case whether they like it or not.
It was Jeremy who came to regard his parents as convenient milch cows with no love involved in the transaction. Was Jeremy Bear on the rebound from Wulie Woo? We will never know,and whether Jeremy has ever experienced real unconditional love in his life is again difficult to say: if Julie did proffer it him it was ultimately firmly rebuffed as Jeremy once more opted for the physical side of a relationship. This confirms my suspicion that Jeremy is indeed a psychopath who could never find real happiness with one person.
So you have the gift steve 8) 8) You can spot a psychopath a mile off as opposed to all the highly experienced and gifted psychologists and psychiatrists who have examined him. It's the easy answer steve, if all else fails scream psychopath.
-
No they were not blood relations,the irony in that book title of Roger Wilkes evident,as however much members who are adoptees or who have adopted may rail against a stereotype I’m afraid that this is pertinent to the discussion of this case whether they like it or not.
It was Jeremy who came to regard his parents as convenient milch cows with no love involved in the transaction. Was Jeremy Bear on the rebound from Wulie Woo? We will never know,and whether Jeremy has ever experienced real unconditional love in his life is again difficult to say: if Julie did proffer it him it was ultimately firmly rebuffed as Jeremy once more opted for the physical side of a relationship. This confirms my suspicion that Jeremy is indeed a psychopath who could never find real happiness with one person.
It would take total lack of feeling for one person in a partnership to remain happy whilst the other was clearly unhappy. Maybe Jeremy settled for the physical because the emotional was lacking. He was after all, a young man.
-
No they were not blood relations,the irony in that book title of Roger Wilkes evident,as however much members who are adoptees or who have adopted may rail against a stereotype I’m afraid that this is pertinent to the discussion of this case whether they like it or not.
It was Jeremy who came to regard his parents as convenient milch cows with no love involved in the transaction. Was Jeremy Bear on the rebound from Wulie Woo? We will never know,and whether Jeremy has ever experienced real unconditional love in his life is again difficult to say: if Julie did proffer it him it was ultimately firmly rebuffed as Jeremy once more opted for the physical side of a relationship. This confirms my suspicion that Jeremy is indeed a psychopath who could never find real happiness with one person.
I think I will stick with the professional assessment of JB's personality and leave the amateur psychiatry to you!!
-
No they were not blood relations,the irony in that book title of Roger Wilkes evident,as however much members who are adoptees or who have adopted may rail against a stereotype I’m afraid that this is pertinent to the discussion of this case whether they like it or not.
It was Jeremy who came to regard his parents as convenient milch cows with no love involved in the transaction. Was Jeremy Bear on the rebound from Wulie Woo? We will never know,and whether Jeremy has ever experienced real unconditional love in his life is again difficult to say: if Julie did proffer it him it was ultimately firmly rebuffed as Jeremy once more opted for the physical side of a relationship. This confirms my suspicion that Jeremy is indeed a psychopath who could never find real happiness with one person.
With all due respect Steve, rubbish on two points. (1) My wife was an adoptee and she has none of that resentment that you speak of. Indeed she fully regarded her adoptive parents as her own and I suggest that Jeremy though the same about his parents. Why do I say that? because he consistently referred to his adoptive parents as his parents, his sister, his father etc. (2) You go against the official line of all the psychiatrists who have assessed Jeremy who are consistent in their opinion that Jeremy was not, is not a psychopath. You have totally ignored the facts on both counts I'm afraid. Unless of course you are both an adption agency and a psychiatrist? As for me I have only the proven facts to go by.
-
So you have the gift steve 8) 8) You can spot a psychopath a mile off as opposed to all the highly experienced and gifted psychologists and psychiatrists who have examined him. It's the easy answer steve, if all else fails scream psychopath.
It's the conclusion Rivlin and his defence team came to after talking to an eminent London psychologist:Bamber showed all the classic symptoms of the psychopath who had put the murders completely out of his mind.
Why do you think more of this issue was not made of at trial?
-
It would take total lack of feeling for one person in a partnership to remain happy whilst the other was clearly unhappy. Maybe Jeremy settled for the physical because the emotional was lacking. He was after all, a young man.
That's a profound remark dressed in simple language april1 and I salute you for it. I do recollect Julie talking of showing a photograph to Jeremy and possibly reading a poem when they were both in happier times and I believe that this was one of the few times if not the only time that Jeremy expressed genuine emotion,as he realized in himself that what they had together simply wasn't enough for them. If only Charles and Diana had seen that earlier too.
-
With all due respect Steve, rubbish on two points. (1) My wife was an adoptee and she has none of that resentment that you speak of. Indeed she fully regarded her adoptive parents as her own and I suggest that Jeremy though the same about his parents. Why do I say that? because he consistently referred to his adoptive parents as his parents, his sister, his father etc. (2) You go against the official line of all the psychiatrists who have assessed Jeremy who are consistent in their opinion that Jeremy was not, is not a psychopath. You have totally ignored the facts on both counts I'm afraid. Unless of course you are both an adption agency and a psychiatrist? As for me I have only the proven facts to go by.
Lugg everyone's experience of adoption is different and whilst there may indeed be a 99% satisfaction rate which I doubt I'm afraid sometimes those adoptees who have been happy are the last people to judge whether another family is happy or not. Point two I have dealt with in another reply.
-
It's the conclusion Rivlin and his defence team came to after talking to an eminent London psychologist:Bamber showed all the classic symptoms of the psychopath who had put the murders completely out of his mind.
Why do you think more of this issue was not made of at trial?
Did the 'eminent London psychologist' actually test Jeremy Bamber? Why have 27 others said he is not a psychopath and not hiding his psychopathy? Why do you believe the one who fits in with your theory and dismiss 27 others......?
-
Did the 'eminent London psychologist' actually test Jeremy Bamber? Why have 27 others said he is not a psychopath and not hiding his psychopathy? Why do you believe the one who fits in with your theory and dismiss 27 others......?
It was an opinion at the time that's all. As the murders fade from the mind it becomes easier to fake emotion in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't believe Jeremy's crocodile tears at the funeral or his blubbering heard from the street at Goldhanger that first morning.
-
That's a profound remark dressed in simple language april1 and I salute you for it. I do recollect Julie talking of showing a photograph to Jeremy and possibly reading a poem when they were both in happier times and I believe that this was one of the few times if not the only time that Jeremy expressed genuine emotion,as he realized in himself that what they had together simply wasn't enough for them. If only Charles and Diana had seen that earlier too.
Thank you for that, Steve. May I also compliment you on your realization that often being in love alone is not enough. Maybe there was one precious moment for them, and many others, when they loved equally, but when it started to fade, for which ever one because expectation weren't met, dreams weren't fulfilled, the other couldn't do the loving for both of them. That's enough of that, Steve. Normal service is resumed ;D ;D
-
It was an opinion at the time that's all. As the murders fade from the mind it becomes easier to fake emotion in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't believe Jeremy's crocodile tears at the funeral or his blubbering heard from the street at Goldhanger that first morning.
An opinion? Are you sure he really gave an opinion. I would have thought a professional man would or certainly should have been a little more careful with his words.
-
Lugg everyone's experience of adoption is different and whilst there may indeed be a 99% satisfaction rate which I doubt I'm afraid sometimes those adoptees who have been happy are the last people to judge whether another family is happy or not. Point two I have dealt with in another reply.
Not good enough explanation Steve. He consistently referred to his parents as "his parents".
-
It was an opinion at the time that's all. As the murders fade from the mind it becomes easier to fake emotion in my opinion. I'm afraid I don't believe Jeremy's crocodile tears at the funeral or his blubbering heard from the street at Goldhanger that first morning.
I wonder, would you "blubber" if you just heard that all your family were wiped out? Crocodiles don't have tears by the way.
-
An opinion? Are you sure he really gave an opinion. I would have thought a professional man would or certainly should have been a little more careful with his words.
Mind you, it could explain why Rivlin didn't do his best at the trial?
-
Mind you, it could explain why Rivlin didn't do his best at the trial?
That is a thought Lugg. Ngb has said Rivlin has given Jeremy a great deal of help over the years since the trial. It seems the defence weren't allowed access to loads of material before the trial which did make it hard for them to argue the case in court. :-\ :-\
-
Not good enough explanation Steve. He consistently referred to his parents as "his parents".
Of course he did in their company because he knew on which side his bread was buttered. But his true feelings came out to Julie and James Richards.
-
I've dealt with the relationship with Colin,and I don't want to pretend that Sheila was a well woman. As far as the monastery incident is concerned and the electrician it's strangers who frighten her in my view not family,and Sheila does not attempt to seriously harm either group in any way.
You may have dealt with some of the issues steve, however looking in on the foyer i see new members i would hang on a while to see what they have to say.
-
Of course he did in their company because he knew on which side his bread was buttered. But his true feelings came out to Julie and James Richards.
Why did not JM ever say anything nice about Jeremy, even though she had been with him for two years?
-
Why did not JM ever say anything nice about Jeremy, even though she had been with him for two years?
in it for the money champaigne pockets lugg
-
in it for the money champaigne pockets lugg
But don't you think it strange mertol. She professed that she loved him. But has absolutely nothing good to say about him whatsoever. To my mind that is very odd to say the least?
-
It seems Julie can't win either way. Maybe she was blindly in love with him and blinded to his faults,which would explain why they mutually stuck together for nearly two years.
-
It seems Julie can't win either way. Maybe she was blindly in love with him and blinded to his faults,which would explain why they mutually stuck together for nearly two years.
Or she was furious that she was no longer special to him and had moved on...
-
Or she was furious that she was no longer special to him and had moved on...
Of course that's possible HMEssex,but don't you find those types are usually nihilistic pessimists who never ultimately make a success of their own lives? Give Julie credit for doing just that in the aftermath.
-
Of course that's possible HMEssex,but don't you find those types are usually nihilistic pessimists who never ultimately make a success of their own lives? Give Julie credit for doing just that in the aftermath.
I wonder if she sleeps well at night.
-
But don't you think it strange mertol. She professed that she loved him. But has absolutely nothing good to say about him whatsoever. To my mind that is very odd to say the least?
i dont see anything to point to she did love him, the so called love ended on the dumping, none of the images ive seen of her tell me she did not seen one photo yet of her happy,i dont think she did.
-
i dont see anything to point to she did love him, the so called love ended on the dumping, none of the images ive seen of her tell me she did not seen one photo yet of her happy,i dont think she did.
I can't get it out of my head that she only went to the police AFTER he dumped her. That is a fact. But that fact doesn't seem to register with the antis at all. There's two strange things about JM (1) She said nothing positive about Jeremy. But rather kept harping on about all the alledged evil he had done. (2) She only went to the police AFTER he dumped her. Two FACTS that you cannot get away from.
-
I can't get it out of my head that she only went to the police AFTER he dumped her. That is a fact. But that fact doesn't seem to register with the antis at all. There's two strange things about JM (1) She said nothing positive about Jeremy. But rather kept harping on about all the alledged evil he had done. (2) She only went to the police AFTER he dumped her. Two FACTS that you cannot get away from.
Actually, she only went to the police AFTER her friend contacted them. Once those wheels were set in motion, she had no choice but to stick to her story. It was a massive news item, imagine what would have happened if she had then denied her accusations? She would have been dragged into it (as though she were protecting a killer) OR made to look like a laughing stcok. I think her initial thinking was to rubbish him to her friends in the worst possible way and it's not strange that she chose to tell Liz Rimmington, the very woman who had slept with him.
-
Morning Caroline
I agree with you I have always felt that Julie got herself into a position whereas she had to go with the story she had told her friend don't think it was her intention from the onset to "set Jeremy up" when it all happened she decided to gain from the situation with the £25.000 and no criminal charges brought against and she enjoyed being a celeb for a short while :(
-
Similar is occurring as we speak between Huhne and his ex. She is really dishing the dirt.
-
Morning Caroline
I agree with you I have always felt that Julie got herself into a position whereas she had to go with the story she had told her friend don't think it was her intention from the onset to "set Jeremy up" when it all happened she decided to gain from the situation with the £25.000 and no criminal charges brought against and she enjoyed being a celeb for a short while :(
Morning Suzy! I agree 100% - I think she let her mouth run away with her and then it became 'real'. She may have even convinced herself that what she was saying was true that 'maybe' he could have done it. There were plenty of people around her at the time who suspected JB and it would hard to disguise those feelings - the odd word or body language would surely betray their suspicions no matter how hard they tried to hide their true feelings.
-
Similar is occurring as we speak between Huhne and his ex. She is really dishing the dirt.
Yes exactly the kind of thing an ex will do. I really cannot understand why Steve cannot see that which is so obvious?
-
Yes exactly the kind of thing an ex will do. I really cannot understand why Steve cannot see that which is so obvious?
Because her statement is corroborated indirectly by so many other witnesses. I can't understand the Defence's position faced with such testimony: either Jeremy is guilty as is my position or he is innocent but a complete nasty piece of work who himself had nothing nice to say about anybody until he got banged up.
-
Because her statement is corroborated indirectly by so many other witnesses. I can't understand the Defence's position faced with such testimony: either Jeremy is guilty as is my position or he is innocent but a complete nasty piece of work who himself had nothing nice to say about anybody until he got banged up.
Just a cotton pickin' minute Steve. Nobody has said ONE nice thing about Jeremy either,,,least of all yourself. What about the relatives who hated his guts in case he diddled them out of their share of any estate that might have been because he wasn't of the same blood-line. ?
-
Just a cotton pickin' minute Steve. Nobody has said ONE nice thing about Jeremy either,,,least of all yourself. What about the relatives who hated his guts in case he diddled them out of their share of any estate that might have been because he wasn't of the same blood-line. ?
Actually I have commended him for his work with Braille for children in some post or other,but that won't cut much ice with Colin Caffell tonight as he thinks of the weekend ahead.
-
Actually I have commended him for his work with Braille for children in some post or other,but that won't cut much ice with Colin Caffell tonight as he thinks of the weekend ahead.
Steve dear, there are times when some of your posts are simply too sanctimonious to respond to :D :D :D
-
Actually I have commended him for his work with Braille for children in some post or other,but that won't cut much ice with Colin Caffell tonight as he thinks of the weekend ahead.
I had an uncle who did Braille.He wasn't a prisoner,,,but a violinist in the Liverpool Philharmonic many years ago.
What's significant about tonight and the weekend for Colin Caffell.?
-
I had an uncle who did Braille.He wasn't a prisoner,,,but a violinist in the Liverpool Philharmonic many years ago.
What's significant about tonight and the weekend for Colin Caffell.?
Well I know he's married with a child,and I don't want to dwell on it,but there must be times when he gets down thinking about the tragedy.
-
Steve dear, there are times when some of your posts are simply too sanctimonious to respond to :D :D :D
But not that one April? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well I know he's married with a child,and I don't want to dwell on it,but there must be times when he gets down thinking about the tragedy.
Well I don't suppose he'd be human if he didn't,,,though I bet he thinks about how Sheilas' illness may have been curtailed to what it used to be,,,also from the support point of view " through sickness and in health "must come to mind too,,,as he was as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
-
I'm afraid if I were Colin,,I'd be suffering from a guilty conscience every now and again knowing that I could/should have done more to help/support her. Like demanding the GP/Psychiatrist help,for the sake of the children,who must have witnessed their mothers' " mood swings ". I've no sympathy for anyone who disregards an illness as just " one of her turns ". Sheila loved Colin,,,bet he didn't reciprocate.It must have been a living Hell for her.
-
Well I don't suppose he'd be human if he didn't,,,though I bet he thinks about how Sheilas' illness may have been curtailed to what it used to be,,,also from the support point of view " through sickness and in health "must come to mind too,,,as he was as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
That's a little unfair lookout to compel the average man or woman in the street to shoulder the lion's share of caring for their mentally ill partner,especially at a time when not as much was known about the illness as now. You see I think that Sheila could well have led a normal life(or as normal a life as possible);being a good mother to the twins for example is a worthy aim in itself. Even if she did suffer relapses and had to go into hospital for periods of time(I believe the medical term is "chronic schizophrenic")I think Sheila had the best available care at her disposal and was cruelly cut down by her adoptive brother.
-
What a pity Sheila hadn't written a book.!
Did any of the rellies pen a book at all.?
-
What a pity Sheila hadn't written a book.!
Did any of the rellies pen a book at all.?
I'm just thankful Sheila never realized the fate which befell her boys;it's the only thing I can take comfort from in the whole affair,and that Jeremy did not succeed in pulling the wool over people's eyes.
-
I'm just thankful Sheila never realized the fate which befell her boys;it's the only thing I can take comfort from in the whole affair,and that Jeremy did not succeed in pulling the wool over people's eyes.
Sheila,,in her mind as it was,,knew the boys were going to be safe and would also stay with her in the next world. Nobody was going to take them away from her no matter what.
-
I'm just thankful Sheila never realized the fate which befell her boys;it's the only thing I can take comfort from in the whole affair,and that Jeremy did not succeed in pulling the wool over people's eyes.
He didn't need to, Julie got there first!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
post 572 is interesting a thought jeremy is innocent, steve likes the statements from jm because it shows him not favourable,currently at A1M services just had a kfc, a bed and b i was in last night had 4 guns in the hallway with the firing pins out i was informed, all hunting rifles, got me thinking steve anyone could have used those guns that night, i read and have heard colin forgiving jeremy steve though never forgetting i think he has chosen life .
-
post 572 is interesting a thought jeremy is innocent, steve likes the statements from jm because it shows him not favourable,currently at A1M services just had a kfc, a bed and b i was in last night had 4 guns in the hallway with the firing pins out i was informed, all hunting rifles, got me thinking steve anyone could have used those guns that night, i read and have heard colin forgiving jeremy steve though never forgetting i think he has chosen life .
I think this is why we need to re-examine the crime scene as Patti had the sense to realize. I still don't know about the number of weapons at the Farm that day,whether there was a 12 bore shotgun under Nevill's bed with Sheila's fingerprints,whether the lights were on or off(was Sheila holding a candle which might have explained the trick of the light)..so many documents not released which should have been by now and which makes discussion difficult and can lead to personality clashes on issues not worth clashing on.
It seems Colin has forgiven Jeremy and maybe that's a good thing if it helps him come to terms with his loss. I wonder sometimes if Colin has ever read any posts on this site and what his opinion is of it. I would stop posting tomorrow if Colin for whatever reason requested it.
-
Because her statement is corroborated indirectly by so many other witnesses. I can't understand the Defence's position faced with such testimony: either Jeremy is guilty as is my position or he is innocent but a complete nasty piece of work who himself had nothing nice to say about anybody until he got banged up.
Just who are these witnesses who can corroberate her statement Steve?
-
Just who are these witnesses who can corroberate her statement Steve?
Well we know Jeremy told James Richards he hated his parents. Jeremy told Liz Rimington that the twins were spoilt and Sheila couldn't see any wrong in them. He also told her it's important to have money whilst you're young,giving him a motive for killing his parents who were old and didn't know how to enjoy money. He told Doris Foakes he wasn't sharing any of his money with Sheila. He speculated to Charles Marsden that in the event of the Farm burning down at Christmas then everything would be his.Robert Boutflour also testified that his nephew told him he could easily kill his parents.
The fingerprint evidence also bolsters Julie's statement because Jeremy told her a glove came off in the fight with Nevill and Jeremy was worried that Sheila's fingerprints wouldn't show up on the rifle.
-
I think this is why we need to re-examine the crime scene as Patti had the sense to realize. I still don't know about the number of weapons at the Farm that day,whether there was a 12 bore shotgun under Nevill's bed with Sheila's fingerprints,whether the lights were on or off(was Sheila holding a candle which might have explained the trick of the light)..so many documents not released which should have been by now and which makes discussion difficult and can lead to personality clashes on issues not worth clashing on.
It seems Colin has forgiven Jeremy and maybe that's a good thing if it helps him come to terms with his loss. I wonder sometimes if Colin has ever read any posts on this site and what his opinion is of it. I would stop posting tomorrow if Colin for whatever reason requested it.
Colin re married, has a daughter a good buisiness and is a artist , he may be aware of the forum but im sure he has better things to do steve and thats to live and support his family,remember jeremy was part of his life but no longer .
-
Colin re married, has a daughter a good buisiness and is a artist , he may be aware of the forum but im sure he has better things to do steve and thats to live and support his family,remember jeremy was part of his life but no longer .
You're probably right mertol22. I would only say in response to your last part that Colin did write to Jeremy in prison but has since realized that this was a mistake,he felt he didn't receive any true answers and warns against being taken in by the character.
-
Who was in control of whom at White House Farm? We know June kept a tight rein on the purse strings,but liked to even things out whenever she could. Sheila needed a portfolio of photos and June would pay and for her finishing course;in return Jeremy demanded and received funding for his scuba diving course in New Zealand.
However there came a time when the money dried up for Jeremy. Possibly June was unhappy with her son living in sin with Julie at Goldhanger;Jeremy was dissatisfied with his settlement of Bourtree Cottage and farm wages with his lavish spending tastes to maintain.
There ensued a deadly game of double bluff on Jeremy’s part which June was an unwitting party to. Did she sense the unease and malaise which rocked the Farm every time Jeremy was around? Had Nevill rumbled Jeremy with a side glance as Jeremy went through the motions of being a dedicated farm worker that last year,knowing full well that it would be his last in any event?
The crunch came that first week in August with the arrival of Sheila,who took back her own room from schooldays,and the twins who slept in Jeremy’s room which bore his name on the door. The scene was set as Jeremy noted his sister’s parlous state and pronouncements,and venged one of the worst infanticide crimes since Richard III ordered the destruction of the princes in the Tower of London five hundred years before.
-
Who was in control of whom at White House Farm? We know June kept a tight rein on the purse strings,but liked to even things out whenever she could. Sheila needed a portfolio of photos and June would pay and for her finishing course;in return Jeremy demanded and received funding for his scuba diving course in New Zealand.
However there came a time when the money dried up for Jeremy. Possibly June was unhappy with her son living in sin with Julie at Goldhanger;Jeremy was dissatisfied with his settlement of Bourtree Cottage and farm wages with his lavish spending tastes to maintain.
There ensued a deadly game of double bluff on Jeremy’s part which June was an unwitting party to. Did she sense the unease and malaise which rocked the Farm every time Jeremy was around? Had Nevill rumbled Jeremy with a side glance as Jeremy went through the motions of being a dedicated farm worker that last year,knowing full well that it would be his last in any event?
The crunch came that first week in August with the arrival of Sheila,who took back her own room from schooldays,and the twins who slept in Jeremy’s room which bore his name on the door. The scene was set as Jeremy noted his sister’s parlous state and pronouncements,and venged one of the worst infanticide crimes since Richard III ordered the destruction of the princes in the Tower of London five hundred years before.
Steve are you a PA for the CCRC? Or are you trying your utmost to project ill feeling to the public domain by posting this fabricated stuff on this forum....lolol
You say Jeremy demanded money for a scuba diving course in New Zealand....what poppy cock!
How on earth did money dry up, he had wealthy parents. They bought him a house, a car, paid his bills, gave him petrol and a decent wage....Jeremy had plenty of money in the bank...he had plans for his bonus....I tell you something, if Jeremy was telling the police he had plans to buy and build a flat pack porche with his bonus, he was hardly thinking of the cash flow from his inheritance was he?
You making me giggle.....lol :) :) :) :)
-
Who was in control of whom at White House Farm? We know June kept a tight rein on the purse strings,but liked to even things out whenever she could. Sheila needed a portfolio of photos and June would pay and for her finishing course;in return Jeremy demanded and received funding for his scuba diving course in New Zealand.
However there came a time when the money dried up for Jeremy. Possibly June was unhappy with her son living in sin with Julie at Goldhanger;Jeremy was dissatisfied with his settlement of Bourtree Cottage and farm wages with his lavish spending tastes to maintain.
There ensued a deadly game of double bluff on Jeremy’s part which June was an unwitting party to. Did she sense the unease and malaise which rocked the Farm every time Jeremy was around? Had Nevill rumbled Jeremy with a side glance as Jeremy went through the motions of being a dedicated farm worker that last year,knowing full well that it would be his last in any event?
The crunch came that first week in August with the arrival of Sheila,who took back her own room from schooldays,and the twins who slept in Jeremy’s room which bore his name on the door. The scene was set as Jeremy noted his sister’s parlous state and pronouncements,and venged one of the worst infanticide crimes since Richard III ordered the destruction of the princes in the Tower of London five hundred years before.
And this is "a balance of probabilities"? Really!!!
-
Firstly about Richard 3rd,,,,King of England albeit for a short while. Was he ever taunted about his stature as a cripple with Kyphoscoliosis ( Kyphosis ) ? We don't know,,so can't even speculate on that one.
However,,I think Neville was the ruler when it came to finances,,,especially deals with land and anything to do with the farm. June would have been the one to have funded both children when the need arose.I don't think she treated them any differently on that score. Neither children were any different to those of today who rely on the bank of mum and dad,,,and all they needed to do was ask,if they wanted anything in particular and both knew this,,so why do you think that Jeremy was anything different.? He was on a good wage and he knew it,,,and as long as he worked on the farm there was never the fear that any money would dry up.
Don't you think that Jeremy was too pre-occupied with his love-life than to think about who was sleeping where at WHF,,or who was doing what.? Him and JM would have been taking themselves off in his car after the farmwork.
I'm of the belief that Jeremy didn't know half of what was going on,,,only being interested in the pub and clubs which was normal for a chap of his age.
-
Hello lookout
I think Jeremy had a very good lifestyle he did not have to worry about paying bills they were all taken care of, car provided house provided bet Jeremy did not know what roof tax was or whatever it was called back then. Most of his food would have been consumed at the farm he would just have to shop to feed Julie and buy soap ;D. The wage he earned at the farm was all his to spend as he wished he did not have to budget for his electricity car insurance and so forth. Why would he not be satisfied with that he was a 24 year old male and all he would think of after work on the farm was pubs and girls. He had I think an income from his shares at the caravan park he had a great life style and not forgetting Grannie Speakman who was very old and he was set to inherit her fortune. If he was as steve has tried to portray him a greedy playboy all he had to do was be patient.
-
Steve are you a PA for the CCRC? Or are you trying your utmost to project ill feeling to the public domain by posting this fabricated stuff on this forum....lolol
You say Jeremy demanded money for a scuba diving course in New Zealand....what poppy cock!
How on earth did money dry up, he had wealthy parents. They bought him a house, a car, paid his bills, gave him petrol and a decent wage....Jeremy had plenty of money in the bank...he had plans for his bonus....I tell you something, if Jeremy was telling the police he had plans to buy and build a flat pack porche with his bonus, he was hardly thinking of the cash flow from his inheritance was he?
You making me giggle.....lol :) :) :) :)
It wasn't enough for the life he wanted.
-
It wasn't enough for the life he wanted.
But what's in your thoughts aren't necessarily those in his.
-
It wasn't enough for the life he wanted.
Steve you don't know the life he wanted, you've never met him, been in his company.....its an assumption based on your beliefs and want your mind is willing to digest. No one can force you to be any different, I am thankful that you are so unique in your way of thinking, that you encourage debate.... :) :) :) :)
-
I will upset some adoptees here again I'm afraid but Jeremy Bamber was born in Kensington,London and had city life flowing through his veins. How he must have envied the flat his parents bought Sheila in Maida Vale,if not her lifestyle. When he realized that Sheila had become ill and was struggling with everyday tasks such as putting beans on toast,and cast an eye on his adoptive parents: Nevill who was off work from his magistrates' job with stress and June who would burst into tears most days, who were both ageing however much deep down they loved him,I think Jeremy began to see how he in his mind could "do everyone a favour",especially when he saw the twins clinging to Colin at the party and made that infamous comment "they're a millstone round your neck".
You're right about Jeremy not being fully aware of things because he saw them from his warped angle and which ultimately proved to be his downfall. Nobody can seriously expect Sheila to have been in any kind of struggle with Nevill which left a ceiling light broken and Sheila intact,nor did Nevill the former RAF pilot relinquish the telephone without some exertion on his part,even if was only leaving his bloodied prints on the blue and white chequered worktop and hiding his watch under the rug.
-
It wasn't enough for the life he wanted.
The life,as you say,,,would have come later on for Jeremy. As it was,,,he was doing very well considering his age. Then he had a pretty demanding partner who would have bled him dry anyway and he had to keep up with that.
-
The life,as you say,,,would have come later on for Jeremy. As it was,,,he was doing very well considering his age. Then he had a pretty demanding partner who would have bled him dry anyway and he had to keep up with that.
But Jeremy could never think or plan ahead:life was immediate. It was "now or never" to seize the prize from his parents and inherit the lion's share of the estate,whilst putting people who had nothing to live for out of their misery.
-
But Jeremy could never think or plan ahead:life was immediate. It was "now or never" to seize the prize from his parents and inherit the lion's share of the estate,whilst putting people who had nothing to live for out of their misery.
Steve,dear,,,how many 24 year olds plan ahead.? They live for the day,and for that I don't blame them. I'll bet he didn't give a stuff about any inheritance.After all,,as I said,,he was doing fine financially.
I can only assume that these are your thoughts and that somewhere down the line you've been dealt a bum steer,,because your bitterness is such that I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. In the nicest possible way you understand.
-
Steve,dear,,,how many 24 year olds plan ahead.? They live for the day,and for that I don't blame them. I'll bet he didn't give a stuff about any inheritance.After all,,as I said,,he was doing fine financially.
I can only assume that these are your thoughts and that somewhere down the line you've been dealt a bum steer,,because your bitterness is such that I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. In the nicest possible way you understand.
You're right in some ways lookout but on balance I'll take what I've got. There is far too much circumstantial evidence that Jeremy wanted more,from Julie,from Liz,from Doris..his attitude after the deaths with Jeremy finally in charge with feet up on the desk.
Maybe it's a man thing..
-
You're right in some ways lookout but on balance I'll take what I've got. There is far too much circumstantial evidence that Jeremy wanted more,from Julie,from Liz,from Doris..his attitude after the deaths with Jeremy finally in charge with feet up on the desk.
Maybe it's a man thing..
Dear Steve,,I don't think any less of you for your differences of opinion.
-
Who the dickens was Doris.?
-
Who the dickens was Doris.?
You know,Doris Foakes, to whom Jeremy allegedly said:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila".
-
You're right in some ways lookout but on balance I'll take what I've got. There is far too much circumstantial evidence that Jeremy wanted more,from Julie,from Liz,from Doris..his attitude after the deaths with Jeremy finally in charge with feet up on the desk.
Maybe it's a man thing..
Steve, I would give more credence to your beliefs of Jeremy had he been in his forties, still not his own master, responsible for elderly parents and a sister who couldn't care for her children without support. I think Jeremy was too young to know or care about what responsibilities. Really, he wanted for nothing. Perhaps some of the thought and desires that you are so emphatic are his are elements of things you would like. When I see what his life at 24 was, I would quite like my own to have been that bad :)
-
Steve are you a PA for the CCRC? Or are you trying your utmost to project ill feeling to the public domain by posting this fabricated stuff on this forum....lolol
You say Jeremy demanded money for a scuba diving course in New Zealand....what poppy cock!
How on earth did money dry up, he had wealthy parents. They bought him a house, a car, paid his bills, gave him petrol and a decent wage....Jeremy had plenty of money in the bank...he had plans for his bonus....I tell you something, if Jeremy was telling the police he had plans to buy and build a flat pack porche with his bonus, he was hardly thinking of the cash flow from his inheritance was he?
You making me giggle.....lol :) :) :) :)
Patti I fear that many bad things about Jeremy are purposely fabricated on the forum and at every opportunity. Why? In order to brainwash other members as much as possible so they begin to naturally think that those things are true. I believe that this is the sole purpose of Steve being on this forum. Someone said to me just the other day in fact, if you say something continually and long enough about someone everyone begins o believe it. It is suggestion on a sub level of the mind. In the end people begin to think that Jeremy Bamber is the devil incarnate.
-
But Jeremy could never think or plan ahead:life was immediate. It was "now or never" to seize the prize from his parents and inherit the lion's share of the estate,whilst putting people who had nothing to live for out of their misery.
And yet you say he planned it for a year?
-
You know,Doris Foakes, to whom Jeremy allegedly said:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila".
Oh,that Doris.? I thought perhaps you were referring to a new bit of fluff of Jeremys'.
-
Steve, I would give more credence to your beliefs of Jeremy had he been in his forties, still not his own master, responsible for elderly parents and a sister who couldn't care for her children without support. I think Jeremy was too young to know or care about what responsibilities. Really, he wanted for nothing. Perhaps some of the thought and desires that you are so emphatic are his are elements of things you would like. When I see what his life at 24 was, I would quite like my own to have been that bad :)
I think that life stuck inside the tractor must have been as humdrum for him as the establishment of the Industrial Revolution must have been for workers in the factories in Manchester in the 1800s. When I look back to my forbears I really do lead a life of privilege in comparison. Who knows,we all have subliminal thoughts but I've never been jealous of Jeremy however much people here would wish it to be so.
I look forward to new evidence after the silencer evidence seems to be on shaky ground to say the least. Yes there's the picture of Sheila with fresh blood which is even on a thread with my name attached. I can't explain all these anomalies to my own satisfaction and I will keep reading and learning. Let's hope new documents and photos are released under PII,but until then I'm afraid my conscience lies firmly still in the Jeremy guilty camp.
-
I think that life stuck inside the tractor must have been as humdrum for him as the establishment of the Industrial Revolution must have been for workers in the factories in Manchester in the 1800s. When I look back to my forbears I really do lead a life of privilege in comparison. Who knows,we all have subliminal thoughts but I've never been jealous of Jeremy however much people here would wish it to be so.
I look forward to new evidence after the silencer evidence seems to be on shaky ground to say the least. Yes there's the picture of Sheila with fresh blood which is even on a thread with my name attached. I can't explain all these anomalies to my own satisfaction and I will keep reading and learning. Let's hope new documents and photos are released under PII,but until then I'm afraid my conscience lies firmly still in the Jeremy guilty camp.
At least you admit to the anomalies!!
-
And yet you say he planned it for a year?
I like it...well spotted. :) :) :) :) :)
-
And yet you say he planned it for a year?
As Bridget said earlier today,he kept his eye out for a convenient moment and I'm afraid it all just came together for him:his parents' careworn state,Colin's party,Sheila's Haloperidol wearing off,them all together under one roof..it's just too coincidental for it not to have been Jeremy.
-
I will upset some adoptees here again I'm afraid but Jeremy Bamber was born in Kensington,London and had city life flowing through his veins. How he must have envied the flat his parents bought Sheila in Maida Vale,if not her lifestyle. When he realized that Sheila had become ill and was struggling with everyday tasks such as putting beans on toast,and cast an eye on his adoptive parents: Nevill who was off work from his magistrates' job with stress and June who would burst into tears most days, who were both ageing however much deep down they loved him,I think Jeremy began to see how he in his mind could "do everyone a favour",especially when he saw the twins clinging to Colin at the party and made that infamous comment "they're a millstone round your neck".
You're right about Jeremy not being fully aware of things because he saw them from his warped angle and which ultimately proved to be his downfall. Nobody can seriously expect Sheila to have been in any kind of struggle with Nevill which left a ceiling light broken and Sheila intact,nor did Nevill the former RAF pilot relinquish the telephone without some exertion on his part,even if was only leaving his bloodied prints on the blue and white chequered worktop and hiding his watch under the rug.
Are you serious! :o
-
Are you serious! :o
Yes Alias. They stuck a city man in a tractor with adoptive parents and an adoptive mentally ill sister whom Colin found impossible to live with. Jeremy stuck around because as he told Julie "I have too much to lose". Add Sheila's musings on the Devil and the twins projecting evil onto others and Jeremy's worries that June might change her will in favour of the Church(Jeremy knew what a disappointment he was to his adoptive parents even if they tried to conceal their feelings) with maybe the odd Marjorie Allingham novel on the bookcase and an evil plan starts to germinate inside his head..
-
Yes Alias. They stuck a city man in a tractor with adoptive parents and an adoptive mentally ill sister whom Colin found impossible to live with. Jeremy stuck around because as he told Julie "I have too much to lose". Add Sheila's musings on the Devil and the twins projecting evil onto others and Jeremy's worries that June might change her will in favour of the Church(Jeremy knew what a disappointment he was to his adoptive parents even if they tried to conceal their feelings) with maybe the odd Marjorie Allingham novel on the bookcase and an evil plan starts to germinate inside his head..
If he was such a disappointment then why did his father purchase a farm for him and, why did Jeremy own 40 acres of land and had shares in the caravan park along with yearly bonuses?????????? In fact was Jeremy looking into modern day farming....and never shut up talking about farming...give him some credit Steve.... :( :) :) :) :)
-
Are you serious! :o
Haha yes thats a good one isn't it Alias? "City life flowing through his veins". ;D ;D Hate to think if he ever had a bus clot. Or a taxi infection. ;D
-
If he was such a disappointment then why did his father purchase a farm for him and, why did Jeremy own 40 acres of land and had shares in the caravan park along with yearly bonuses?????????? In fact was Jeremy looking into modern day farming....and never shut up talking about farming...give him some credit Steve.... :( :) :) :) :)
Probably on June's instigation. You're forgetting that upon Jeremy's return to England he eschewed farming in favour of working in a Little Chef off the A12. If Nevill and June really understood their son they would have bought him a restaurant to manage or a wine bar,but this was once again a symptom of their control over their children,the way they had planned their children's lives and not listened to both of them,nor had ever given them any hugs,the effects of which were also well-documented.
-
Yes Alias. They stuck a city man in a tractor with adoptive parents and an adoptive mentally ill sister whom Colin found impossible to live with. Jeremy stuck around because as he told Julie "I have too much to lose". Add Sheila's musings on the Devil and the twins projecting evil onto others and Jeremy's worries that June might change her will in favour of the Church(Jeremy knew what a disappointment he was to his adoptive parents even if they tried to conceal their feelings) with maybe the odd Marjorie Allingham novel on the bookcase and an evil plan starts to germinate inside his head..
They were all in the tractor? Must have been cramped!
-
Probably on June's instigation. You're forgetting that upon Jeremy's return to England he eschewed farming in favour of working in a Little Chef off the A12. If Nevill and June really understood their son they would have bought him a restaurant to manage or a wine bar,but this was once again a symptom of their control over their children,the way they had planned their children's lives and not listened to both of them,nor had ever given them any hugs,the effects of which were also well-documented.
So he worked at the little chef! That was his choice, it was also his choice to work on the farm, he could have left at any time, like his sister did,...there was nothing stopping him. He had time out, most middle class youths do, more so today than ever before.
I think you might be right about his parents being controlling, but i am sure they wanted the best for their children...but like always children don't see it that way and rebel for while... :) :) :) :)
-
Yes Alias. They stuck a city man in a tractor with adoptive parents and an adoptive mentally ill sister whom Colin found impossible to live with. Jeremy stuck around because as he told Julie "I have too much to lose". Add Sheila's musings on the Devil and the twins projecting evil onto others and Jeremy's worries that June might change her will in favour of the Church(Jeremy knew what a disappointment he was to his adoptive parents even if they tried to conceal their feelings) with maybe the odd Marjorie Allingham novel on the bookcase and an evil plan starts to germinate inside his head..
Jeremy wasn´t a man when he arrived in the arms of June and Ralph, he was a baby. I have never heard about a city baby! 8)
What you say here is too "out there" for my taste.
-
Jeremy wasn´t a man when he arrived in the arms of June and Ralph, he was a baby. I have never heard about a city baby! 8)
What you say here is too "out there" for my taste.
Ya think? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes Alias. They stuck a city man in a tractor with adoptive parents and an adoptive mentally ill sister whom Colin found impossible to live with. Jeremy stuck around because as he told Julie "I have too much to lose". Add Sheila's musings on the Devil and the twins projecting evil onto others and Jeremy's worries that June might change her will in favour of the Church(Jeremy knew what a disappointment he was to his adoptive parents even if they tried to conceal their feelings) with maybe the odd Marjorie Allingham novel on the bookcase and an evil plan starts to germinate inside his head..
So the fact that Jeremy had said that he had" too much to lose " should tell everyone really,that his intentions were to stick with the farming,along with his family,,,not to blast them to Kingdom Come with a .22 rifle.
-
I wish I had the clip from youtube but the dialogue will have to suffice. Blake Carrington on prime time television says:"You do not survive by giving anything away.There are the wolves and there are the sheep.If you're a sheep you get killed and you get eaten because that's the way it is in this world".
The irony to this as Jeremy watched this in the lounge at Bourtree Cottage is that the competition is even more fierce today,yet the political correctness prevalent now and absent back in the 1980s makes it seem the other way around.
-
So the fact that Jeremy had said that he had" too much to lose " should tell everyone really,that his intentions were to stick with the farming,along with his family,,,not to blast them to Kingdom Come with a .22 rifle.
Well it's surprising that you accept parts of Julie's statement when it advances your cause and reject when it doesn't. The fact that Julie even mentions to Jeremy that he walks away suggests to me that she was in love with him and would have accepted the man without any financial motive.
-
I wish I had the clip from youtube but the dialogue will have to suffice. Blake Carrington on prime time television says:"You do not survive by giving anything away.There are the wolves and there are the sheep.If you're a sheep you get killed and you get eaten because that's the way it is in this world".
The irony to this as Jeremy watched this in the lounge at Bourtree Cottage is that the competition is even more fierce today,yet the political correctness prevalent now and absent back in the 1980s makes it seem the other way around.
More dog eat dog,Steve. Excuse me while I watch Stephen Fry ( who doesn't look like him )
-
So he worked at the little chef! That was his choice, it was also his choice to work on the farm, he could have left at any time, like his sister did,...there was nothing stopping him. He had time out, most middle class youths do, more so today than ever before.
I think you might be right about his parents being controlling, but i am sure they wanted the best for their children...but like always children don't see it that way and rebel for while... :) :) :) :)
Thanks for nothing steve this talk about Little Chef has made me hungary , my gut is making funny noises..
-
I wish I had the clip from youtube but the dialogue will have to suffice. Blake Carrington on prime time television says:"You do not survive by giving anything away.There are the wolves and there are the sheep.If you're a sheep you get killed and you get eaten because that's the way it is in this world".
The irony to this as Jeremy watched this in the lounge at Bourtree Cottage is that the competition is even more fierce today,yet the political correctness prevalent now and absent back in the 1980s makes it seem the other way around.
Steve, I have NO idea what you're trying to say and even less idea of who is Blake Carrington, but I find it profoundly sad that you can quote from something Jeremy is supposed to have watched in his sitting room in the 1980s. I wish you a good night and pleasant dreams :)
-
Thanks for nothing steve this talk about Little Chef has made me hungary , my gut is making funny noises..
I thought it had gone bust ages ago,but apparently Jeremy's former place of employment might still be open.http://euroblogspot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/little-chef-to-cut-600-jobs-in.html
-
Steve, I have NO idea what you're trying to say and even less idea of who is Blake Carrington, but I find it profoundly sad that you can quote from something Jeremy is supposed to have watched in his sitting room in the 1980s. I wish you a good night and pleasant dreams :)
It's the culture of the 1980s april1 and what message Jeremy would have picked up as he told Doris Foakes he wasn't sharing any money(or inheritance)with Sheila.
Don't worry I won't have Nevill killing Brett Collins..
-
It's actually a rat-race which Jeremy would not be familiar with when he finally steps out of those gates.
Time will have stood still for him that's for sure,,,,against the outside world.
-
Well it's surprising that you accept parts of Julie's statement when it advances your cause and reject when it doesn't. The fact that Julie even mentions to Jeremy that he walks away suggests to me that she was in love with him and would have accepted the man without any financial motive.
I didn't quote,,,you did.
-
Blake Carrington is a character in Dynasty.
-
Blake Carrington is a character in Dynasty.
;D ;D I see it's getting a bit difficult on this forum to tell truth from fiction these days.
-
On or off this forum, it can be difficult to distinguish truth from fiction. There is no oracle. You can trust your sight for years before discovering that you are colour-blind. Try this experiment: open just one eye and keep it as still as you can. In your field of vision, there must be a sort of "hole" corresponding to the "blind spot" in the retina of your open eye, but can you identify where that "hole" is?
-
On or off this forum, it can be difficult to distinguish truth from fiction. There is no oracle. You can trust your sight for years before discovering that you are colour-blind. Try this experiment: open just one eye and keep it as still as you can. In your field of vision, there must be a sort of "hole" corresponding to the "blind spot" in the retina of your open eye, but can you identify where that "hole" is?
I can't see an hole..lol
-
I can't see an hole..lol
I CAN!!! I see an Azzhole!
SORRY, couldn´t help myself, truly and honestly, this is not aimed at ANYBODY! Myself maybe, come to think of it...
-
I CAN!!! I see an Azzhole!
SORRY, couldn´t help myself, truly and honestly, this is not aimed at ANYBODY! Myself maybe, come to think of it...
Lol........................ ;) ;) ;) ;D
-
It's the culture of the 1980s april1 and what message Jeremy would have picked up as he told Doris Foakes he wasn't sharing any money(or inheritance)with Sheila.
Don't worry I won't have Nevill killing Brett Collins..
Wouldn't it be better if you asked Jeremy if he ever watched Dynasty before making such assumptions about him?
-
On or off this forum, it can be difficult to distinguish truth from fiction. There is no oracle. You can trust your sight for years before discovering that you are colour-blind. Try this experiment: open just one eye and keep it as still as you can. In your field of vision, there must be a sort of "hole" corresponding to the "blind spot" in the retina of your open eye, but can you identify where that "hole" is?
Yes I did that before some time ago. There is a blind spot just to one side.
-
Wouldn't it be better if you asked Jeremy if he ever watched Dynasty before making such assumptions about him?
Dynasty.
I had to wipe my eyes and read again when I saw Blake Carrington quoted!! I am beginning to believe that Steve is here to pull our legs and is rolling around on his floor in fits of laughter after each post he comes up with! Next it will be Bobby Ewing he will be quoting to prove that Jeremy is the devil incarnate - or Sue Ellen...
Here is something to ponder.... http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0022672/quotes
-
There is a blind spot just to one side.
Yes. For anyone else, this site (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chvision.html) makes it easy to find and allows you to estimate the blind spot's width. However, try to find it unaided first.
-
Yes. For anyone else, this site (http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chvision.html) makes it easy to find and allows you to estimate the blind spot's width. However, try to find it unaided first.
Interesting site. Thanks.
-
With all the secret wheeling and dealing land deals the relatives were alleged to have done the case does sometimes resemble the worst machinations of the Dynasty programme. A cursory search of Google today brought up the obituary of Robert Woodiwis Boutflour whom one might describe as the patriarch of the remaining family and it’s safe to say had an antipathy to Jeremy if not before the murders then certainly after he saw the results of what he believed to be Jeremy’s handiwork:
I remember one thing;it was at that point that I realized that I loathed that boy and couldn’t bear being anywhere near him. I made my excuses and left with Pam my wife”.
Was it this gut feeling which started the ball rolling,to use a phrase of Jeremy’s,had he always been the cuckoo in the nest,confirmed in Robert’s mind when he learned of Brett,or had he recalled Jeremy’s remark about “easily being able to kill my parents” when the two were discussing security at Osea Road? Was this just another way of Jeremy taunting the relatives and getting his own back for their frosty treatment of him down the years? Had Sheila as a similar adoptee ever experienced likewise?
Of all the Prosecution witnesses I ranked him as the most unreliable because I think Robert felt himself the guardian of the family estates with their heritage and tradition which would all have been lost had Jeremy sold them to outsiders,as at that stage appeared to be Jeremy’s plan upon inheritance.Robert is in the thick of it with the silencer evidence(some might say he was in it up to his neck)which remained uncorroborated.
Robert had a long innings,though it seems in later years he may have suffered from Alzheimer’s disease.http://www.iannounce.co.uk/East-England/26/Obituary-Death-Memorial-notices/all_memorial?_fstatus=search;keywords=ROBERT%20WOODIWIS%20BOBBY%20BOUTFLOUR
-
Couldn't the extended family find any redeeming features in Jeremy at all ?.
Or was it because he was in the way of the inheritance.?
I bet Neville was hesitant that night about phoning Jeremy in case he,Jeremy, too got in the line of fire.
-
Couldn't the extended family find any redeeming features in Jeremy at all ?.
Or was it because he was in the way of the inheritance.?
I bet Neville was hesitant that night about phoning Jeremy in case he,Jeremy, too got in the line of fire.
Hi lookout. I think Robert had forewarned Nevill about his son,hence the struggle which he put up in the kitchen that morning: as Jeremy told Julie:"I do miss the old man occasionally..he put up a good fight".
-
With all the secret wheeling and dealing land deals the relatives were alleged to have done the case does sometimes resemble the worst machinations of the Dynasty programme. A cursory search of Google today brought up the obituary of Robert Woodiwis Boutflour whom one might describe as the patriarch of the remaining family and it’s safe to say had an antipathy to Jeremy if not before the murders then certainly after he saw the results of what he believed to be Jeremy’s handiwork:
I remember one thing;it was at that point that I realized that I loathed that boy and couldn’t bear being anywhere near him. I made my excuses and left with Pam my wife”.
Was it this gut feeling which started the ball rolling,to use a phrase of Jeremy’s,had he always been the cuckoo in the nest,confirmed in Robert’s mind when he learned of Brett,or had he recalled Jeremy’s remark about “easily being able to kill my parents” when the two were discussing security at Osea Road? Was this just another way of Jeremy taunting the relatives and getting his own back for their frosty treatment of him down the years? Had Sheila as a similar adoptee ever experienced likewise?
Of all the Prosecution witnesses I ranked him as the most unreliable because I think Robert felt himself the guardian of the family estates with their heritage and tradition which would all have been lost had Jeremy sold them to outsiders,as at that stage appeared to be Jeremy’s plan upon inheritance.Robert is in the thick of it with the silencer evidence(some might say he was in it up to his neck)which remained uncorroborated.
Robert had a long innings,though it seems in later years he may have suffered from Alzheimer’s disease.http://www.iannounce.co.uk/East-England/26/Obituary-Death-Memorial-notices/all_memorial?_fstatus=search;keywords=ROBERT%20WOODIWIS%20BOBBY%20BOUTFLOUR
I would say that RWB's admission were the feelings he had held of Jeremy from the moment he was bought into the family, spoken openly for the first time. It may have been a huge relief to finally divest himself of them.
I also find it enormously strange, that despite that you would have us believe that RWB used every available opportunity to remind Nevill what a bastard was his son and yet Nevill never once appears to have reprimanded him for it. It's odd, don't you think, that Nevill put up with this. Mostly parents won't tolerate those who run down their children.
-
It seems to me the Jeremy supporters want it both ways,which should no longer surprise me knowing this site,but as there are so many of you resolute in your support for Jeremy I would say this:either there never was any murder plan in Jeremy's mind and therefore Julie knew nothing and has made the bulk of her statement to Police up,or Jeremy bounced his murder plans off Julie and Julie is at least implicated to some degree and guilty of omission,but by the same token this also incriminates Jeremy as the source of the evil scheme in the first place.
Exactly
And love the fabulistic flairs and flourishes in your account of the "Prelude, Tragedy, Aftermath"
-
I don't think we've been introduced.SirSimeon2003,,,,,or have we.?
-
I would say that RWB's admission were the feelings he had held of Jeremy from the moment he was bought into the family, spoken openly for the first time. It may have been a huge relief to finally divest himself of them.
I also find it enormously strange, that despite that you would have us believe that RWB used every available opportunity to remind Nevill what a bastard was his son and yet Nevill never once appears to have reprimanded him for it. It's odd, don't you think, that Nevill put up with this. Mostly parents won't tolerate those who run down their children.
Of course Jeremy was given this unfortunate epithet back in the days when political correctness barely existed and when he was most vulnerable away from home. Are psychopaths born or are they made( answers on a postcard to you know who..)My thoughts turned to this post after the recent revelation about the Archbishop of Canterbury, and it may be surprising that Jeremy has something in common with him. I had always thought it would take a man of the cloth to coax out the shocking truth and maybe now Justin Welby will take a renewed interest in the case.
-
Of course Jeremy was given this unfortunate epithet back in the days when political correctness barely existed and when he was most vulnerable away from home. Are psychopaths born or are they made( answers on a postcard to you know who..)My thoughts turned to this post after the recent revelation about the Archbishop of Canterbury, and it may be surprising that Jeremy has something in common with him. I had always thought it would take a man of the cloth to coax out the shocking truth and maybe now Justin Welby will take a renewed interest in the case.
In my understanding Steve, psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made but there are variations on this thinking. It's believed sociopaths may have some ability to emote but are badly damaged whereas psychopaths are born with the emoting part of the brain missing.
If I remember rightly, Americans call all people with low or no emoting ability sociopaths. ;D
||Couldn't find a postcard sorry ..
-
In my understanding Steve, psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made but there are variations on this thinking. It's believed sociopaths may have some ability to emote but are badly damaged whereas psychopaths are born with the emoting part of the brain missing.
If I remember rightly, Americans call all people with low or no emoting ability sociopaths. ;D
||Couldn't find a postcard sorry ..
That's very interesting Maggie and I wonder if they are born there is a genetic element to this? Can a traumatic event trigger sociopathy such as the death of a family pet or am I clutching at straws?
-
I wouldn't have thought that Jeremy was a sociopath,as they're very anti-social people and are usually aggressive too amongst other things.
As Maggie pointed out,they're not born that way as it's usually caused by having been in an abusive household when growing up,but I shouldn't think that applies either.
-
That's very interesting Maggie and I wonder if they are born there is a genetic element to this? Can a traumatic event trigger sociopathy such as the death of a family pet or am I clutching at straws?
I think it is believed that psychopathy can be genetic and I heard recently that even narcissism can be genetic, which surprised me. My understanding of sociopathy is that it is caused by abuse and neglect particularly in the formative years.
-
I wouldn't have thought that Jeremy was a sociopath,as they're very anti-social people and are usually aggressive too amongst other things.
As Maggie pointed out,they're not born that way as it's usually caused by having been in an abusive household when growing up,but I shouldn't think that applies either.
It's difficult to know without a brain scan between psychopathy and sociopathy ecause as sociopath is caused by severe neglect and abuse, there can be a difficult crossover because a child born into an abusive household with cruel neglectful parents may become the same because of the abuse they suffer or because the have inherited their parents disposition.
It is very interesting but I do not claim to be an expert.
-
I woud think sociopathy which is caused b neglect is caused by very severe abuse, think there is a difficult crossover because a child born into an abusive household with cruel neglectful parents ma become the same because of the abuse they suffer or because the have inherited their parents disposition.
It is very interesting but I do not claim to be an expert.
Sociopathy can be congenital or acquired -which I prefer to translate as afflicted on- whilst psychopathy is generally considered to be a meeting point of genetics and chemical inbalance.
-
Sociopathy can be congenital or acquired -which I prefer to translate as afflicted on- whilst psychopathy is generally considered to be a meeting point of genetics and chemical inbalance.
That's what happens when I try to eat and type
-
It's difficult to know without a brain scan between psychopathy and sociopathy ecause as sociopath is caused by severe neglect and abuse, there can be a difficult crossover because a child born into an abusive household with cruel neglectful parents may become the same because of the abuse they suffer or because the have inherited their parents disposition.
It is very interesting but I do not claim to be an expert.
(http://psychologia.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/psycopath-vs-sociopath-infographic1.jpg)
-
Did he have any real friends of his own age or was he so afflicted by the "bastard" remark that he shunned company, lost in a world of his own thoughts as Michael Deckers remarked he considered him to be a Walter Mitty character. Did becoming the boss mean everything to someone who had no real talents in any area and more menacingly no real conscience towards his kinsmen?
-
Did he have any real friends of his own age or was he so afflicted by the "bastard" remark that he shunned company, lost in a world of his won thoughts as Michael Deckers remarked he considered him to be a Walter Mitty character. Did becoming the boss mean everything to someone who had no real talents in any area and more menacingly no real conscience towards his kinsmen?
It appears to me, that even when he was in a group, he was apart from the group -the controller?
-
(http://psychologia.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/psycopath-vs-sociopath-infographic1.jpg)
Stories in the literature on the case claim that he removed the diamonds from ladies' rings and substituted paste stones, stole watches from a jewellers' and was even entangled in some nightclub escapade, the details of which slip my memory but which hastened his withdrawal from the Antipodes. Whether June and Nevill thought their son was sowing his wild oats and would revert to a loving son once back in the hearth is difficult to say, though there isn't much information available on his formative years.
-
It appears to me, that even when he was in a group, he was apart from the group -the controller?
"A prickly character" I believe the Head of Gresham's described him, and maybe this trait emerged when a topic of conversation was broached which was distasteful him, falling back on his allotted role in life of inheritor of White House Farm.
-
Stories in the literature on the case claim that he removed the diamonds from ladies' rings and substituted paste stones, stole watches from a jewellers' and was even entangled in some nightclub escapade, the details of which slip my memory but which hastened his withdrawal from the Antipodes. Whether June and Nevill thought their son was sowing his wild oats and would revert to a loving son once more once back in the hearth is difficult to say, though there isn't much information available on his infant and junior years.
Steve, I know that removing diamonds from their settings is a HIGHLY skilled job, and the stones would need to be of a size making paste/CZ/zircon/white sapphire replacements worthwhile. A jeweller would recall doing such work. Theft of such items would be recorded. Their loss wouldn't have gone unnoticed. I think THAT particular story may be apocryphal.
-
Steve, I know that removing diamonds from their settings is a HIGHLY skilled job, and the stones would need to be of a size making paste/CZ/zircon/white sapphire replacements worthwhile. A jeweller would recall doing such work. Theft of such items would be recorded. Their loss wouldn't have gone unnoticed. I think THAT particular story may be apocryphal.
Jane I agree there's probably some exaggeration, but I believe the Cartier watches story to be true as Suzette Ford was the recipient of one of them.
-
Jane I agree there's probably some exaggeration, but I believe the Cartier watches story to be true as Suzette Ford was the recipient of one of them.
Steve, whilst I would once have disagreed with that, I think, now, that the only other explanation could be that he bought/stole fakes during a stop-over, en route back to England.
-
Steve, whilst I would once have disagreed with that, I think, now, that the only other explanation could be that he bought/stole fakes during a stop-over, en route back to England.
I find that a much more probable story.
-
I find that a much more probable story.
Maggie, there'd have been an ALMIGHTY furore if genuine Cartiers had been stolen. It would have been dealt with at international level.
-
Maggie, there'd have been an ALMIGHTY furore if genuine Cartiers had been stolen. It would have been dealt with at international level.
I agree, I have never believed in the Cartier Watch myth, that's what I think it is.... a myth.
-
I agree, I have never believed in the Cartier Watch myth, that's what I think it is.... a myth.
I wonder if Jeremy purchased them legitimately from the money loaned to him by his parents? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=suzette+ford+cartier+watches&source=bl&ots=h7NgKKOhUi&sig=m6bUOIBGDKJRcG1pmcCSc7BR7pM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBhoCh8onMAhXIlxoKHcytBt0Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=suzette%20ford%20cartier%20watches&f=false
-
I wonder if Jeremy purchased them legitimately from the money loaned to him by his parents? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=suzette+ford+cartier+watches&source=bl&ots=h7NgKKOhUi&sig=m6bUOIBGDKJRcG1pmcCSc7BR7pM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBhoCh8onMAhXIlxoKHcytBt0Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=suzette%20ford%20cartier%20watches&f=false
Steve, £2000 would have just about purchased the winder for ONE watch.
-
Steve, £2000 would have just about purchased the winder for ONE watch.
From what I know about Jeremy Bamber and it's true I don't really know much about the real day to day Jeremy I would think he was more of a fake Cartier kind of a guy. Would thin he probably had other uses for his £2000.... clubbing, champers, women?
-
From what I know about Jeremy Bamber and it's true I don't really know much about the real day to day Jeremy I would think he was more of a fake Cartier kind of a guy. Would thin he probably had other uses for his £2000.... clubbing, champers, women?
But we know he was impulsive.. and hey he was young..
-
From what I know about Jeremy Bamber and it's true I don't really know much about the real day to day Jeremy I would think he was more of a fake Cartier kind of a guy. Would thin he probably had other uses for his £2000.... clubbing, champers, women?
Yes, and as it takes an expert to tell a good fake, no one in a nightclub is likely to be anything but impressed by the guy flashing the Cartier. The returns were probably exactly the ones he wanted.
-
Yes, and as it takes an expert to tell a good fake, no one in a nightclub is likely to be anything but impressed by the guy flashing the Cartier. The returns were probably exactly the ones he wanted.
I would think you are right. I must say I wouldn't have noticed it but then I was always a bit otherworldly ;D
I suppose the 1980s was the specific time for fake Cartier Watches and pretension..... let's face it I am sure most of these watches were fakes but I would guess a good fake was still quite pricey?
-
But we know he was impulsive.. and hey he was young..
I agree although I believe there was at least a hint of sarcasm in your post, Steve. Many young men who never killed anyone behaved in similar fashion I am sure.
-
I agree although I believe there was at least a hint of sarcasm in your post, Steve. Many young men who never killed anyone behaved in similar fashion I am sure.
Do you think in the early days before Sheila's illness when she liked to be seen with the in-crowd and had her days as cynosure while Jeremy tagged along he thought he had to keep up with her in some way, and that buying expensive presents may have been one manifestation of this?
-
Do you think in the early days before Sheila's illness when she liked to be seen with the in-crowd and had her days as cynosure while Jeremy tagged along he thought he had to keep up with her in some way, and that buying expensive presents may have been one manifestation of this?
Three years can be a huge gap, Steve. When Sheila was a "grown-up" and "playing with the big boys" at 15, Jeremy would still have been a pre pubescent boy. I imagine he would have thought he was in heaven as a 15 year old to her 18 during the somewhat limited times he was with her at parties then.
-
When you're brought up in a family who are used to the finest trappings in life,the siblings usually follow suit as they grow older and the best of everything comes as second nature,so it comes as no surprise to me that both Sheila and Jeremy had the best that money could buy. To own a Cartier or Rolex watch would have been the norm. My pa-in-law owned a Rolex which he'd bought in 1953,and I've still got his gold Rotary watch which he wore doing the gardening ! Still going too. The Rolex had " vanished " after he'd died. ?
Nothing was bought on impulse in that household.It was how they lived.Wine,champagne was bought by the crate and not per bottle. This is why I can understand how the Bambers lived.
-
When you're brought up in a family who are used to the finest trappings in life,the siblings usually follow suit as they grow older and the best of everything comes as second nature,so it comes as no surprise to me that both Sheila and Jeremy had the best that money could buy. To own a Cartier or Rolex watch would have been the norm. My pa-in-law owned a Rolex which he'd bought in 1953,and I've still got his gold Rotary watch which he wore doing the gardening ! Still going too. The Rolex had " vanished " after he'd died. ?
Nothing was bought on impulse in that household.It was how they lived.Wine,champagne was bought by the crate and not per bottle. This is why I can understand how the Bambers lived.
They did know how to enjoy themselves in what little leisure time they seemed to have, yet I still wonder about the lounge which we have never seen and the shabby chic furnishings throughout, not forgetting the oppressive atmosphere which made Sheila carve "I hate this place" into the wardrobe.
-
They did know how to enjoy themselves in what little leisure time they seemed to have, yet I still wonder about the lounge which we have never seen and the shabby chic furnishings throughout, not forgetting the oppressive atmosphere which made Sheila carve "I hate this place" into the wardrobe.
Time does tend to stand still in properties of the nature of WHF. A Georgian building with everything to match.None of your G-Plan furniture. Curtains were probably the heavy chintz,but as you say,we've never seen further than the kitchen and one bedroom.
It was an entirely different era in which the family had chosen to live in and one in which Sheila would certainly have felt stifled in and probably out of bounds for two boisterous children in case they knocked over a Dresden figurine or damaged the Meissen clock.
No pics of June with the boys,but a lovely one with Neville reading to them which they must have enjoyed. All they got from June was " Praise the Lord " ! No wonder they didn't like going there.
-
Time does tend to stand still in properties of the nature of WHF. A Georgian building with everything to match.None of your G-Plan furniture. Curtains were probably the heavy chintz,but as you say,we've never seen further than the kitchen and one bedroom.
It was an entirely different era in which the family had chosen to live in and one in which Sheila would certainly have felt stifled in and probably out of bounds for two boisterous children in case they knocked over a Dresden figurine or damaged the Meissen clock.
No pics of June with the boys,but a lovely one with Neville reading to them which they must have enjoyed. All they got from June was " Praise the Lord " ! No wonder they didn't like going there.
Didn't they take two lamps out of the house and leave them in a hedge? Such poignant reminiscences. Weren't they on the photo with Jeremy leaning over the table, but cut off on some depictions for some reason.
-
Didn't they take two lamps out of the house and leave them in a hedge? Such poignant reminiscences. Weren't they on the photo with Jeremy leaning over the table, but cut off on some depictions for some reason.
I don't know about that.
-
Time does tend to stand still in properties of the nature of WHF. A Georgian building with everything to match.None of your G-Plan furniture. Curtains were probably the heavy chintz,but as you say,we've never seen further than the kitchen and one bedroom.
It was an entirely different era in which the family had chosen to live in and one in which Sheila would certainly have felt stifled in and probably out of bounds for two boisterous children in case they knocked over a Dresden figurine or damaged the Meissen clock.
No pics of June with the boys,but a lovely one with Neville reading to them which they must have enjoyed. All they got from June was " Praise the Lord " ! No wonder they didn't like going there.
No offence Lookout but I think that's a bit hard on June for all we know she may have taken the photo. I can't believe June didn't spend time with and love the twins.
-
No offence Lookout but I think that's a bit hard on June for all we know she may have taken the photo. I can't believe June didn't spend time with and love the twins.
I haven't seen any pics of June with those little boys Maggie. It's every granny's joy to be pictured with her grandchildren.
-
No offence Lookout but I think that's a bit hard on June for all we know she may have taken the photo. I can't believe June didn't spend time with and love the twins.
She did seem to want to take charge, as one anecdote in Colin's book attests, appearing on a Friday at Moreshead Mansions and expecting to take the twins back to the White House for the weekend.
-
I haven't seen any pics of June with those little boys Maggie. It's every granny's joy to be pictured with her grandchildren.
Maybe but that doesn't mean there weren't any, just that there are none in the public domain.
-
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B558CR/crime-murder-victims-of-jeremy-bamber-his-adoptive-june-bamber-his-B558CR.jpg
-
She did seem to want to take charge, as one anecdote in Colin's book attests, appearing on a Friday at Moreshead Mansions and expecting to take the twins back to the White House for the weekend.
Its no secret that Colin didn't like June a d it has often been said she had a 'strong' character but that doesn't mean she did not love her grandchildren or have photos taken with then.
-
Maybe but that doesn't mean there weren't any, just that there are none in the public domain.
I suppose in my mind I was thinking about the bit of happiness that Sheila had when Christine got on the floor with the boys and played at their level. All enjoying the moment, against the stark contrast that was WHF.
-
I haven't seen any pics of June with those little boys Maggie. It's every granny's joy to be pictured with her grandchildren.
We've seen 5 or 6 pictures of the family. Why would you expect to have seen any of June with her grandkids?
-
Its no secret that Colin didn't like June a d it has often been said she had a 'strong' character but that doesn't mean she did not love her grandchildren or have photos taken with then.
I know you often argue for June maggie and I don't think she was all bad, but I still think she had remnants of mental illness which at times manifested themselves in her religiosity which even she herself was unaware of.
-
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B558CR/crime-murder-victims-of-jeremy-bamber-his-adoptive-june-bamber-his-B558CR.jpg
Both boys and mother naïve and vulnerable, falling prey to Jeremy the wolf.
-
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B558CR/crime-murder-victims-of-jeremy-bamber-his-adoptive-june-bamber-his-B558CR.jpg
You'll be lucky if you get an acknowledgement Steve; or one picture won't be enough.
-
You'll be lucky if you get an acknowledgement Steve; or one picture won't be enough.
Hi Stephanie this picture had slipped my memory-I was thinking of the one with Jeremy stooping over the kitchen table which the twins were actually on the extremities of but cut off in some versions.
-
Hi Stephanie this picture had slipped my memory-I was thinking of the one with Jeremy stooping over the kitchen table which the twins were actually on the extremities of but cut off in some versions.
I've been thinking about asking Bamber if he'll allow me to visit as I have a series of questions to put forward to him. What do you think my chances are Steve ;D
-
I suppose in my mind I was thinking about the bit of happiness that Sheila had when Christine got on the floor with the boys and played at their level. All enjoying the moment, against the stark contrast that was WHF.
Maybe she did but that is easy enough to do. I tend to see things from a different perspective.
What if I had a daughter with a mental health illness who dreamed of a real 'fantasy' mother who would take her away from her pain to a promised land. This fantasy 'real' mother would be so much nicer thAn her horrible adoptive mother who made her ill. However maybe this was not reality but part of her illness in her head, unfortunately she told everyone that was the truth. People would believe it and say I had been cruel to her even though it was all in my daughter's head.
I think most like the idea of the wonderful natural mother returning to claim her child from the unloving adoptive mother bit like the wicked stepmother. ...... just putting a different point of view.
-
I hope Stephanie Sadie is looking in tonight. https://twitter.com/babylemonade9
-
I've been thinking about asking Bamber if he'll allow me to visit as I have a series of questions to put forward to him. What do you think my chances are Steve ;D
He has nothing relevant to tell to his advantage to anybody.
-
I know you often argue for June maggie and I don't think she was all bad, but I still think she had remnants of mental illness which at times manifested themselves in her religiosity which even she herself was unaware of.
I'm not denying she had suffered from a mental illness and she may have found it difficult to show her feelings at times but I think people are too hard on her when they realy don't know what she was like. She was a victim and she had a dreadful death. I feel for June, I also accept we are both adoptive mothers which means I identify with her and maybe think I understAnd her better than others on some level, even if I don't. I feel I have to stand up for June.
-
I hope Stephanie Sadie is looking in tonight. https://twitter.com/babylemonade9
Why is that? I've never heard of her. Can she get me a visiting order ;D
-
Maybe she did but that is easy enough to do. I tend to see things from a different perspective.
What if I had a daughter with a mental health illness who dreamed of a real 'fantasy' mother who would take her away from her pain to a promised land. This fantasy 'real' mother would be so much nicer thAn her horrible adoptive mother who made her ill. However maybe this was not reality but part of her illness in her head, unfortunately she told everyone that was the truth. People would believe it and say I had been cruel to her even though it was all in my daughter's head.
I think most like the idea of the wonderful natural mother returning to claim her child from the unloving adoptive mother bit like the wicked stepmother. ...... just putting a different point of view.
But she never confronted her mother, disclosed from the Maida Vale set with one of her friends wondering why she was so submissive to her.
-
But she never confronted her mother, disclosed from the Maida Vale set with one of her friends wondering why she was so submissive to her.
Sheila had a mental illness, no doubt about that, who knows how it affected her. I am not claiming my post is anything more than suggestion but just pointing out that relationships and mental illness can be more complex than is sometimes considered. Things are not alwAys as they appear to be.
-
When you're brought up in a family who are used to the finest trappings in life,the siblings usually follow suit as they grow older and the best of everything comes as second nature,so it comes as no surprise to me that both Sheila and Jeremy had the best that money could buy. To own a Cartier or Rolex watch would have been the norm. My pa-in-law owned a Rolex which he'd bought in 1953,and I've still got his gold Rotary watch which he wore doing the gardening ! Still going too. The Rolex had " vanished " after he'd died. ?
Nothing was bought on impulse in that household.It was how they lived.Wine,champagne was bought by the crate and not per bottle. This is why I can understand how the Bambers lived.
Whilst young celebs of today might sport up market watches, I refute, entirely, that either Jeremy or Sheila would have owned either Cartier or Rolex watches. To that end, I'm prepared to ask my friends -of the Bamber generation- AND their children who are comparable in age to Jeremy and Sheila, if they owned such watches. We are, after all, talking in terms of several thousand pounds. Such would not have been considered to be "age appropriate".
-
They did know how to enjoy themselves in what little leisure time they seemed to have, yet I still wonder about the lounge which we have never seen and the shabby chic furnishings throughout, not forgetting the oppressive atmosphere which made Sheila carve "I hate this place" into the wardrobe.
Steve, I think Lookout gives entirely the wrong impression of the Bambers when she speaks of "the best of everything". They didn't do "flash" and they certainly didn't do "bling". Neither do ANY of those who formed their friendship base. Whilst paintwork gets refreshed and soft furnishings replaced, nothing else ever changes. Everything is quiet and understated, from daily life to hobbies, interests and holidays, which are far more likely to be taken here, in England -either in genteel hotels in upmarket seaside towns or those further north for country pursuits- than exotic destinations further afield.
-
Time does tend to stand still in properties of the nature of WHF. A Georgian building with everything to match.None of your G-Plan furniture. Curtains were probably the heavy chintz,but as you say,we've never seen further than the kitchen and one bedroom.
It was an entirely different era in which the family had chosen to live in and one in which Sheila would certainly have felt stifled in and probably out of bounds for two boisterous children in case they knocked over a Dresden figurine or damaged the Meissen clock.
No pics of June with the boys,but a lovely one with Neville reading to them which they must have enjoyed. All they got from June was " Praise the Lord " ! No wonder they didn't like going there.
-
Time does tend to stand still in properties of the nature of WHF. A Georgian building with everything to match.None of your G-Plan furniture. Curtains were probably the heavy chintz,but as you say,we've never seen further than the kitchen and one bedroom.
It was an entirely different era in which the family had chosen to live in and one in which Sheila would certainly have felt stifled in and probably out of bounds for two boisterous children in case they knocked over a Dresden figurine or damaged the Meissen clock.
No pics of June with the boys,but a lovely one with Neville reading to them which they must have enjoyed. All they got from June was " Praise the Lord " ! No wonder they didn't like going there.
Lookout, whilst I entirely concur with the first part of your post, the family didn't live in an era any different from that lived in by all their friends. The chances are that Sheila and Jeremy didn't understand that any other type of life existed. ALL children were bought up with the generational Dresden and Meissen which MAY have been in rooms other than family rooms OR kept out of children's reach. As usual, I think you're being overly hard on June.
-
I'm not denying she had suffered from a mental illness and she may have found it difficult to show her feelings at times but I think people are too hard on her when they realy don't know what she was like. She was a victim and she had a dreadful death. I feel for June, I also accept we are both adoptive mothers which means I identify with her and maybe think I understAnd her better than others on some level, even if I don't. I feel I have to stand up for June.
Maggie, you know I have no reason on God's earth to support what you say here, but as I'm not emotionally involved in THIS particular situation, I'm with you 100%.
-
Maggie, you know I have no reason on God's earth to support what you say here, but as I'm not emotionally involved in THIS particular situation, I'm with you 100%.
Hello Jane :) as we know from very different experiences, adoptive mothers are as diverse as natural mothers in their ability to love and nurture a child.
Generally by the very nature of adoption the baby/young child of an adoptive mother has already suffered the trauma of separation and therefore are in need of at least as much, if not more extroverted love.
I am not for one moment condoning coldness or cruelty towards a child, such behaviour is hard to comprehend, in some ways even more so from a woman who was willing to go through the vetting process of adoption but we know it happens.
It's easy to point the finger and quotes out of context don't always tell the true story imo. I am not saying June should be canonized, but rather that she shouldn't have to be the whipping boy blamed for everything, an easy target.
I have known more adoptive mothers than most and they are as diverse as any other collection of mothers.
Recently I have learned that a close friend and also an adoptive mum has been telling her daughter all her life that she 'should be grateful' they adopted her. ..... strangely they also are genteel and God fearing middle class with antiques on the mantel. So you just never can tell.
-
Hello Jane :) as we know from very different experiences, adoptive mothers are as diverse as natural mothers in their ability to love and nurture a child.
Generally by the very nature of adoption the baby/young child of an adoptive mother has already suffered the trauma of separation and therefore are in need of at least as much, if not more extroverted love.
I am not for one moment condoning coldness or cruelty towards a child, such behaviour is hard to comprehend, in some ways even more so from a woman who was willing to go through the vetting process of adoption but we know it happens.
It's easy to point the finger and quotes out of context don't always tell the true story imo. I am not saying June should be canonized, but rather that she shouldn't have to be the whipping boy blamed for everything, an easy target.
I have known more adoptive mothers than most and they are as diverse as any other collection of mothers.
Recently I have learned that a close friend and also an adoptive mum has been telling her daughter all her life that she 'should be grateful' they adopted her. ..... strangely they also are genteel and God fearing middle class with antiques on the mantel. So you just never can tell.
Haha! Well, there ya go, Maggie. Concrete proof that the "gratitude" card is played to we "adopteds" by ALL genteel and God fearing ect's.................along with some of those who aspire to be. ;) ;D ;D
-
Believe me-------I've met a few " Christians " in my life-time ! Take that which ever way you want to.
-
Believe me-------I've met a few " Christians " in my life-time ! Take that which ever way you want to.
What makes you think you're the only one, Lookout. Whether it be religion, a political party or a football team, there are all sorts within it. Regarding Christianity, those who live their faith are rather different from those who merely profess to.
-
Haha! Well, there ya go, Maggie. Concrete proof that the "gratitude" card is played to we "adopteds" by ALL genteel and God fearing ect's.................along with some of those who aspire to be. ;) ;D ;D
I thought you would appreciate that.
Think I've just shot my own argument/opinion right between the eyes. :'(
-
How can it be other than about me when it's me telling you about my past ? Who else can tell anything about me ?
Oh here we go. Lack of empathy raises its ugly head again ::) If it's not that,it's something else.
I would have said,making comparisons,that my life involving my birth mother wasn't that much different to what you have to say.
I'm trying to put over that your own " hard done by " life wasn't only toward those who were adopted. I've known some adopted people who were/are by far happier than I was when I was old enough to look back.
That is very true Lookout a secure and loving childhood is the most important thing in any persons life and can pretty much heal the primal wound of adoption.
A safe and secure childhood is a human right and it is tragic how many children don't get this, in many different ways.
-
I have learned that a close friend and also an adoptive mum has been telling her daughter all her life that she 'should be grateful' they adopted her. ..... strangely they also are genteel and God fearing middle class with antiques on the mantel. So you just never can tell.
I knew someone who once blogged those exact words.
IMO comments such as this do not show a child love, they have the opposite affect.
The following may be of interest http://psychology.about.com/od/childcare/f/authoritarian-parenting.htm
-
Where have my posts gone?
-
Where have my posts gone?
Can you read the message I put up?
I removed the posts for consideration of someone's privacy.
PM me if it is a problem but I shall be out for the rest of the afternoon. cheers
-
Can you read the message I put up?
I removed the posts for consideration of someone's privacy.
PM me if it is a problem but I shall be out for the rest of the afternoon. cheers
No I can't see any message other than the one I'm replying to?
This post could be misinterpreted to read that I've not considered someone's privacy :-\
-
No I can't see any message other than the one I'm replying to?
This post could be misinterpreted to read that I've not considered someone's privacy :-\
Sorry Stephanie, it was not meant that way, I was in a hurry when I replied to you.
-
Sorry Stephanie, it was not meant that way, I was in a hurry when I replied to you.
Thanks. I haven't seen the message you say you put up earlier? Is there a problem with the forum again, only I've noticed anomalies with regards what I can see - mainly when I'm on the home page. It doesn't show all updates? Is anyone else having problems?
-
Thanks. I haven't seen the message you say you put up earlier? Is there a problem with the forum again, only I've noticed anomalies with regards what I can see - mainly when I'm on the home page. It doesn't show all updates? Is anyone else having problems?
Sorry, the message is on the Moderation Notice Board site, I had forgotten that. :-\
-
That is very true Lookout a secure and loving childhood is the most important thing in any persons life and can pretty much heal the primal wound of adoption.
A safe and secure childhood is a human right and it is tragic how many children don't get this, in many different ways.
That would be a perfect scenario wouldn't it Maggie
Adoptive childen turning out perfectly
-
That would be a perfect scenario wouldn't it Maggie
Adoptive childen turning out perfectly
"AdoptIVE" is the term customarily applied to the parent. AdoptED is the term used to describe the child.
-
Jeremy's Cartier watches were real. I have one here! Will try and find and post pic.
-
That would be a perfect scenario wouldn't it Maggie
Adoptive childen turning out perfectly
||I don't understand what you are saying here Jackie? I am not sre what makes a perfect child, I suppose every parent has a different idea about that.
-
Jeremy's Cartier watches were real. I have one here! Will try and find and post pic.
This leads to the question of whether they were purchased legally or not.
-
Sorry, the message is on the Moderation Notice Board site, I had forgotten that. :-\
Okay thanks
-
Jeremy's Cartier watches were real. I have one here! Will try and find and post pic.
Where they AA? I have no idea how much a Cartier watch would have cost back in the 1980s, do you know? :)
-
Jeremy's Cartier watches were real. I have one here! Will try and find and post pic.
I am really excited to see this watch.
I hope you have kept it in a safe place because of the value
-
Here are some items, still looking for Cartier. I've put it somewhere safe and cannot find it. :))
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
Thank you for showing the photo Aunt A, it looks like a lot of hair.
-
Here are some items, still looking for Cartier. I've put it somewhere safe and cannot find it. :))
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
Hi AA - wow, what is the story behind the hair?
-
||I don't understand what you are saying here Jackie? I am not sre what makes a perfect child, I suppose every parent has a different idea about that.
I think the people on this forum are too judgemental about the Bamber family
I think most families could be classed as dysfunctional. I think there was a lot of love in Jeremy's life
Wouldn't you agree Maggie
-
Hi AA - wow, what is the story behind the hair?
No story Stephanie.....he just had his hair cut and asked for me to keep it. Which I have done.
-
No story Stephanie.....he just had his hair cut and asked for me to keep it. Which I have done.
Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? It does me. Then again each to their own I guess.
How come the police never seized his camera?
The reason the keeping of the hair strikes me as odd is to do with the recent research I've done in relation to certain personality types holding on to things like this. If I find the link I'll post it.
-
No story Stephanie.....he just had his hair cut and asked for me to keep it. Which I have done.
That hair looks very long. Presumably it was cut well before the massacre happened.
-
I do understand where you're coming from.
This was all a very long time ago - he gave me loads of things.
The police arrived with rifle, wetsuit, camera, all granny's paperwork and granny's handmade box, and over the years he's made many things for me.
Paintings (numerous), books, cassette tapes...and more.
Must find that watch! It's not where I thought it would be. Hmm!
-
I think the people on this forum are too judgemental about the Bamber family
I think most families could be classed as dysfunctional. I think there was a lot of love in Jeremy's life
Wouldn't you agree Maggie
I have always argued that I think some people on the forum are particularly judgemental about June butI believe that could be because we have little real insight into her or Nevill's day to day behaviour or how they interacted with the children.
I think June was possibly unfairly blamed for Sheila's illness which may have been genetic and not related in any way to her relationship with her mother.
We have little or no insight into the relationship between June and Sheila when she was a young child and it may be that their relationship became much more difficult after the onset of Sheila's schizophrenia, possibly in her teens and exacerbated by the birth of the twins. :-\ :-\
-
That hair looks very long. Presumably it was cut well before the massacre happened.
No, it was in prison.
-
I have always argued that I think some people on the forum are particularly judgemental about June butI believe that could be because we have little real insight into her or Nevill's day to day behaviour or how they interacted with the children.
I think June maybe unfairly blamed for Sheila's illness which may have been genetic and not related in any way to her relationship with her mother. We have little or no insight into the relationship between June and Sheila when she was a young child and it may be that their relationship became much more difficult after the onset of Sheila's schizophrenia. :-\ :-\
Maggie,it was the " stiff-upper-lip " brigade way back when whatever you were suffering,you got on with it and illnesses were rarely spoken about.
-
No, it was in prison.
Now that rings an alarm bell based on something I read recently. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the findings of all professionals in their varying fields of expertise but this is weird.
Luke Mitchell saved his urine after the murder of JJ and SH did something kind of similar a few years after the murder. Because of the forthcoming inquest I'm not prepared to go into details but this type of behaviour can be linked to the wounded child.
-
Now that rings an alarm bell based on something I read recently. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the findings of all professionals in their varying fields of expertise but this is weird.
Luke Mitchell saved his urine after the murder of JJ and SH did something kind of similar a few years after the murder. Because of the forthcoming inquest I'm not prepared to mention it but this type of behaviour can be linked to the wounded child.
I can look back with hindsight which is why I have disclosed what he gave me.
One can make up their own minds.
-
Maggie,it was the " stiff-upper-lip " brigade way back when whatever you were suffering,you got on with it and illnesses were rarely spoken about.
My guess is that June struggled to understand Sheila's illness maybe dismissing the early signs as bad behaviour rather than anything else, that is hardly surprising I would doubt she knew much if anything about schizophrenia and probably just thought it meant anyone suffering from it had a 'split personality'.
I think I'm a member of the 'stiff-upper-lip-brigade', Lookout, I hate doctors and would do anything to hide from them forever. ;D
-
I do understand where you're coming from.
This was all a very long time ago - he gave me loads of things.
The police arrived with rifle, wetsuit, camera, all granny's paperwork and granny's handmade box, and over the years he's made many things for me.
Paintings (numerous), books, cassette tapes...and more.
Must find that watch! It's not where I thought it would be. Hmm!
Why didn't the police process the film in his camera?
-
Why didn't the police process the film in his camera?
I have no idea. Why give me a rifle? I don't know!
-
I have no idea. Why give me a rifle? I don't know!
Didn't you ask them why?
-
Funny that Sheila used to draw at Moira House.
-
I have no idea. Why give me a rifle? I don't know!
Have you never been curious to find out what's on the film?
-
Didn't you ask them why?
No. We were stunned that they even agreed to give them in the first place. Once I had received them we never mentioned them in writing (I don't think). Maybe they overlooked it....I really don't know and I was not going to ask.
-
My guess is that June struggled to understand Sheila's illness maybe dismissing the early signs as bad behaviour rather than anything else, that is hardly surprising I would doubt she knew much if anything about schizophrenia and probably just thought it meant anyone suffering from it had a 'split personality'.
I think I'm a member of the 'stiff-upper-lip-brigade', Lookout, I hate doctors and would do anything to hide from them forever. ;D
Maggie,thankfully I'm lucky if I see a GP once a year. They get on my nerves too,giving wrong diagnoses when I do see them so it's a waste of their and my own time. ;D ;D ;D Tho " old-school " type are long gone.
-
No. We were stunned that they even agreed to give them in the first place. Once I had received them we never mentioned them in writing (I don't think). Maybe they overlooked it....I really don't know and I was not going to ask.
Are you referring to Jeremy when you say 'we?'
-
Have you never been curious to find out what's on the film?
Yes, many times. I even took it to the shop but changed my mind. I just couldn't get them processed.
Maybe now I could - I'd forgotten I had it until I went searching for the Cartier.....which I still haven't found.
-
Are you referring to Jeremy when you say 'we?'
Yes, Jeremy and I were very surprised.
-
AA,I think it's good that he at least had someone to hand over his " worldly goods " to.
-
Yes, many times. I even took it to the shop but changed my mind. I just couldn't get them processed.
Maybe now I could - I'd forgotten I had it until I went searching for the Cartier.....which I still haven't found.
Admittedly I still have a large prison sack of mail from SH in storage which he handed out in 2010. It still has the original seal on it but I've never really been interested or curious to see what's inside. It contains boxes and boxes of letters.
-
AA,I think it's good that he at least had someone to hand over his " worldly goods " to.
Rather a strange mixture of 'worldly goods'.
-
Rather a strange mixture of 'worldly goods'.
Do you ever hear from him? I must say I find the pony tail of hair strange. He would have been able to keep that in prison therefore I'm wondering why he's given it to you?
Did he grow his hair in prison then cut it off?
-
I've had the upstairs of the house decorated couple of months ago. I had this old wooden jewellery box, very outdated and cheap. I kept the watch in there. I've found some items that were once kept in there.....
I threw the jewellery box out. I'm hoping I put the watch with his letters for safe keeping. Oh my!!!'
-
Yes, many times. I even took it to the shop but changed my mind. I just couldn't get them processed.
Maybe now I could - I'd forgotten I had it until I went searching for the Cartier.....which I still haven't found.
I would consider it - it may prove helpful to you if nothing else.
-
Do you ever hear from him? I must say I find the pony tail of hair strange. He would have been able to keep that in prison therefore I'm wondering why he's given it to you?
Did he grow his hair in prison the cut it off?
Yes, he grew his hair in prison.
We were very close at the time - maybe he wanted to give me a piece of 'himself' to take home.
He just requested I did not throw it....
-
I would consider it - it may prove helpful to you if nothing else.
You know how it is Stephanie - we move on!
I don't hear from him, I don't contact him and I would never betray him either.
He made a decision years ago and I respect that decision and do not look back.
I do believe he's innocent - always have.
-
You know how it is Stephanie - we move on!
I don't hear from him, I don't contact him and I would never betray him either.
He made a decision years ago and I respect that decision and do not look back.
I do believe he's innocent - always have.
What makes you believe in his innocence?
-
What makes you believe in his innocence?
[/
That's a really tough question to answer, coming from you.
You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
I felt that way about Jeremy too.
I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
He was very emotional when he began to understand what had happened. He was angry, sad, excited, relieved......we both tried to get our heads round the new info.
-
What makes you believe in his innocence?
[/
That's a really tough question to answer, coming from you.
You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
I felt that way about Jeremy too.
I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
He was very emotional when he began to understand what had happened. He was angry, sad, excited, relieved......we both tried to get our heads round the new info.
Yes that is a major aspect that worries me. He does not know what he should know if he is a guilty man.
-
What makes you believe in his innocence?
[/
That's a really tough question to answer, coming from you.
You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
I felt that way about Jeremy too.
I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
He was very emotional when he began to understand what had happened. He was angry, sad, excited, relieved......we both tried to get our heads round the new info.
I don't know which side of the argument has been duped by propaganda, but Jeremy long ago learned to conceal and control his emotions after his craving for hugs as a young child went unanswered from June and Nevill alike.
-
What makes you believe in his innocence?
[/
That's a really tough question to answer, coming from you.
Sorry didn't mean to put you on the spot AA! :-\
-
I don't know which side of the argument has been duped by propaganda, but Jeremy long ago learned to conceal and control his emotions after his craving for hugs as a young child went unanswered from June and Nevill alike.
....and I was just gullible! Possibly. Nothing can be ruled out.
-
Yes that is a major aspect that worries me. He does not know what he should know if he is a guilty man.
Can you expand on this as it makes no sense.
I'm not in a position to respond to AA about the SH case due to the forthcoming inquest, however I do not hold the same view as AA and am convinced of guilt.
-
Yes that is a major aspect that worries me. He does not know what he should know if he is a guilty man.
Precisely!!!
-
I think he's walking a tightrope between keeping interest sustained in the case without disclosing facts which would be prejudicial to any further appeal. One area which he rarely broaches is Julie, lest he give away his true intentions towards his parents. Maybe the silencer evidence has come as a surprise, who knows?
-
Yes that is a major aspect that worries me. He does not know what he should know if he is a guilty man.
What are you basing this on?
-
I think he's walking a tightrope between keeping interest sustained in the case without disclosing facts which would be prejudicial to any further appeal. One area which he rarely broaches is Julie, lest he give away his true intentions towards his parents. Maybe the silencer evidence has come as a surprise, who knows?
Based on what we knew at the beginning we believed the silencer was used........upon revelations he changed his mind. When we last spoke he believed the silencer was not used.
-
Yes that is a major aspect that worries me. He does not know what he should know if he is a guilty man.
Precisely!!!
Or this is what he wants you to believe?
-
I think he's walking a tightrope between keeping interest sustained in the case without disclosing facts which would be prejudicial to any further appeal. One area which he rarely broaches is Julie, lest he give away his true intentions towards his parents. Maybe the silencer evidence has come as a surprise, who knows?
Just as the fibre evidence did in the SH case.
-
Or this is what he wants you to believe?
[/
He's a very very very patient man if that is the case!
-
Or this is what he wants you to believe?
[/
He's a very very very patient man if that is the case!
If he's guilty, which I believe he is, patients doesn't come into the equation.
-
If he's guilty, which I believe he is, patients doesn't come into the equation.
We're Jeremy is concerned, I would have to disagree.
-
We're Jeremy is concerned, I would have to disagree.
What makes you say that?
-
I must sleep now Stephanie. Work tomorrow. Night. 🙂
-
If we take Jeremy's early years of being bullied on the school bus because of his accent, always feeling slightly apart maybe but his life smoothed by the Bamber money at home, yet a desperate feeling of loneliness as he is sent away to a place where he doesn't excel and is again aloof, albeit desperately wanting to fit in with his peers as is the desire of all teenagers. Up to this point he has not been pushed or made excessive demands on, yet he has followed a regimented routine for eight years, of which he tires and begins to rebel. He is allowed to sow his wild oats on two foreign trips abroad maybe as an equilibrium to June paying for Sheila's modelling portfolio and the Hampstead flat, succeeded by Moreshead mansions.
At this point Jeremy is refused further funds and senses an unfairness in the quid pro quo of Bourtree Cottage, which he has to furnish himself in addition to expending long hours at the Farm, and sees the Gresham's years as wasted years which prepared him for very little. He cannot bring himself to relinquish his inheritance as Julie suggests, but is trapped on the Farm under the terms of his father's will, coupled with this having a sense that life is passing him by and "it's important to have money whilst you're young." The grievance with Sheila becomes personal and spills over to her children, who are reaching the age at which he was packed off to school, with all the expense that would entail. The final illness of Sheila in March 1985 is the excuse he needs to do away with her as well as his parents, who were always first in line anyway, but the demise of his sister and nephews tidies up the estate with himself becoming sole beneficiary and able to start life anew.
-
If we take Jeremy's early years of being bullied on the school bus because of his accent, always feeling slightly apart maybe but his life smoothed by the Bamber money at home, yet a desperate feeling of loneliness as he is sent away to a place where he doesn't excel and is again aloof, albeit desperately wanting to fit in with his peers as is the desire of all teenagers. Up to this point he has not been pushed or made excessive demands on, yet he has followed a regimented routine for eight years, of which he tires and begins to rebel. He is allowed to sow his wild oats on two foreign trips abroad maybe as an equilibrium to June paying for Sheila's modelling portfolio and the Hampstead flat, succeeded by Moreshead mansions.
At this point Jeremy is refused further funds and senses an unfairness in the quid pro quo of Bourtree Cottage, which he has to furnish himself in addition to expending long hours at the Farm, and sees the Gresham's years as wasted years which prepared him for very little. He cannot bring himself to relinquish his inheritance as Julie suggests, but is trapped on the Farm under the terms of his father's will, coupled with this having a sense that life is passing him by and "it's important to have money whilst you're young." The grievance with Sheila becomes personal and spills over to her children, who are reaching the age at which he was packed off to school, with all the expense that would entail. The final illness of Sheila in March 1985 is the excuse he needs to do away with her as well as his parents, who were always first in line anyway, but the demise of his sister and nephews tidies up the estate with himself becoming sole beneficiary and able to start life anew.
This is not how you solve crimes. If you want to base your arguments on psychological circumstances there is a much more evidence against Shelia than there is against Jeremy.
-
This is not how you solve crimes. If you want to base your arguments on psychological circumstances there is a much more evidence against Shelia than there is against Jeremy.
But there is a psychological background to EVERY story. Nothing JUST happens. Sheila's psychological background is to the forefront. Jeremy's is hidden.
-
This is not how you solve crimes. If you want to base your arguments on psychological circumstances there is a much more evidence against Shelia than there is against Jeremy.
I would agree with that. We don't know yet whether Sheila had ever mentioned suicide in her past,but I know one thing,when she told Dr.Ferguson that she could kill her children and that they could harm her,etc,alarm bells SHOULD have rang.
-
No story Stephanie.....he just had his hair cut and asked for me to keep it. Which I have done.
Have you ever considered the reason he gave you these items could have been to keep you under his spell? That he appointed you the keeper of his possessions and hair as a subtle form of manipulation? He relies on the knowledge that you won't betray him by throwing away the items (though they probably mean very little to him, if at all and he's probably never asked for there return) and this keeps you under his spell. But he knows you won't get rid of them because he knows you are a women who stands firm on her word. Something he is incapable of doing, or understanding nor really gives much consideration to..
I wonder if he's ever given other people items like this?
-
I would have said it was even-steven between them both, what with Jeremy's musings to Julie and Sheila's colloquy with Helen Grimster, and later June and Barbara. In fact I'm surprised that family lasted as long as it did when Nevill was being threatened by two men on the telephone as another harbinger of doom.
-
This is not how you solve crimes. If you want to base your arguments on psychological circumstances there is a much more evidence against Shelia than there is against Jeremy.
You cannot get a conviction based on psychological circumstances but you can almost certainly get a good understanding of the suspect you are investigating; as I believe the police did in Bambers case. He wasn't refereed to as a psychopath for the sake of it..
In your mind there is much more evidence against Sheila but in reality the evidence clearly points to
Bamber. Your bias view that JM lied reflects your lack of understanding with regards her evidence. She had nothing to gain by making things up. Her evidence clearly shows she was not making things up.
You seem to forget not only do we have the evidence that convicted Bamber we have 30 years of evidence which shows his guilt.
-
I would have said it was even-steven between them both, what with Jeremy's musings to Julie and Sheila's colloquy with Helen Grimster, and later June and Barbara. In fact I'm surprised that family lasted as long as it did when Nevill was being threatened by two men on the telephone as another harbinger of doom.
Somebody had it in for them,but it certainly wasn't Jeremy.
-
Jeremy in 2008 in optimistic mood or reconciled to his fate? In the aftermath of these horrific murders there are apparently 58 photos which he wants released. If they are sensitive they should be viewed by an independent panel including Michael Mansfield QC and Peter Tatchell. As for his life sentence, David Boutflour commented: "I am saddened that he will have to spend the rest of his life in prison, but for everybody's security I think that is the only place he can remain." http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/bamber_i_will_die_a_free_man_1_188927
-
Somebody had it in for them,but it certainly wasn't Jeremy.
That's right, he tried out tranquilisers on himself for fun.
-
Does anyone know if the two shots to Sheila had been contact shots her DNA was more likely to have been found in the silencer? http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
-
Does anyone know if the two shots to Sheila had been contact shots her DNA was more likely to have been found in the silencer? http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
It is hard to say Steve, there are too many variables at play.
-
It is hard to say Steve, there are too many variables at play.
Even so, with years elapsed there should be some answer forthcoming.
-
This is not how you solve crimes. If you want to base your arguments on psychological circumstances there is a much more evidence against Shelia than there is against Jeremy.
What evidence is against Sheila ? Without revealing you're forensic evidence breakthrough of course.
-
That's right, he tried out tranquilisers on himself for fun.
What tranquilisers were these ?
-
Does anyone know if the two shots to Sheila had been contact shots her DNA was more likely to have been found in the silencer? http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
I believe one was a contact shot.
-
What tranquilisers were these ?
The ones Julie brought to Bourtree Cottage made difficult for deglutition.
-
I believe one was a contact shot.
Yes and Andrew Hunter hints at this as two amateur gun enthusiasts note a silencer mark on Sheila's neck.
-
Yes and Andrew Hunter hints at this as two amateur gun enthusiasts note a silencer mark on Sheila's neck.
If there were silencer gun marks on Sheila, it means she was killed, as could not shoot herself with the silencer attached.
I doubt a contact shot with a silencer would leave a silencer mark on Sheila's neck. However have you got a source ?
-
I believe one was a contact shot.
Both were described as "loose contact wounds"
See trial transcript attached
-
The ones Julie brought to Bourtree Cottage made difficult for deglutition.
The only ones that I remember Jeremy taking were those which were prescribed after the tragedy.Valium ?
There'd have been no need to have got anything from the chemist, if Jeremy had needed knock-out pills-------his mother must have had a plentiful supply at WHF which he could have helped himself to at any time.
-
If there were silencer gun marks on Sheila, it means she was killed, as could not shoot herself with the silencer attached.
I doubt a contact shot with a silencer would leave a silencer mark on Sheila's neck. However have you got a source ?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2441.0
-
Both were described as "loose contact wounds"
See trial transcript attached
That's interesting David. So June's DNA was present and 13 of 17 alleles of Sheila's, but not deemed enough to say conclusively hers was deposited there.
-
That's interesting David. So June's DNA was present and 13 of 17 alleles of Sheila's, but not deemed enough to say conclusively hers was deposited there.
I'm not sure what your asking me, I just jumped into the conversation :-\
-
I'm not sure what your asking me, I just jumped into the conversation :-\
I was speculating as to the value of forensic tests performed on the silencer.
-
I was speculating as to the value of forensic tests performed on the silencer.
Junes DNA most likely got there by contamination when the Jury deliberated
-
The only ones that I remember Jeremy taking were those which were prescribed after the tragedy.Valium ?
There'd have been no need to have got anything from the chemist, if Jeremy had needed knock-out pills-------his mother must have had a plentiful supply at WHF which he could have helped himself to at any time.
You're not that well informed obviously if you didn't know that Julie Mugford obtained pills on Jeremy's behalf as part of his plan to drug everybody and then burn the farmhouse down. Such a nice boy!
-
Junes DNA most likely got there by contamination when the Jury deliberated
You think ?
-
You're not that well informed obviously if you didn't know that Julie Mugford obtained pills on Jeremy's behalf as part of his plan to drug everybody and then burn the farmhouse down. Such a nice boy!
I don't think so. If any pills had been obtained pre-tragedy,they'd have been experimented with as in a " drug buzz ". If I remember rightly,JM " needed " the so-called tranquilisers because she was suffering from stress with her work. Jeremy was officially offered Valium post-murders.
If anyone was a headworker here it was JM !
-
Yes and Andrew Hunter hints at this as two amateur gun enthusiasts note a silencer mark on Sheila's neck.
This claim has been refuted, I will post in more detail later
-
I don't think so. If any pills had been obtained pre-tragedy,they'd have been experimented with as in a " drug buzz ". If I remember rightly,JM " needed " the so-called tranquilisers because she was suffering from stress with her work. Jeremy was officially offered Valium post-murders.
If anyone was a headworker here it was JM !
You really must keep up.
-
You really must keep up.
What makes you think that you're up to speed with the case ?
-
What makes you think that you're up to speed with the case ?
Well you don't appear to be if you didn't even know that Jeremy asked Julie to get sleeping tablets for him.
-
I thought Julie already had the sleeping tablets. For her own use.
When Bamber found this out, he asked her to give him some so he could try them. At this time his plan was to drug everyone and burn down WHF.
Julie said he tried the tablets but they were useless.
-
Have we really learned anything after all this time, has anybody ever got close enough to Jeremy for a heart to heart talk, to coax out the truth in a compassionate setting, where he can maybe be given license to visit other prisons to tell how it was like in his eyes and to prevent further tragedies? http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/damian-lewis-boarding-school-is-a-very-violent-experience-that-defines-you-emotionally-for-life/ar-BBt4ICT?ocid=spartanntp
-
Have we really learned anything after all this time, has anybody ever got close enough to Jeremy for a heart to heart talk, to coax out the truth in a compassionate setting, where he can maybe be given license to visit other prisons to tell how it was like in his eyes and to prevent further tragedies? http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/damian-lewis-boarding-school-is-a-very-violent-experience-that-defines-you-emotionally-for-life/ar-BBt4ICT?ocid=spartanntp
Steve in case you haven't noticed Damien Lewis OBE is an actor not a behavioural scientist ::)
Is there anything worse than the privileged moaning about being privileged? Next time I meet princes Willam and Harry and David Cameron I'll ask them if they would describe their experiences of boarding at Eton as "very violent" ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Lewis
Children removed from abusive homes and placed in residential care probably wouldn't describe their experiences as "very violent" as it's all they've ever known!
Damien was referring to the emotional shock to an 8 year old of going from a cosy family home to board at school. Jeremy said similar and that it helped him cope with prison life.
Steve you ask when Jeremy is going to get the chance for a heart to heart in a compassionate setting. You seem to be forgetting he's a category A prisoner ::)
Why don't you discuss the forensics for a change instead of a lot of silliness?
-
Steve in case you haven't noticed Damien Lewis OBE is an actor not a behavioural scientist ::)
Is there anything worse than the privileged moaning about being privileged? Next time I meet princes Willam and Harry and David Cameron I'll ask them if they would describe their experiences of boarding at Eton as "very violent" ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Lewis
Children removed from abusive homes and placed in residential care probably wouldn't describe their experiences as "very violent" as it's all they've ever known!
Damien was referring to the emotional shock to an 8 year old of going from a cosy family home to board at school. Jeremy said similar and that it helped him cope with prison life.
Steve you ask when Jeremy is going to get the chance for a heart to heart in a compassionate setting. You seem to be forgetting he's a category A prisoner ::)
Why don't you discuss the forensics for a change instead of a lot of silliness?
For those of us flailing around to finding a meaning(or an excuse to some) in this mass murderer shooting two little boys in the head as they lay sleeping the above article may be as good as it gets.
-
For those of us flailing around to finding a meaning(or an excuse to some) in this mass murderer shooting two little boys in the head as they lay sleeping the above article may be as good as it gets.
shooting two little boys in the head as they lay sleeping is much better than shooting them as they stand awake contemplating the situation. At least they didn't know what happened
-
shooting two little boys in the head as they lay sleeping is much better than shooting them as they stand awake contemplating the situation. At least they didn't know what happened
It's not really better David :o - either way, they end up dead and missing out on a whole life that could have meant something. Who knows who they would have grown up to be or what they might have achieved.
-
hi guys just popped in to say hello.and to see if the new evidence to clear jb has come to light or not .because the last time i was here some members were insisting new evidence is coming soon .ps missed you all
-
hi guys just popped in to say hello.and to see if the new evidence to clear jb has come to light or not .because the last time i was here some members were insisting new evidence is coming soon .ps missed you all
Sami, HI :) I don't think anything -other than my opinion- has changed since I joined 4? years ago.
-
hi guys just popped in to say hello.and to see if the new evidence to clear jb has come to light or not .because the last time i was here some members were insisting new evidence is coming soon .ps missed you all
A fresh application for appeal is being drafted. But It will probably take a few years for JB to have a day in court over it.
-
A fresh application for appeal is being drafted. But It will probably take a few years for JB to have a day in court over it.
thanks for the update david
-
The " aftermath " included the divorce of JM ( Smerchanski ) from her husband after he'd realised via a confession from the woman that a MOJ had been created through her involvement in colluding. Apparently she'd turned to religion--------------------as you do when you're guilty of sin.
-
JM will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal.
-
Strange how this will now be overlooked by those who saw no wrong in JM's testimony,etc.
I suppose it can be said at this stage that she has got a conscience--------of sorts,but to the detriment of her ex-husband who,I would have thought,SHOULD have been told before any marriage took place.
-
Strange how this will now be overlooked by those who saw no wrong in JM's testimony,etc.
I suppose it can be said at this stage that she has got a conscience--------of sorts,but to the detriment of her ex-husband who,I would have thought,SHOULD have been told before any marriage took place.
i do find her lacking moral.any decent human being would have been to the police on day one.maybe she was happy to live the high life with jb.but come on 5 murders including 2 kids i would shop my girlfriend thats for sure.morals dictate that
-
i do find her lacking moral.any decent human being would have been to the police on day one.maybe she was happy to live the high life with jb.but come on 5 murders including 2 kids i would shop my girlfriend thats for sure.morals dictate that
This is just it,JM KNOWS that JB is innocent. You'll see.
-
This is just it,JM KNOWS that JB is innocent. You'll see.
i personally wouldnt go that far lookout.but i would say she is the lowest of human beings and a hard hearted woman i mean come on ,ready to go in whf and identify the bodies .most women would say iam not doing that.
-
i know had i identifyed the bodies i would be having nightmares and flashbacks to this day. maybe iam just soft
-
This is just it,JM KNOWS that JB is innocent. You'll see.
NO she doesn't ::)
-
NO she doesn't ::)
i dont think she does her views have remained the same for 30 years not even a rumour that she has told anyone that she was lying.she could go to a country with no extradition laws with uk and claim she lied write a book and make a fortune .she hasnt
-
i dont think she does her views have remained the same for 30 years not even a rumour that she has told anyone that she was lying.she could go to a country with no extradition laws with uk and claim she lied write a book and make a fortune .she hasnt
The hit man story could only have come from Jeremy.
-
NO she doesn't ::)
Oh but she does. 8)
-
The hit man story could only have come from Jeremy.
JM knew that JB was jesting as usual,but she quickly turned it around to suit the occasion at the trial. No wonder she was in floods of tears when being questioned by Rivlin,she knew full well that what she was saying was untrue,so out came the hankie as a cover-up. Most of the time JM took no notice of Jeremy's sense of humour which she'd been well used to,but come the split and things were different.
-
Oh but she does. 8)
Jesting that he intended to kill his parents? They then end up murdered so he jests again the very days after saying he hired a hit man? Of course he did Lookout. She KNOWS he's guilty.
-
Jesting that he intended to kill his parents? They then end up murdered so he jests again the very days after saying he hired a hit man? Of course he did Lookout. She KNOWS he's guilty.
the phrase from sherlock holmes you quoted some posts earlier caroline .is very fitting
-
Jesting that he intended to kill his parents? They then end up murdered so he jests again the very days after saying he hired a hit man? Of course he did Lookout. She KNOWS he's guilty.
Nope. These so-called " threats " were hearsay. The hitman story had been repeated to RWB who was the keenest of the lot of them to see JB behind bars,so what better than someone of RWB's standing than to reiterrate the idea of the hitman in a meaningful manner ?
What was in JM's testimony to finally " seal the deal ",that years later her husband divorced her when she'd confessed to him that she hadn't been altogether truthful ? It was nothing to do with him having been guilty because she'd believed that he wasn't. Her crying was/is for the reason that she's purged herself.
-
Strange how this will now be overlooked by those who saw no wrong in JM's testimony,etc.
I suppose it can be said at this stage that she has got a conscience--------of sorts,but to the detriment of her ex-husband who,I would have thought,SHOULD have been told before any marriage took place.
I hadn't realized that Julie and her husband had divorced. Is this a recent thing?
-
I hadn't realized that Julie and her husband had divorced. Is this a recent thing?
I would have said that things were a bit rocky for some time after she'd confessed to her husband that her involvement in her part involving collusion that had resulted in a MOJ. It was he who'd decided to call it a day and file for divorce. I knew of the rocky relationship a couple of years ago.and did mention it on the forum,but got rebuffed.
The husband obviously doesn't like lies. He has admitted in a letter to a member that her testimony didn't hold water.
-
We await JM's response in admitting " she got it wrong ",but she may be too wrapped up in her religion. :-[. Asking for forgiveness. It's what wrongdoers do---------isn't it ?
-
I would have said that things were a bit rocky for some time after she'd confessed to her husband that her involvement in her part involving collusion that had resulted in a MOJ. It was he who'd decided to call it a day and file for divorce. I knew of the rocky relationship a couple of years ago.and did mention it on the forum,but got rebuffed.
The husband obviously doesn't like lies. He has admitted in a letter to a member that her testimony didn't hold water.
According to my information Julie told Glen what had happened before they married. It doesn't make clear how much she told him but Glen, who at the time was 40, said he'd known about it "for many years."
-
Nope. These so-called " threats " were hearsay. The hitman story had been repeated to RWB who was the keenest of the lot of them to see JB behind bars,so what better than someone of RWB's standing than to reiterrate the idea of the hitman in a meaningful manner ?
What was in JM's testimony to finally " seal the deal ",that years later her husband divorced her when she'd confessed to him that she hadn't been altogether truthful ? It was nothing to do with him having been guilty because she'd believed that he wasn't. Her crying was/is for the reason that she's purged herself.
OH I see where this is coming from now!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
According to my information Julie told Glen what had happened before they married. It doesn't make clear how much she told him but Glen, who at the time was 40, said he'd known about it "for many years."
Yes,just the " happening " without going into too much detail. His question to her apparently,was " you haven't been altogether truthful about your testimony,have you ?". He then wrote of his disappointment and had told her to write and admit it,but up to now she hasn't.
-
Yes,just the " happening " without going into too much detail. His question to her apparently,was " you haven't been altogether truthful about your testimony,have you ?". He then wrote of his disappointment and had told her to write and admit it,but up to now she hasn't.
Why would Julie's husband tell a complete stranger something like that?
-
Why would Julie's husband tell a complete stranger something like that?
thats a good point,why tell a complete stranger that ;)
-
It wasn't a stranger.
There'd been prior contact before the subject was broached,as well as the fact that there was nothing to lose by opening up as they were no longer man and wife. Apparently,JB was asked to " come clean " before JB's sentence went on forever.
-
Why would Julie's husband tell a complete stranger something like that?
It was Mike's illustrious "Informant Z" ;D
-
It was Mike's illustrious "Informant Z" ;D
This has got NOTHING to do with Mike !
-
It wasn't a stranger.
There'd been prior contact before the subject was broached,as well as the fact that there was nothing to lose by opening up as they were no longer man and wife. Apparently,JB was asked to " come clean " before JB's sentence went on forever.
If it was someone on here, it was a stranger - who in their right mind would tell someone who wrote to them, something that could get his wife (mother of his kids) into serious trouble?
-
If it was someone on here, it was a stranger - who in their right mind would tell someone who wrote to them, something that could get his wife (mother of his kids) into serious trouble?
That wasn't how it was at all,much as you'd like to think that way. The trouble was already present.
-
That wasn't how it was at all,much as you'd like to think that way. The trouble was already present.
How do you know this person is telling the truth?
-
That wasn't how it was at all,much as you'd like to think that way. The trouble was already present.
Unless you counsel for Relate, how on earth do you know about the alleged problems in a complete strangers marriage?
-
Unless you counsel for Relate, how on earth do you know about the alleged problems in a complete strangers marriage?
And why would he tell amember of the Jeremy Bamber forum who has turned out to be so untrustworthy as to tell another person?
-
Unless you counsel for Relate, how on earth do you know about the alleged problems in a complete strangers marriage?
:)) :)) ;)
-
How do you know this person is telling the truth?
There are in fact two people who I know of who know and both are reliable sources as it's been checked out. What isn't known are the facts surrounding the divorce but many things obviously remain personal,except this fact about her testimony.
-
So far we have the word of an anonymous person and don't even know if they are actually divorced.
-
There are in fact two people who I know of who know and both are reliable sources as it's been checked out. What isn't known are the facts surrounding the divorce but many things obviously remain personal,except this fact about her testimony.
Like I said, so he told a complete stranger a secret which could see the mother of his kids jailed? That doesn't sound even remotely credible.
-
When is this divorce supposed to have take place?
-
Like I said, so he told a complete stranger a secret which could see the mother of his kids jailed? That doesn't sound even remotely credible.
Maybe his way of making her come clean. So far as I know they're not together. It was after becoming religious that JM herself confessed to her then husband of her involvement and collusion that he divorced her. The information was checked for accuracy and found to be authentic.
-
Maybe his way of making her come clean. So far as I know they're not together. It was after becoming religious that JM herself confessed to her then husband of her involvement and collusion that he divorced her. The information was checked for accuracy and found to be authentic.
by who
-
Maybe his way of making her come clean. So far as I know they're not together. It was after becoming religious that JM herself confessed to her then husband of her involvement and collusion that he divorced her. The information was checked for accuracy and found to be authentic.
How can it be checked out?
-
When is this divorce supposed to have take place?
I'm not sure but this info was out last year.
It came as no surprise to me because of previous news months before that I knew about,so I'd have said that the divorce was only within this last 2 or 3 years.
-
I'm not sure but this info was out last year.
It came as no surprise to me because of previous news months before that I knew about,so I'd have said that the divorce was only within this last 2 or 3 years.
OK cheers, so how can it be verified?
-
OK cheers, so how can it be verified?
This is clearly rubbish. May 2016 board meeting she is listed as Julie Smerchanski.
Winnipeg School Division's director of assessment.
It's public record.
-
This is clearly rubbish. May 2016 board meeting she is listed as Julie Smerchanski.
On the basis that I am sure that Mr Smerchanski is an intelligent man, there is no way he would tell something as sensitive as this to someone from this forum or anyone else who contacted him out of the blue. It just wouldn't happen. This is something you would confide to a family member of a REALLY good friend.
-
On the basis that I am sure that Mr Smerchanski is an intelligent man, there is no way he would tell something as sensitive as this to someone from this forum or anyone else who contacted him out of the blue. It just wouldn't happen. This is something you would confide to a family member of a REALLY good friend.
i agree with that
-
This is clearly rubbish. May 2016 board meeting she is listed as Julie Smerchanski.
Winnipeg School Division's director of assessment.
It's public record.
That's if we assume she would want go back to her original sure name
-
This is clearly rubbish. May 2016 board meeting she is listed as Julie Smerchanski.
Winnipeg School Division's director of assessment.
It's public record.
Not everyone reverts back to their birth surname. Her married surname would be more recognised. There's no law that says that you have to change your name.
-
On the basis that I am sure that Mr Smerchanski is an intelligent man, there is no way he would tell something as sensitive as this to someone from this forum or anyone else who contacted him out of the blue. It just wouldn't happen. This is something you would confide to a family member of a REALLY good friend.
The man didn't " just tell " someone this information,and it was nobody from this forum.
Why must you always question and dispute anything that sniffs of being the truth ?
I suggest you do your usual " sleuthing " and find out for yourself then it would stop the chorus of your "backers" telling me my posts are rubbish.
-
The man didn't " just tell " someone this information,and it was nobody from this forum.
Why must you always question and dispute anything that sniffs of being the truth ?
I suggest you do your usual " sleuthing " and find out for yourself then it would stop the chorus of your "backers" telling me my posts are rubbish.
I would have said that things were a bit rocky for some time after she'd confessed to her husband that her involvement in her part involving collusion that had resulted in a MOJ. It was he who'd decided to call it a day and file for divorce. I knew of the rocky relationship a couple of years ago.and did mention it on the forum,but got rebuffed.
The husband obviously doesn't like lies. He has admitted in a letter to a member that her testimony didn't hold water.
But you didn't specify "another" forum when you said "he has admitted it in a letter to a member". It defies belief that someone would end a long marriage for something that occurred YEARS prior to it. It must also be considered that, given her age at the time, she was in no position to dictate to police how she intended to "play" it. Her fall back could always have been police coercion.
-
But you didn't specify "another" forum when you said "he has admitted it in a letter to a member". It defies belief that someone would end a long marriage for something that occurred YEARS prior to it. It must also be considered that, given her age at the time, she was in no position to dictate to police how she intended to "play" it. Her fall back could always have been police coercion.
The only thing I'D be prepared to accept is that she MAY erroneously have taken full responsibility for the actions her 21 yr old self and cannot forgive herself -effects of the menopause, perhaps- in which case, her first course of action might have been to make contact with the relevant authorities here to start proceedings to get Jeremy released.
-
jb did alot of staging before he left whf that morning but a couple of things he failed to do .are arrange the bullet cases and blood trails on sheila
-
The only thing I'D be prepared to accept is that she MAY erroneously have taken full responsibility for the actions her 21 yr old self and cannot forgive herself -effects of the menopause, perhaps- in which case, her first course of action might have been to make contact with the relevant authorities here to start proceedings to get Jeremy released.
I would imagine that JM is pondering how she can broach the subject without incurring problems for herself,though, however,it'll depend on how this present legal team will view the situation,I don't know, except that a subpoenae * will have to be in place in order for the admission to come from herself, personally,rather than it appear by letter. Always supposing that there's an appeal of course. *
Her admission came after she'd turned to religion. Karma ?
-
he has had 2 already could it be 3rd time lucky as the old saying goes
-
The man didn't " just tell " someone this information,and it was nobody from this forum.
Why must you always question and dispute anything that sniffs of being the truth ?
I suggest you do your usual " sleuthing " and find out for yourself then it would stop the chorus of your "backers" telling me my posts are rubbish.
He didn't just tell them? Well, clearly he did and said person told other people and eventually (if we're to believe it) it trickled down to you. So I say again, GS certainly wouldn't tell just anyone something this serious.
If you post something of this magnitude on a public forum, you should expect that people are going to question you. It seems you have nothing but the word of 'someone on a forum' to back up your claim.
-
He didn't just tell them? Well, clearly he did and said person told other people and eventually (if we're to believe it) it trickled down to you. So I say again, GS certainly wouldn't tell just anyone something this serious.
If you post something of this magnitude on a public forum, you should expect that people are going to question you. It seems you have nothing but the word of 'someone on a forum' to back up your claim.
Magnitude ?
For goodness sake,you're making it sound as though I've committed some crime ! In which case I haven't ! With your method of thought-processing and posting,I clearly see it as a form of neuroticism on your part.
Take the " wallet " debacle and also the " last trailer " for instance,you really thought you'd struck gold and then to try and make it as convincing as possible,that theme continued as if in desperation at having solved the whole case.
I refuse to be in the firing line for this piece of information and start looking for it yourself the same as you did for the wallet,though with your off-hand attitude,I doubt if any information will be furnished.
-
It's your misrepresentations making mountains out of molehills that's going to come a cropper,not me.
-
Magnitude ?
For goodness sake,you're making it sound as though I've committed some crime ! In which case I haven't ! With your method of thought-processing and posting,I clearly see it as a form of neuroticism on your part.
Take the " wallet " debacle and also the " last trailer " for instance,you really thought you'd struck gold and then to try and make it as convincing as possible,that theme continued as if in desperation at having solved the whole case.
I refuse to be in the firing line for this piece of information and start looking for it yourself the same as you did for the wallet,though with your off-hand attitude,I doubt if any information will be furnished.
What you have posted is that Julie's husband has admitted to someone on a forum that she perjured herself in court. Were this true she would be in SERIOUS trouble. The above are simply my thoughts on aspects of things already known. What you have said is something different. I certainly would NOT have posted this without any corroboration and even then ......
No point getting personal Lookout, I'm simply pointing out the seriousness of your accusation.
-
What you have posted is that Julie's husband has admitted to someone on a forum that she perjured herself in court. Were this true she would be in SERIOUS trouble. The above are simply my thoughts on aspects of things already known. What you have said is something different. I certainly would NOT have posted this without any corroboration and even then ......
No point getting personal Lookout, I'm simply pointing out the seriousness of your accusation.
Accusation now ? Listen---------I would NOT have known unless it had been stated by a 3rd and 4th person,so don't be accusing me.
It would have seemed that 2 separate contacts were made,one to the husband and one to JM,which tells me that they don't and haven't lived together for a time. The letter to JM appeared to have been " pleading " with her to " own up " before JB's sentence gets longer with time. So far as I know there's been no response.
The matter of the divorce was already " public " last year for me to have read it in the first place.The possible lead-up to it I knew at the beginning of last year.
I'm not making a big thing out of this---------you are.
-
Accusation now ? Listen---------I would NOT have known unless it had been stated by a 3rd and 4th person,so don't be accusing me.
It would have seemed that 2 separate contacts were made,one to the husband and one to JM,which tells me that they don't and haven't lived together for a time. The letter to JM appeared to have been " pleading " with her to " own up " before JB's sentence gets longer with time. So far as I know there's been no response.
The matter of the divorce was already " public " last year for me to have read it in the first place.The possible lead-up to it I knew at the beginning of last year.
I'm not making a big thing out of this---------you are.
It IS a big thing if true, but if not, then someone is lying to you and you should ALWAYS check before posting something like this on an open forum. I have search for a divorce between Julie and her husband and there is nothing. AND he isn't going to be sharing private letters with someone on a forum.
-
It IS a big thing if true, but if not, then someone is lying to you and you should ALWAYS check before posting something like this on an open forum. I have search for a divorce between Julie and her husband and there is nothing. AND he isn't going to be sharing private letters with someone on a forum.
It's in the HOLMES info,but you're that engrossed in forever posting " guilty " in nearly every sentence that you don't bother to read anything else.
-
It's in the HOLMES info,but you're that engrossed in forever posting " guilty " in nearly every sentence that you don't bother to read anything else.
What is HOLMES info?
-
What is HOLMES info?
I hope you don't mean Poppy Millers blog? :o
-
I hope you don't mean Poppy Millers blog? :o
I have no idea what the HOLMES info is either??
-
What is HOLMES info?
is it some sort of system set up by homeoffice after the fiasco in the yorkshire ripper case
-
is it some sort of system set up by homeoffice after the fiasco in the yorkshire ripper case
I know they have a computer called Homes but Lookout doesn't have access to it ;D ;D - or maybe she does?
-
I know they have a computer called Homes but Lookout doesn't have access to it ;D ;D - or maybe she does?
she might know something we dont ;)
-
I have no idea what the HOLMES info is either??
I think this whole claim is a little bit of 'Lookoutism'. :-\
-
I think this whole claim is a little bit of 'Lookoutism'. :-\
:)) :))
-
You sad sacks !
-
You sad sacks !
What is the Holmes info? I have no idea what that is.
-
What is HOLMES info?
Home Office Large Major Enquiry System
-
Home Office Large Major Enquiry System
are you sure large and major when added to inquiry means the same thing
-
Home Office Large Major Enquiry System
Yes but Lookout doesn't have access to that. We're trying to establish what Lookout is talking about.
-
I'm not saying anything more. It's futile. Just continue as you were.
-
are you sure large and major when added to inquiry means the same thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2#HOLMES
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2#HOLMES)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2#HOLMES
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2#HOLMES)
thank you hartley
-
Yes but Lookout doesn't have access to that. We're trying to establish what Lookout is talking about.
From what I see its a rumour about something JMs husband has allegedly said.
I don't think they are even divorced that's my guess anyway.
And if he did say anything why and how would it end up on HOLMES?
-
From what I see its a rumour about something JMs husband has allegedly said.
I don't think they are even divorced that's my guess anyway.
And if he did say anything why and how would it end up on HOLMES?
I agree it's a rumour.
-
I agree it's a rumour.
Well, it's done a lot of bouncing since it arrived. Firstly Lookout says they're divorced but when she's pushed she seems to think they were only "not getting on" -and surmises a reason why- which, whilst at some time, describing every couple, everywhere, is a vast chasm from divorce. Sounds more like the effect of Chinese Whispers to me.
-
Well, it's done a lot of bouncing since it arrived. Firstly Lookout says they're divorced but when she's pushed she seems to think they were only "not getting on" -and surmises a reason why- which, whilst at some time, describing every couple, everywhere, is a vast chasm from divorce. Sounds more like the effect of Chinese Whispers to me.
In the unlikely scenario of this is true, what's to stop people saying that they just broke up on bad terms and her husband is just making up sh*t to give her a hard time? People do that when they are bitter.
-
In the unlikely scenario of this is true, what's to stop people saying that they just broke up on bad terms and her husband is just making up sh*t to give her a hard time? People do that when they are bitter.
David, I'm left in NO doubt that it would please some enormously if Julie and her husband divorced. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they had hold of Julie dolls that they were sticking pins in.
-
David, I'm left in NO doubt that it would please some enormously if Julie and her husband divorced. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they had hold of Julie dolls that they were sticking pins in.
:)) :)) :)) :))
-
In the unlikely scenario of this is true, what's to stop people saying that they just broke up on bad terms and her husband is just making up sh*t to give her a hard time? People do that when they are bitter.
I think there is something underlying that comment David! ;)
-
David, I'm left in NO doubt that it would please some enormously if Julie and her husband divorced. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they had hold of Julie dolls that they were sticking pins in.
Which goes to show what sort of a character YOU are ! I think it's the saddest of times when a couple part company.
-
Which goes to show what sort of a character YOU are ! I think it's the saddest of times when a couple part company.
only if i know them personally otherwise who cares if jack n jill split up
-
Which goes to show what sort of a character YOU are ! I think it's the saddest of times when a couple part company.
Except you don't know that they have.
-
Except you don't know that they have.
Oh but I DO !!
-
Oh but I DO !!
You don't - you can't even explain where you read that they had divorced!
-
Which goes to show what sort of a character YOU are ! I think it's the saddest of times when a couple part company.
That would be every couple except Julie and her husband. I recall having a similar conversation -ages ago- with you, re this subject, in which I spoke about how such a thing -Julie and her husband divorcing- would effect her children. Back then you showed as much empathy for them as a cold rice pudding. From how you speak now, little has changed.
-
Oh but I DO !!
how,not holmes again
-
What a nasty lot of individuals you are !! It's sickening.
Don't talk to me about EMPATHY and HUMILITY !!
-
What a nasty lot of individuals you are !! It's sickening.
Don't talk to me about EMPATHY and HUMILITY !!
Aah, the good old ad hominem defence.
-
What a nasty lot of individuals you are !! It's sickening.
Don't talk to me about EMPATHY and HUMILITY !!
And yet you're the one posting uncorroborated gossip about someone else's marriage! Take a look in the mirror Lookout!
-
And yet you're the one posting uncorroborated gossip about someone else's marriage! Take a look in the mirror Lookout!
It's NOT uncorroborated,it's just that I'm NOT telling you or anyone else.
Why should I look in the mirror ? What's that got to do with anything ?
-
What a nasty lot of individuals you are !! it's sickening.
Don't talk to me about EMPATHY and HUMILITY !!
'its sickening',try blowing in a paper bag always works for me
-
It's NOT uncorroborated,it's just that I'm NOT telling you or anyone else.
Why should I look in the mirror ? What's that got to do with anything ?
your top sentence is the only way out of this one 'iam not telling you'
-
'its sickening',try blowing in a paper bag always works for me
That method is for hyperventilating----------I don't do that.
-
It's NOT uncorroborated,it's just that I'm NOT telling you or anyone else.
Why should I look in the mirror ? What's that got to do with anything ?
Because you don't know - you have fallen in a hole again and don't know how to get out of it and as we know, you can't admit to being wrong. Calling other people names when you were the one who brought this up - that's why you should look in the mirror!
-
That method is for hyperventilating----------I don't do that.
no dogs do it but ive never seen a dog blowing into a paper bag.admit it youve lost the arguement in this thread ;)
-
I haven't lost any argument !! I don't intend to either !!
-
I haven't lost any argument !! I don't intend to either !!
If you can't back it up, you lost it and you can't back it up.
-
I think there is something underlying that comment David! ;)
I think your over analyse what I write and start seeing things that aren't there
-
I think your over analyse what I write and start seeing things that aren't there
Nah! I was actually joking - lighten up. I don't over analyse anyone's posts. Once I start doing that, I'm off!!
-
I remember where the BS rumours about JM's marriage came from the first time - seems that same person has whispered into Lookouts ear again - this time egging on the situation a bit more.
-
I remember where the BS rumours about JM's marriage came from the first time - seems that same person has whispered into Lookouts ear again - this time egging on the situation a bit more.
good to hear from you mat :)will that person stand up and take the credit.please :))
-
I hope this thread was not the instigator of their downfall. The reason for failing marriages can be complex, but I have to admit that if she made up the bulk of her testimony this would make me regard the conviction as unsafe, despite a welter of circumstantial evidence from other sources.
-
I hope this thread was not the instigator of their downfall. The reason for failing marriages can be complex, but I have to admit that if she made up the bulk of her testimony this would make me regard the conviction as unsafe, despite a welter of circumstantial evidence from other sources.
There is no substance to this claim Steve.
-
There is no substance to this claim Steve.
There is no substance to Julie Mugfords claims either. Don't stop you buying them thou ;)
-
There is no substance to Julie Mugfords claims either. Don't stop you buying them thou ;)
you have turned it into a circular argument again
-
I also couldn't find anything about the divorce online. I did discover Julie had contributed to a Maths textbook, her husband had tweeted something about a McDonald's milkshake and a picture of a young man named Smerchanski who looked a bit like Jeremy's son, but apart from that I drew a blank.
-
There is no substance to Julie Mugfords claims either. Don't stop you buying them thou ;)
I don't buy everything JM said, but I don't agree with you either. I think it's more likely that AE learned stuff from Julie, not the other way around. Your theory falls flat because none of the relatives mentioned a hit man and it's ludicrous to suggest that the police would introduce such. I'm sure you'll keep ignoring this fact but don't worry, I'll keep reminding you!! ;) ;D ;D
-
I also couldn't find anything about the divorce online. I did discover Julie had contributed to a Maths textbook, her husband had tweeted something about a McDonald's milkshake and a picture of a young man named Smerchanski who looked a bit like Jeremy's son, but apart from that I drew a blank.
Me either Steve.
-
Quote, " I have checked on the accuracy of the following which is that after Mugford/Smerchanski became religious and confessed to her husband of her involvement and collusion in the resulting Miscarriage of Justice in Jeremy's case,he divorced her. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal,unquote ". Written in September 2015.
-
Quote, " I have checked on the accuracy of the following which is that after Mugford/Smerchanski became religious and confessed to her husband of her involvement and collusion in the resulting Miscarriage of Justice in Jeremy's case,he divorced her. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal,unquote ". Written in September 2015.
evening ,where did you check .i would also like to read it
-
Quote, " I have checked on the accuracy of the following which is that after Mugford/Smerchanski became religious and confessed to her husband of her involvement and collusion in the resulting Miscarriage of Justice in Jeremy's case,he divorced her. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal,unquote ". Written in September 2015.
Written where?
-
The majority of JM's " confessions " in her statement of 10th Sept 1985 had not been connected to JB,which included her use of cocaine with Liz Rimmington at a time when both went to a hotel accompanied by two men.
Quite the innocent,eh ?
-
The majority of JM's " confessions " in her statement of 10th Sept 1985 had not been connected to JB,which included her use of cocaine with Liz Rimmington at a time when both went to a hotel accompanied by two men.
Quite the innocent,eh ?
you really know how to slander people.first a drugs mule,now a snorting cocaine hooker.youve still not told us where you checked the accuracy of the above post.thanks
-
The majority of JM's " confessions " in her statement of 10th Sept 1985 had not been connected to JB,which included her use of cocaine with Liz Rimmington at a time when both went to a hotel accompanied by two men.
Quite the innocent,eh ?
Unless these claims can be substantiated they are just gossip
-
you really know how to slander people.first a drugs mule,now a snorting cocaine hooker.youve still not told us where you checked the accuracy of the above post.thanks
COLP statement.I DO NOT USE SLANDER !! I DID NOT USE HOOKER---------------YOU DID.Which goes to prove that YOU'RE the gossiper---------dangerous people who put words/lies in others mouths.
It's a known FACT that JB obtained drugs from Canada--------and it WAS before she'd met JB.
-
COLP statement.I DO NOT USE SLANDER !! I DID NOT USE HOOKER---------------YOU DID.Which goes to prove that YOU'RE the gossiper---------dangerous people who put words/lies in others mouths.
It's a known FACT that ;JB; obtained drugs from Canada--------and it WAS before she'd met JB.
you mean jm,dont you
-
Taped interviews of JM remain withheld. I gather the same information will be contained on them,which were kept from the defence.
-
COLP statement.I DO NOT USE SLANDER !! I DID NOT USE HOOKER---------------YOU DID.Which goes to prove that YOU'RE the gossiper---------dangerous people who put words/lies in others mouths.
It's a known FACT that JB obtained drugs from Canada--------and it WAS before she'd met JB.
In your haste to blow a gasket you've announced that JB obtained drugs from Canada. :-\
-
Taped interviews of JM remain withheld. I gather the same information will be contained on them,which were kept from the defence.
if they are withheld how do you know they exist
-
I don't buy everything JM said, but I don't agree with you either. I think it's more likely that AE learned stuff from Julie, not the other way around. Your theory falls flat because none of the relatives mentioned a hit man and it's ludicrous to suggest that the police would introduce such. I'm sure you'll keep ignoring this fact but don't worry, I'll keep reminding you!! ;) ;D ;D
Please do keep reminding me so I can keep debunking your theories.
So you don't believe everything Julie says? well that's a start I guess.
You seem to be forgetting AE got that info from the police, and even if she did get it from Julie it still does not corroborate the crime scene.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had been told about the bible on Sheila's chest by Julie, she would have asked how Julie knew and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
RB believed Jeremy had help on the night of the murders and first suspected Brett Collins but turned out he was abroad at the time. So the idea of an accomplice was on RBs mind. He also mentions Jeremy giving someone £2000 this happens to be the exact same figure Julie said he paid for the Hitman. Then the idea of MM being a Hitman comes from none other than MM himself “this was pure fabrication but I kept it going at times because it made people think I was somebody but it was totally untrue.”
Julies entire witness testimony once dissected you can follow the leads and find out were she really got the information from and none of it leads back to Jeremy.
Now read AEs trial transcript on the issue, your theory is surprise surprise another impossibility
MR. RIVLIN: Mrs. Eaton, I would just like to ask you one or two questions, if I
may, about Julie Mugford and one or two things that happened when you were
present. I think you were present when Julie Mugford returned from the
Mortuary?
A. I was in the car when she went.
Q. And so you were with her when she came back?
A Yes.
Q. Did she appear to be upset?
A. She asked if she could smoke, and she said
it was not as bad as she thought it was going to be.
Q. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
A. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
A. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
A. Yes.
Q. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
A. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
A. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
A. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
Q. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
A. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
A. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
Q. What I have done is this: I have shown you a statement in which you said that
the police told you that?
A. Yes.
Q. And it is a statement that you made in September last year?
A. Yes.
Q. A month and a day or so after the event?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time were you able to remember that the police had given you that
information, because it appears in your statement?
A. It appears so, but
there were a lot of people in the house at the time and I was asking a lot of
people a lot of questions. I am trying to listen at the same time and make
coffee.
Q. And you did have a discussion with Julie, did you not? I am not suggesting
anything improper in this?
A. She said Sheila did say she was a white, and
I thought she said "wedge", because I did not know what she was talking about,
and I said to somebody "Julie said Sheila was a white wedge. What is that?"
and she said "She meant a white witch, I suppose."
Q. You told Julie that Sheila had been found with the bible on her chest?
A. I cannot remember. You are asking me now, and there are certain things
I can remember now. It is very difficult. It was along time ago and I am
only trying to tell the truth.
-
I don't buy everything JM said, but I don't agree with you either. I think it's more likely that AE learned stuff from Julie, not the other way around. Your theory falls flat because none of the relatives mentioned a hit man and it's ludicrous to suggest that the police would introduce such. I'm sure you'll keep ignoring this fact but don't worry, I'll keep reminding you!! ;) ;D ;D
You would have thought that when the police coached Julie, they would have been more accurate with her claims. :-\
-
You would have thought that when the police coached Julie, they would have been more accurate with her claims. :-\
thats a good point hartley
-
thats a good point hartley
Newspapers also ran stories on the 8th of August referring to a single shot to Sheila, I wonder if a bible was mentioned?
Suddenly this so called misinformation isn't as unique as David is making out in his 'facts'.
-
Please do keep reminding me so I can keep debunking your theories.
So you don't believe everything Julie says? well that's a start I guess.
You seem to be forgetting AE got that info from the police, and even if she did get it from Julie it still does not corroborate the crime scene.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had been told about the bible on Sheila's chest by Julie, she would have asked how Julie knew and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
RB believed Jeremy had help on the night of the murders and first suspected Brett Collins but turned out he was abroad at the time. So the idea of an accomplice was on RBs mind. He also mentions Jeremy giving someone £2000 this happens to be the exact same figure Julie said he paid for the Hitman. Then the idea of MM being a Hitman comes from none other than MM himself “this was pure fabrication but I kept it going at times because it made people think I was somebody but it was totally untrue.”
Julies entire witness testimony once dissected you can follow the leads and find out were she really got the information from and none of it leads back to Jeremy.
Now read AEs trial transcript on the issue, your theory is surprise surprise another impossibility
MR. RIVLIN: Mrs. Eaton, I would just like to ask you one or two questions, if I
may, about Julie Mugford and one or two things that happened when you were
present. I think you were present when Julie Mugford returned from the
Mortuary?
A. I was in the car when she went.
Q. And so you were with her when she came back?
A Yes.
Q. Did she appear to be upset?
A. She asked if she could smoke, and she said
it was not as bad as she thought it was going to be.
Q. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
A. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
A. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
A. Yes.
Q. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
A. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
A. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
A. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
Q. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
A. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
A. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
Q. What I have done is this: I have shown you a statement in which you said that
the police told you that?
A. Yes.
Q. And it is a statement that you made in September last year?
A. Yes.
Q. A month and a day or so after the event?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time were you able to remember that the police had given you that
information, because it appears in your statement?
A. It appears so, but
there were a lot of people in the house at the time and I was asking a lot of
people a lot of questions. I am trying to listen at the same time and make
coffee.
Q. And you did have a discussion with Julie, did you not? I am not suggesting
anything improper in this?
A. She said Sheila did say she was a white, and
I thought she said "wedge", because I did not know what she was talking about,
and I said to somebody "Julie said Sheila was a white wedge. What is that?"
and she said "She meant a white witch, I suppose."
Q. You told Julie that Sheila had been found with the bible on her chest?
A. I cannot remember. You are asking me now, and there are certain things
I can remember now. It is very difficult. It was along time ago and I am
only trying to tell the truth.
I have already read the above - so what? She said that Julie COULD have told her. It doesn't back up anything you have said.
How have you debunked the FACT that none of the relatives mentioned a hit man? You've skirted the issue because you know it doesn't fit your little theory (which isn't new by the way!).
-
Newspapers also ran stories on the 8th of August referring to a single shot to Sheila, I wonder if a bible was mentioned?
Suddenly this so called misinformation isn't as unique as David is making out in his 'facts'.
None of them mentioned a hit man though ;)
-
None of them mentioned a hit man though ;)
Nope, not a single one of 'em.
I'm sure we discussed all of this several years ago. :-\
-
Nope, not a single one of 'em.
I'm sure we discussed all of this several years ago. :-\
More than once no doubt.
-
Lookouts claims come from Poppys blog as usual. ;D ;D ;D Just found them.
http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/jeremy-bamberessex-police-and-missing.html
After the trial and Jeremy's conviction, Mugford moved to Canada, eventually marrying, thus changing her name to Smerchanski. There are two children from the marriage. I have checked on the accuracy of the following which is that after Mugford/Smerchanski became religious and confessed to her husband of her involvement and collusion in the resulting miscarriage of justice in Jeremy's case, he divorced her. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal.
-
Poppy goes on to say
Recently I have begun to contemplate whether it was in fact Essex Police Fire Arms Team who fired the second shot into Sheila's neck even though she may have already been dead, as documents show that over fifty other people entered the crime scene over the following day and that the scene was used as a training exercise with the gun being moved on and off of Sheila's body. Plus it seems strange that the original shattered bullet was miraculously made whole and changed size by the time of trial, perhaps another reason for the denial of the original logs of 'one dead male, one dead female in kitchen' and the non-disclosure of other events? Well, I say, 'non-disclosure' but that is just the phrase used to make the act seem more justifiable, in fact it means deliberately lying about events in order to fool judge and jury.
;D
-
Lookouts claims come from Poppys blog as usual. ;D ;D ;D Just found them.
http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/jeremy-bamberessex-police-and-missing.html
After the trial and Jeremy's conviction, Mugford moved to Canada, eventually marrying, thus changing her name to Smerchanski. There are two children from the marriage. I have checked on the accuracy of the following which is that after Mugford/Smerchanski became religious and confessed to her husband of her involvement and collusion in the resulting miscarriage of justice in Jeremy's case, he divorced her. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal.
Figured as much. ::)
I hope you don't mean Poppy Millers blog? :o
-
COLP statement.I DO NOT USE SLANDER !! I DID NOT USE HOOKER---------------YOU DID.Which goes to prove that YOU'RE the gossiper---------dangerous people who put words/lies in others mouths.
It's a known FACT that JB obtained drugs from Canada--------and it WAS before she'd met JB.
Well didn't SHE do well? At school until she was 17/18, probably still just 19 when she met him AND having to do part time work to fund her degree yet she can afford to take herself on a jolly to Canada!!!!?
-
Poppy goes on to say
Recently I have begun to contemplate whether it was in fact Essex Police Fire Arms Team who fired the second shot into Sheila's neck even though she may have already been dead, as documents show that over fifty other people entered the crime scene over the following day and that the scene was used as a training exercise with the gun being moved on and off of Sheila's body. Plus it seems strange that the original shattered bullet was miraculously made whole and changed size by the time of trial, perhaps another reason for the denial of the original logs of 'one dead male, one dead female in kitchen' and the non-disclosure of other events? Well, I say, 'non-disclosure' but that is just the phrase used to make the act seem more justifiable, in fact it means deliberately lying about events in order to fool judge and jury.
;D
Lookouts claims come from Poppys blog as usual. ;D ;D ;D Just found them.
http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/jeremy-bamberessex-police-and-missing.html
After the trial and Jeremy's conviction, Mugford moved to Canada, eventually marrying, thus changing her name to Smerchanski. There are two children from the marriage. I have checked on the accuracy of the following which is that after Mugford/Smerchanski became religious and confessed to her husband of her involvement and collusion in the resulting miscarriage of justice in Jeremy's case, he divorced her. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal.
Well, well, well, QUELLE surprise!!!!! And in the above we have the veracity of Lookout's assertion!!!!!!! You couldn't make it up, could you?......................Oh, wait a minute.........................can't you just see the headlines!!!! POPPY MEZE frees Jeremy Bamber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ::) ::) ::)
Nice one, Mat ;)
-
And ? Was I lying or making it up ?NO. I have verified that info myself !!
But it doesn't end there !! However,I'm keeping it under my hat.
-
I have already read the above - so what? She said that Julie COULD have told her. It doesn't back up anything you have said.
How have you debunked the FACT that none of the relatives mentioned a hit man? You've skirted the issue because you know it doesn't fit your little theory (which isn't new by the way!).
No mention in AEs notes or RBs diary of Julie Mugford telling them anything. Had Julie told them anything she would have to have told them the story of Mathew Macdonald and they didn't. Your debunking your own theories now
Ann Eaton at trial confirms the police told her that Shelia was found on the bed with the bible on her chest. Its even in her notes with NO mention of Julie
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
A. Yes.
Q. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
A. Yes.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
You admit you don't believe everything Julie sais thus you believe her to be a liar yet you try and defend her as a credible witness? You believe her about MM because his name cannot be traced back to the relatives yet the idea of an accomplice and the £2000 payment can and the idea of MM being a hitman comes from MM himself and not Jeremy. You believe Julie got all the information the relatives had from Jeremy simply because the relatives did not mention an accomplice by name? ???
I guess I cannot reason you out of a position that you did not reason yourself into in the first place
-
Well, well, well, QUELLE surprise!!!!! And in the above we have the veracity of Lookout's assertion!!!!!!! You couldn't make it up, could you?......................Oh, wait a minute.........................can't you just see the headlines!!!! POPPY MEZE frees Jeremy Bamber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ::) ::) ::)
Nice one, Mat ;)
Grow up ! Aren't you MORE than satisfied by the fact that in YOUR world JB will die in prison ? If I were in your shoes I'd be forever dancing for joy at that prospect. Empathy and humility ? Don't make me laugh !
-
Why don't YOU go and see Poppy,she lives in your neck of the woods ? You could always pretend that you're on JB's side. :-[
-
Lookouts claims come from Poppys blog as usual. ;D ;D ;D Just found them.
http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/jeremy-bamberessex-police-and-missing.html
After the trial and Jeremy's conviction, Mugford moved to Canada, eventually marrying, thus changing her name to Smerchanski. There are two children from the marriage. I have checked on the accuracy of the following which is that after Mugford/Smerchanski became religious and confessed to her husband of her involvement and collusion in the resulting miscarriage of justice in Jeremy's case, he divorced her. It is believed that she will be subpoenaed in the event of an appeal.
good work mat ;)
-
Why don't YOU go and see Poppy,she lives in your neck of the woods ? You could always pretend that you're on JB's side. :-[
and what would poppy have to say.she wasnt at whf when the murders took place,why would one believe what she says ;D
-
good work mat ;)
Erm,what's good about finding something that's been in the public domain for nearly 2 years,that the BLINKERED ones WON'T bother to look for because of the stance they've taken ? The only way that it's come to light is EVERYONE'S belief that I'd been " making things up " and in turn, chose to take pops at me instead of bothering to find out for themselves.
However,bravo to Mat for having the common sense to seek to verify it instead of Caroline's repeated " uncorroborated evidence " .
I realise that when there is only half a brain working ( guilty ) that your focus is only one-sided too !!
-
Poppy goes on to say
Recently I have begun to contemplate whether it was in fact Essex Police Fire Arms Team who fired the second shot into Sheila's neck even though she may have already been dead, as documents show that over fifty other people entered the crime scene over the following day and that the scene was used as a training exercise with the gun being moved on and off of Sheila's body. Plus it seems strange that the original shattered bullet was miraculously made whole and changed size by the time of trial, perhaps another reason for the denial of the original logs of 'one dead male, one dead female in kitchen' and the non-disclosure of other events? Well, I say, 'non-disclosure' but that is just the phrase used to make the act seem more justifiable, in fact it means deliberately lying about events in order to fool judge and jury.
;D
Regardless if true or not it does not exonerate Jeremy or incriminate him, Its the theory that EP accidently set off the rife while removing it from her body inflicting a second shot on her already dead body and that's its just another blunder they don't want us to know about.
With the track record of police incompetence in this case it would not surprise me if it was true, but I am 99.9% certain its not true for several seasons
-
At least I don't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds !!
-
And ? Was I lying or making it up ?NO. I have verified that info myself !!
But it doesn't end there !! However,I'm keeping it under my hat.
You may have done well to have kept the lot under your hat. ::)
-
You may have done well to have kept the lot under your hat. ::)
Don't worry,I will do in future. :-X
-
No mention in AEs notes or RBs diary of Julie Mugford telling them anything. Had Julie told them anything she would have to have told them the story of Mathew Macdonald and they didn't. Your debunking your own theories now
Ann Eaton at trial confirms the police told her that Shelia was found on the bed with the bible on her chest. Its even in her notes with NO mention of Julie
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
A. Yes.
Q. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
A. Yes.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
You admit you don't believe everything Julie sais thus you believe her to be a liar yet you try and defend her as a credible witness? You believe her about MM because his name cannot be traced back to the relatives yet the idea of an accomplice and the £2000 payment can and the idea of MM being a hitman comes from MM himself and not Jeremy. You believe Julie got all the information the relatives had from Jeremy simply because the relatives did not mention an accomplice by name? ???
I guess I cannot reason you out of a position that you did not reason yourself into in the first place
You're very good at stating what people would and wouldn't have done when you have absolutely no idea. The only way Julie would have mentioned MM, is if she told AE the full story of OF COURSE she wouldn't have done that. AE said that a police officer mentioned Sheila being on the bed, he may have mentioned the bible on the chest - we just don't know. However, FACT remains that the hit man story could only come from Jeremy! MM never said he was a hit man there was gossip that he was a mercenary (because he worked abroad and disappeared every now and again. He simply didn't dispel the rumour. You can't can't get out of the fact that MM wasn't mentioned and you're just full of wind!
-
and what would poppy have to say.she wasnt at whf when the murders took place,why would one believe what she says ;D
Poppy has been communicating,writing/phoning Jeremy for years. The woman is no fool and had believed him guilty at one time. As she states,she is not " attached " to the CT.
-
Erm,what's good about finding something that's been in the public domain for nearly 2 years,that the BLINKERED ones WON'T bother to look for because of the stance they've taken ? The only way that it's come to light is EVERYONE'S belief that I'd been " making things up " and in turn, chose to take pops at me instead of bothering to find out for themselves.
However,bravo to Mat for having the common sense to seek to verify it instead of Caroline's repeated " uncorroborated evidence " .
I realise that when there is only half a brain working ( guilty ) that your focus is only one-sided too !!
I asked you where you read it and you refused to say. It is NOT up to me to provide links to every unsubstantiated bit of rubbish that you post here more or less on a daily basis. You must have known that Poppy Miller is a rubbish source so didn't mention it for that reason. You're a great one to talk about common sense and half a brain!
-
Poppy has been communicating,writing/phoning Jeremy for years. The woman is no fool and had believed him guilty at one time. As she states,she is not " attached " to the CT.
So how does that show that she would know about Julie and Glen getting divorced? You didn't check it out properly - over the moon that Julie might have confessed but of course once again, you jumped the gun!
-
Regardless if true or not it does not exonerate Jeremy or incriminate him, Its the theory that EP accidently set off the rife while removing it from her body inflicting a second shot on her already dead body and that's its just another blunder they don't want us to know about.
With the track record of police incompetence in this case it would not surprise me if it was true, but I am 99.9% certain its not true for several seasons
Can you state what those reasons are? We know the police were responsible for staging Sheila's body in the right photograph. You can see that the police moved the body by about six inches. The bible has also been moved.
Who's to say that both photographs don't show Sheila's body as it was staged by the police?
Given they were messing around like that, accidentally shooting Sheila when she was already dead is a realistic possibility.
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
-
I asked you where you read it and you refused to say. It is NOT up to me to provide links to every unsubstantiated bit of rubbish that you post here more or less on a daily basis. You must have known that Poppy Miller is a rubbish source so didn't mention it for that reason. You're a great one to talk about common sense and half a brain!
There you go again------" rubbish ". Do you get a kick out of belittling people ? Does it make you feel superior ?
Poppy is an EXCELLENT source of information------can't say the same about you !! Now,how does it feel to look a duffer ?
-
Erm,what's good about finding something that's been in the public domain for nearly 2 years,that the BLINKERED ones WON'T bother to look for because of the stance they've taken ? The only way that it's come to light is EVERYONE'S belief that I'd been " making things up " and in turn, chose to take pops at me instead of bothering to find out for themselves.
However,bravo to Mat for having the common sense to seek to verify it instead of Caroline's repeated " uncorroborated evidence " .
I realise that when there is only half a brain working ( guilty ) that your focus is only one-sided too !!
we are all here to learn and give opinions
-
Regardless if true or not it does not exonerate Jeremy or incriminate him, Its the theory that EP accidently set off the rife while removing it from her body inflicting a second shot on her already dead body and that's its just another blunder they don't want us to know about.
With the track record of police incompetence in this case it would not surprise me if it was true, but I am 99.9% certain its not true for several seasons
who the heck is poppy some sort of clairvouint.why believe her
-
Can you state what those reasons are? We know the police were responsible for staging Sheila's body in the right photograph. You can see that the police moved the body by about six inches. The bible has also been moved.
Who's to say that both photographs don't show Sheila's body as it was staged by the police?
Given they were messing around like that, accidentally shooting Sheila when she was already dead is a realistic possibility.
hi harry nice to have you views on the forum.welcome
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
-
hi harry nice to have you on the forum.welcome
-
After your post to me on 'common sense' and 'half a brain' I'd think twice before playing the victim. All you had to do was state where you read about the divorce but your knew it wasn't a good enough source - even when Hartley asked you out right if that was the source. If you don't check out your information or post the reference, then don't blame other people for YOUR lack of thoroughness!!
-
Can you state what those reasons are. We know the police were responsible for staging Sheila's body in the right photograph. You can see that the police moved the body by about six inches.
Who's to say that both photographs don't show Sheila's body as it was staged by the police?
Given they were messing around like that, accidentally shooting Sheila when she was already dead is a realistic possibility.
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
According to the description given in the Telegraph,Sheila's hand had been " curled " around the barrel ?
When one has been dead for several hours,the extremities ( fingers and toes ) are the first to go into RM,along with the neck/chin/eyelids and discolouration begins in minutes.
If Sheila had been dead for some time,it would have been difficult to have unfurled her fingers from around the rifle,that they'd have been left in a " claw-like " position.
This isn't evident on the pics which means that she hadn't been dead above 2/3 hours for those involved to have left her in the position that we see. I bet she was even still warm if they'd have tested her belly.
-
Can you state what those reasons are? We know the police were responsible for staging Sheila's body in the right photograph. You can see that the police moved the body by about six inches. The bible has also been moved.
Who's to say that both photographs don't show Sheila's body as it was staged by the police?
Given they were messing around like that, accidentally shooting Sheila when she was already dead is a realistic possibility.
The pictures are simply from a different angle! Why would the police move her body or the bible six inches?
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
-
According to the description given in the Telegraph,Sheila's hand had been " curled " around the barrel ?
When one has been dead for several hours,the extremities ( fingers and toes ) are the first to go into RM,along with the neck/chin/eyelids and discolouration begins in minutes.
If Sheila had been dead for some time,it would have been difficult to have unfurled her fingers from around the rifle,that they'd have been left in a " claw-like " position.
This isn't evident on the pics which means that she hadn't been dead above 2/3 hours for those involved to have left her in the position that we see. I bet she was even still warm if they'd have tested her belly.
which hand .as we look at the photo
-
After your post to me on 'common sense' and 'half a brain' I'd think twice before playing the victim. All you had to do was state where you read about the divorce but your knew it wasn't a good enough source - even when Hartley asked you out right if that was the source. If you don't check out your information or post the reference, then don't blame other people for YOUR lack of thoroughness!!
My reason for not having stated where the info came from is because if I had have done,I'd have had ALL SIX of you down on me like a ton of bricks as per usual if I happen to come across anything " new " !! As it happened,you lot still enjoyed your spite-filled remarks,so I can't bloody well win whatever I post.
I see you've TWISTED your posts to make ME look the " victim ". I DON'T DO " victims " so therefore don't look upon myself as one, which is a ridiculous notion on your part.
-
My reason for not having stated where the info came from is because if I had have done,I'd have had ALL SIX of you down on me like a ton of bricks as per usual if I happen to come across anything " new " !! As it happened,you lot still enjoyed your spite-filled remarks,so I can't bloody well win whatever I post.
I see you've TWISTED your posts to make ME look the " victim ". I DON'T DO " victims " so therefore don't look upon myself as one, which is a ridiculous notion on your part.
And I don't 'do' looking for other people's references that they can't be bothered to post or which are kown to be unreliable but post anyway.
-
My reason for not having stated where the info came from is because if I had have done,I'd have had ALL SIX of you down on me like a ton of bricks as per usual if I happen to come across anything " new " !! As it happened,you lot still enjoyed your spite-filled remarks,so I can't bloody well win whatever I post.
I see you've TWISTED your posts to make ME look the " victim ". I DON'T DO " victims " so therefore don't look upon myself as one, which is a ridiculous notion on your part.
I think if you simply said something along the lines of:
Hi guys, I've just read about this on Poppy's blog, does anybody know if there is any truth behind it?
Rather than making out that you were in possession of some sort of privileged secret information. That is how it came across, whether intentional or not. :-\
-
And I don't 'do' looking for other people's references that they can't be bothered to post or which are kown to be unreliable but post anyway.
Does that also include me passing remarks to your unreliable posts as well ? Because if you continue calling my posts rubbish, etc, then I will certainly reciprocate !! One liners like sami does as he seems to be better thought of ::) Unless that's just because he votes guilty of course !
-
Does that also include me passing remarks to your unreliable posts as well ? Because if you continue calling my posts rubbish, etc, then I will certainly reciprocate !! One liners like sami does as he seems to be better thought of ::) Unless that's just because he votes guilty of course !
dont kid yourself you give as good as you get ,including insults.and sometimes for nothing
-
Does that also include me passing remarks to your unreliable posts as well ? Because if you continue calling my posts rubbish, etc, then I will certainly reciprocate !! One liners like sami does as he seems to be better thought of ::) Unless that's just because he votes guilty of course !
Feel free - I post my sources and provide links and make it clear when they are simply my thoughts. I didn't say your posts were rubbish but you state things are facts when they are not.
-
I think if you simply said something along the lines of:
Hi guys, I've just read about this on Poppy's blog, does anybody know if there is any truth behind it?
Rather than making out that you were in possession of some sort of privileged secret information. That is how it came across, whether intentional or not. :-\
Hartley it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference how I'd worded it or even what I presently post because I get nothing but hostility in return,so what's the use ?
If this were a forum of people willing to accept an opposing view,then my posts would be in accordance with their opposition,but until then,I'll post as I'm posted to in this ridiculous tit for tat fashion.
-
Hartley it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference how I'd worded it or even what I presently post because I get nothing but hostility in return,so what's the use ?
If this were a forum of people willing to accept an opposing view,then my posts would be in accordance with their opposition,but until then,I'll post as I'm posted to in this ridiculous tit for tat fashion.
Of course it would have made a difference, instead, you claimed it was factual (and that you KNEW it to be so) and wouldn't say where you go it from. Hartley even asked you out right if it was from the Poppy site and you refused to answer.
-
I think if you simply said something along the lines of:
Hi guys, I've just read about this on Poppy's blog, does anybody know if there is any truth behind it?
Rather than making out that you were in possession of some sort of privileged secret information. That is how it came across, whether intentional or not. :-\
That is how it came across to me to and then Lookout dug her heels in when you asked her if it was from the Poppy site. I didn't even bother to look at that point because it was clearly unsubstantiated gossip.
-
Of course it would have made a difference, instead, you claimed it was factual (and that you KNEW it to be so) and wouldn't say where you go it from. Hartley even asked you out right if it was from the Poppy site and you refused to answer.
I DO know it to be true !! I DID NOT see Hartley's post asking me if it was Poppy.
-
Hartley it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference how I'd worded it or even what I presently post because I get nothing but hostility in return,so what's the use ?
If this were a forum of people willing to accept an opposing view,then my posts would be in accordance with their opposition,but until then,I'll post as I'm posted to in this ridiculous tit for tat fashion.
How do you KNOW that "it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference"? Perhaps if we knew what the source was, we'd direct any disbelief to it and you may not take it as personal.
-
I DO know it to be true !! I DID NOT see Hartley's post asking me if it was Poppy.
Well, you at least know it to be what Poppy SAID was true.
-
I DO know it to be true !! I DID NOT see Hartley's post asking me if it was Poppy.
So, when you find out it's not, you'll ADMIT to being wrong?
-
See------you still dispute it. Ah well,where ignorance is bliss and all that. It would be a sheer waste of time if you were told anything face to face,you'd still argue that it wasn't true. I've known you to dispute what's been legally written,you've even poo-pooed that.
-
See------you still dispute it. Ah well,where ignorance is bliss and all that. It would be a sheer waste of time if you were told anything face to face,you'd still argue that it wasn't true. I've known you to dispute what's been legally written,you've even poo-pooed that.
Yet YOU are proclaiming to be true, something which has no basis in legality.
-
Yet YOU are proclaiming to be true, something which has no basis in legality.
I'm not arguing with you any more,either ask Poppy YOURSELF or ask Jeremy.
-
So, when you find out it's not, you'll ADMIT to being wrong?
pigs will fly before she admits anything,caroline :)) :)) ;)
-
See------you still dispute it. Ah well,where ignorance is bliss and all that. It would be a sheer waste of time if you were told anything face to face,you'd still argue that it wasn't true. I've known you to dispute what's been legally written,you've even poo-pooed that.
I think it is disputed even stronger now that the "source" of the information has been found. Poppys blog is where you also claimed that you'd read about two COLP reports, one secret ....(so secret that Poppy has apparently seen it). I don't think members here on either side believe Poppy reliable - she makes wild claims and then doesn't post anything to back them up.
pigs will fly before she admits anything,caroline :)) :)) ;)
If it were found not to be true, Lookout would put the blame on Poppy. "Well I read it on her site! Ask her!" :o
-
pigs will fly before she admits anything,caroline :)) :)) ;)
Things like that don't happen with the truth ! On the pop again,are we ??
-
I think it is disputed even stronger now that the "source" of the information has been found. Poppys blog is where you also claimed that you'd read about two COLP reports, one secret ....(so secret that Poppy has apparently seen it). I don't think members here on either side believe Poppy reliable - she makes wild claims and then doesn't post anything to back them up.
If it were found not to be true, Lookout would put the blame on Poppy. "Well I read it on her site! Ask her!" :o
:)) :)) :)) :))
-
Christ,you'll have sami over-excited with all HIS support.
-
I'm not arguing with you any more,either ask Poppy YOURSELF or ask Jeremy.
I wonder how Jeremy would know what was going on in Julie's life. I wonder how Jeremy's loyal and bosom friend Poppy got to be such a good friend of Julie's husband that he'd reveal intimate details to her of any marital problems they may have been having.
-
I wonder how Jeremy would know what was going on in Julie's life. I wonder how Jeremy's loyal and bosom friend Poppy got to be such a good friend of Julie's husband that he'd reveal intimate details to her of any marital problems they may have been having.
Chinese whispers I'd guess, Jane. Or likely Poppy read on this forum or heard about what was previously claimed regarding Julie's marriage and has added her own little spin on it.
-
Or e-mail Mark on Bambertweets.
-
Christ,you'll have sami over-excited with all HIS support.
theres very little excitement in my life, lookout .being on here is about it for me.
-
Chinese whispers I'd guess, Jane. Or likely Poppy read on this forum or heard about what was previously claimed regarding Julie's marriage and has added her own little spin on it.
oh she stirs the pot well,mat ;)
-
oh she stirs the pot well,mat ;)
"Hubble, bubble. Toil and trouble.................."
-
"Hubble, bubble. Toil and trouble.................."
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) ;)
-
I won't tell you again,either e-mail Poppy or Mark,or are you scared of the outcome ??
-
I've given you the sources of info,now it's down to you to check them out,isn't it ? I can't do any more.
Not that it'll make any difference to your train of thought.I'm not expecting it to,but at least hear us out.
-
I wonder how Jeremy would know what was going on in Julie's life. I wonder how Jeremy's loyal and bosom friend Poppy got to be such a good friend of Julie's husband that he'd reveal intimate details to her of any marital problems they may have been having.
Strange but wasn't she the one who reported Barbara Wilson's death?
-
theres very little excitement in my life, lookout .being on here is about it for me.
Sami it can't possibly be more boring than mine..
-
Strange but wasn't she the one who reported Barbara Wilson's death?
It wouldn't surprise me.
-
I wonder how Jeremy would know what was going on in Julie's life. I wonder how Jeremy's loyal and bosom friend Poppy got to be such a good friend of Julie's husband that he'd reveal intimate details to her of any marital problems they may have been having.
Easy - he wouldn't, she didn't and he wouldn't be that stupid.
-
Steve,you're own fault for turning down my offer of tea and crumpets,from my best china with the hand-painted periwinkles. :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Strange but wasn't she the one who reported Barbara Wilson's death?
I think I saw it in her review of Carol Ann Lee's book on Amazon.
Is there any evidence Barbara Wilson has died? I dont think there is.
-
Steve,you're own fault for turning down my offer of tea and crumpets,from my best china with the hand-painted periwinkles. :)) :)) :)) :))
People do seem to get stuck in a rut, and a victim of their own success or failure as the case may be.
-
People do seem to get stuck in a rut, and a victim of their own success or failure as the case may be.
I do agree,and the older you get the worse it gets, if you allow it to,that is. Though age shouldn't be the barrier to whatever you have in mind to lift you out of the chasm.
-
was jb;s old room at whf locked when police entered that morning.anyone,please
-
was jb;s old room at whf locked when police entered that morning.anyone,please
I think that is true, but would need to check to be 100%.
It is, from memory, described in one of the raid teams statements.
-
I think that is true, but would need to check to be 100%.
It is, from memory, described in one of the raid teams statements.
yes i thought i read it in the raid teams statement but cant remember.it would be odd if it was lock as i suspect it was.
-
yes i thought i read it in the raid teams statement but cant remember.it would be odd if it was lock as i suspect it was.
I also recall reading that he still had a bed there , made up and he used to stay on occasion.
Again I'd need to double check for the source of that information.
Why do you ask?
-
I also recall reading that he still had a bed there , made up and he used to stay on occasion.
Again I'd need to double check for the source of that information.
Why do you ask?
its just an opinion i share with caroline whoe's theory it was that jb stayed at whf night of the murders.drove home at 10pm and returned straight away on the bike and stayed the night
-
Can you state what those reasons are? We know the police were responsible for staging Sheila's body in the right photograph. You can see that the police moved the body by about six inches. The bible has also been moved.
Who's to say that both photographs don't show Sheila's body as it was staged by the police?
Given they were messing around like that, accidentally shooting Sheila when she was already dead is a realistic possibility.
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
Harry if I agree with you I have to ignore Dr Vanezis' pathological evidence and the evidence of police surgeon Dr Craig.
Dr Vanezis said the two gunshot wounds to Sheila were fired within seconds.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168
Dr Craig said all victims, including Sheila, could have died at anytime during the previous night. (Point 38 from 2002 appeal).
I hope you will not be disappointed to learn that unless experts provide new testimony I am happy to rely on the evidence of the two doctors.
-
Harry if I agree with you I have to ignore Dr Vanezis' pathological evidence and the evidence of police surgeon Dr Craig.
Dr Vanezis said the two gunshot wounds to Sheila were fired within seconds.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168
Dr Craig said all victims, including Sheila, could have died at anytime during the previous night. (Point 38 from 2002 appeal).
I hope you will not be disappointed to learn that unless experts provide new testimony I am happy to rely on the evidence of the two doctors.
But he goes on to say that the wounds may or may not have been inflicted by her own hands. Did Jeremy regard Craig as a soft touch, claiming to him that she had been abusing her children(Point 39)? http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
But he goes on to say that the wounds may or may not have been inflicted by her own hands. Did Jeremy regard Craig as a soft touch, claiming to him that she had been abusing her children(Point 39)? http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I don't see the relevance of your post to mine or the post I was responding to?
There's no evidence Sheila shot herself much latter than the other victims or the police shot Sheila.
Is it that difficult for people to take on board a couple of simple facts? The facts are that Dr Craig said all victims died the previous night. And Dr Vanezis said Sheila's two wounds happened within a few seconds of each other. This expert testimony rules out theories like Sheila seen in the kitchen and the police shooting Sheila. If someone like me can take it on board surely it can't be that difficult ;)
-
I don't see the relevance of your post to mine or the post I was responding to?
There's no evidence Sheila shot herself much latter than the other victims or the police shot Sheila.
Is it that difficult for people to take on board a couple of simple facts? The facts are that Dr Craig said all victims died the previous night. And Dr Vanezis said Sheila's two wounds happened within a few seconds of each other. This expert testimony rules out theories like Sheila seen in the kitchen and the police shooting Sheila. If someone like me can take it on board surely it can't be that difficult ;)
Yes sorry I put the wrong bit in bold.
-
But he goes on to say that the wounds may or may not have been inflicted by her own hands. Did Jeremy regard Craig as a soft touch, claiming to him that she had been abusing her children(Point 39)? http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Dr Craig said he thought Sheila had taken her own life but when answering a question put to him by the judge he made it clear it was not an opinion the jury should rely on.
Is there any evidence Dr Craig was a "soft touch". He had 30 years experience as police surgeon.
Read Colin's letter intended for Nevill and draw your own conclusions about Sheila's ability to care for the twins. What was the definition of "abusing"? Physical, mental, emotional, neglect?
-
Dr Craig said he thought SC had taken her own life but when answering a question put to him by the judge he made it clear it was not an opinion the jury should rely on.
Is there any evidence Dr Craig was a "soft touch". He had 30 years experience as police surgeon.
Read Colin's letter intended for Nevill and draw your own conclusions about Sheila's ability to care for the twins. What was the definition of "abusing"? Physical, mental, emotional, neglect?
It's possible that her illness caused her to be neglectful and if she'd suffered any sort of abuse she'd have been likely to have passed it on as it would have been her frame of reference.
-
Yes sorry I put the wrong bit in bold.
You really must try and concentrate. C-
;)
-
But he goes on to say that the wounds may or may not have been inflicted by her own hands. Did Jeremy regard Craig as a soft touch, claiming to him that she had been abusing her children(Point 39)? http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Dr Craig did also say it would be extraordinary for someone to have murdered her
-
Dr Craig did also say it would be extraordinary for someone to have murdered her
And how do you interpret "extraordinary"?
-
Dr Craig did also say it would be extraordinary for someone to have murdered her
Was it Dr Craig who said that or Dr Vanezis?
-
Dr Craig did also say it would be extraordinary for someone to have murdered her
He also described the blood from Sheila's mouth as 'dried' - this was at 08:44 so claims that the picture of Sheila showing the dried cracked blood - was taken later, are rubbish. This also means that blood could NOT have been flowing from her mouth.
-
Harry if I agree with you I have to ignore Dr Vanezis' pathological evidence and the evidence of police surgeon Dr Craig.
Dr Vanezis said the two gunshot wounds to Sheila were fired within seconds.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168
Dr Craig said all victims, including Sheila, could have died at anytime during the previous night. (Point 38 from 2002 appeal).
I hope you will not be disappointed to learn that unless experts provide new testimony I am happy to rely on the evidence of the two doctors.
So you believe Sheila shot herself twice at around 03.30 after killing the others?
In some cases experts disagree. The prosecution have an expert who says one thing and the defense have an expert who calls his opinion into question. Peter Vanezis changed his evidence to help the prosecution. The defence have never sought the opinion of another expert to challenge Vanezis opinions. With Vanezis it's not his competence, but his honesty which in in question. It's worth taking a look at this.
In his report of September 30 1985 page 06 Vanezis goes into some detail in describing how the fractures to Nevill's skull were caused by gunshots. Here is what he says:
Gunshot Wounds.
1 Entry wound on the right side side of the head just in front of the right ear measuring 3/16
2 Entry wound above previous wound also measuring 3/16
The track of the above two rounds was through the temporal bone
causing two punctured holes in the skull with associated linear
fractures radiating to the top ot the skull in the frontal bones
as far as thu saggital suture as well as across the right orbital
plate and frontal bone. The track of both wounds continued through
the brain causing disruptive injury principally to both temporal
lobes, right parietul lobe and midbrain structures. One of the
bullets then caused everted fractures to the left parietal bone
with the bullet embedded in the fracture site. The other bullet
had exited just behind the left ear causing a fracture in the
temporal bone and a small exit laceration. The bullet was found
embedded in the laceration.
3 Entry wound in the right parietel region measuring 1/2 inch.
4 Entry wound 1/2 inch posterior to wound also measuring 1/2 inch
The track of the above two wounds was in a downward direction from the deceased's right
to left side. The bullets had initially caused two punctured fractures to the right parietal bone which merged into each other. These fractures were also associated with radiations in three directions.
The brain was severely disrupted and bullet fragments were also seen. The base of the skull was severely fractured.
But in his report of May 07 1986 page 03 he seems to contradict everything he said on the matter in September 30 1985.
In my view none of the fractures to the skull were associated with gunshot injuries. The bruising to both eyes in my view could not be associated solely with fractures to the skull but in my view could also have been caused by blows by a blunt object or objects in the vicinity.
The latter looks like a blatant lie.
On a different issue, has it not occurred to anyone that Vanezis could have chosen to ignore time of death issues realising that they are a weak point in the prosecution's case.
-
It is one of the prosecutions main arguments that Sheila could not have inflicted such damage to the skull, because being a mere woman she would not have had the strength to inflict such damage. But if the fractures were caused by gun shots it's a different matter, even allowing for sexism. It looks like Vanezis was trying to help.
-
That's interesting Harry. Two shots made in a " downward " position. Meaning : That Neville would have been on the floor ( on his knees ?) with the shooter standing over him-------so it had to be a pretty tall person ( Sheila ) to accommodate the length of the rifle as well. Nobody argues with a shooter.!
It wouldn't be the first time that a pathologist has been in cahoots with the police ! Ian Tomlinson's case was testament to that.
-
So you believe Sheila shot herself twice at around 03.30 after killing the others?
In some cases experts disagree. The prosecution have an expert who says one thing and the defense have an expert who calls his opinion into question. Peter Vanezis changed his evidence to help the prosecution. The defence have never sought the opinion of another expert to challenge Vanezis opinions. With Vanezis it's not his competence, but his honesty which in in question. It's worth taking a look at this.
In his report of September 30 1985 page 06 Vanezis goes into some detail in describing how the fractures to Nevill's skull were caused by gunshots. Here is what he says:
But in his report of May 07 1986 page 03 he seems to contradict everything he said on the matter in September 30 1985.
The latter looks like a blatant lie.
On a different issue, has it not occurred to anyone that Vanezis could have chosen to ignore time of death issues realising that they are a weak point in the prosecution's case.
Yes I believe Sheila shot herself twice around 3.30 as that is what all the evidence suggests to me.
I see you've highlighted the words "radiating" and "radiations" and I think therein lies the answer.
As I said yesterday the Dickinson report makes it clear a pathologist, biologist and ballistics expert should have been called to scene of crime to observe everything in-situ and work together as a team. Unfortunately for Jeremy this didn't happen. As a consequence the relatives and low ranking police officers were in a position to fill the knowledge gap and influence the direction and outcome.
Vanezis didn't give any indication of time of death. I understand this is always difficult and unreliable.
Craig certified the deaths around 8.30am. He said the deaths could have happened any time the previous night. The body goes through various stages after death. If Sheila died significantly later than the other victims, say around 7.30am as opposed to 3.30am, then surely it would be obvious?
It is clear Sheila didn't move after the first gunshot due to the lack of blood staining to her nightie. Coupled with Vanezis' evidence regarding the haemorrhaging showing the two gunshot wounds happened within a few seconds.
-
It is one of the prosecutions main arguments that Sheila could not have inflicted such damage to the skull, because being a mere woman she would not have had the strength to inflict such damage. But if the fractures were caused by gun shots it's a different matter, even allowing for sexism. It looks like Vanezis was trying to help.
The main argument is the blood flake and silencer which as it stands is very compelling against Jeremy.
Vanezis did not have difficulty with Sheila causing Nevill's injuries:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1191.0;attach=6170
Cook said similar based on the fact Nevill lost the use of one of his arms.
There are plenty of cases where women have murdered men. One example that springs to mind is Tracie Andrews who stabbed her boyfriend Lee Harvey multiple times.
I'm only a dress size 10, sometimes edging nearer 12 in the winter when I'm off the salads, but I often hump bales of hay about with the horses.
But yes you will get all the sexist stuff amongst 1980's male dominated police and judiciary. The only women around were typists and cleaners most of whom were mere objects for their sexual fantasies ::)
-
The main argument is the blood flake and silencer which as it stands is very compelling against Jeremy.
Vanezis did not have difficulty with Sheila causing Nevill's injuries:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1191.0;attach=6170
Cook said similar based on the fact Nevill lost the use of one of his arms.
There are plenty of cases where women have murdered men. One example that springs to mind is Tracie Andrews who stabbed her boyfriend Lee Harvey multiple times.
I'm only a dress size 10, sometimes edging nearer 12 in the winter when I'm off the salads, but I often hump bales of hay about with the horses.
But yes you will get all the sexist stuff amongst 1980's male dominated police and judiciary. The only women around were typists and cleaners most of whom were mere objects for their sexual fantasies ::)
During the exact same year as WHF murders a Schizophrenic women went on a gun rampage in a shopping centre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist)
-
During the exact same year as WHF murders a Schizophrenic women went on a gun rampage in a shopping centre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist)
I just had a quick look at this case. It seems Sylvia Seergrist was a bit of a tomboy and boyish in appearance. The opposite of Sheila. Peoples perceptions and prejudices count for a lot. I think with Sheila people struggled to perceive a slim attractive woman who took care of her appearance, was on the shy side and from a middle class background wielding a rifle. No such problem with the "cuckoo" son who was a bit flash and cocky. I come back to the Dickinson report and the lack of experts at the scene. Then you get prejudices and perceptions taking over.
-
During the exact same year as WHF murders a Schizophrenic women went on a gun rampage in a shopping centre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist)
Hi David agree with the sentiment that mentally ill people should be treated in a secure mental hospital and not in prison.
I cannot understand the logic behind putting any kind of blame onto someone who has been diagnosed as mentally ill, it's like demanding that a prisoner with only one leg has to run a marathon every day and is inhumane imo.
-
I'm forever sending e-mails to the government regarding the appalling treatment,or non-treatment of the mentally ill. There have been some disgusting cases involving young people being sent miles away from their families,to some far-flung place where the youngsters are scared to death. Being apart from families is bad enough but added to their illnesses is the thought that their families can't always travel the distance to see them.
-
Hi David agree with the sentiment that mentally ill people should be treated in a secure mental hospital and not in prison.
I cannot understand the logic behind putting any kind of blame onto someone who has been diagnosed as mentally ill, it's like demanding that a prisoner with only one leg has to run a marathon every day and is inhumane imo.
Being mentally ill does not mean they are not responsible for their actions. Usually a mental illness will mean a lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder.
-
Being mentally ill does not mean they are not responsible for their actions. Usually a mental illness will mean a lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder.
It depends on the situation but I cannot see how a paranoid schizophrenic who kills in a psychotic state can be held responsible for their actions.
I think attitudes to mental health in this country and most others are inhumane and appalling.
-
It depends on the situation but I cannot see how a paranoid schizophrenic who kills in a psychotic state can be held responsible for their actions.
I think attitudes to mental health in this country and most others are inhumane and appalling.
It depends on the situation. If there is evidence of motive and pre mediation then schizophrenia is not much of a defence.
-
It depends on the situation. If there is evidence of motive and pre mediation then schizophrenia is not much of a defence.
Says the law but I believe the law is far too harsh when dealing with mental illness, which is a disease of the brain.
Its no wonder the general public are so frightened of mental illness when the law treats such people so badly.
-
Says the law but I believe the law is far too harsh when dealing with mental illness, which is a disease of the brain.
Its no wonder the general public are so frightened of mental illness when the law treats such people so badly.
The vast majority of schizophrenics are not murderers so if a schizophrenic commits murder schizophrenia alone is no excuse
-
Yes I believe Sheila shot herself twice around 3.30 as that is what all the evidence suggests to me.
I see you've highlighted the words "radiating" and "radiations" and I think therein lies the answer.
As I said yesterday the Dickinson report makes it clear a pathologist, biologist and ballistics expert should have been called to scene of crime to observe everything in-situ and work together as a team. Unfortunately for Jeremy this didn't happen. As a consequence the relatives and low ranking police officers were in a position to fill the knowledge gap and influence the direction and outcome.
Vanezis didn't give any indication of time of death. I understand this is always difficult and unreliable.
Craig certified the deaths around 8.30am. He said the deaths could have happened any time the previous night. The body goes through various stages after death. If Sheila died significantly later than the other victims, say around 7.30am as opposed to 3.30am, then surely it would be obvious?
It is clear Sheila didn't move after the first gunshot due to the lack of blood staining to her nightie. Coupled with Vanezis' evidence regarding the haemorrhaging showing the two gunshot wounds happened within a few seconds.
I am also of this view. How on earth within this framework can you manage to fit the bashing of Nevill, the struggle in the kitchen for control of the gun, the physical contact with her mother, the cut off telephone call, all leaving the culprit in a peaceful and serene condition..
-
I am also of this view. How on earth within this framework can you manage to fit the bashing of Nevill, the struggle in the kitchen for control of the gun, the physical contact with her mother, the cut off telephone call, all leaving the culprit in a peaceful and serene condition..
Because it clearly didn't happen that way. Jeremy could have had quite a lot of blood on him when he left, he had time to clean up. Sheila didn't fight with anyone - that's obvious! Craig also said that the blood around her mouth was dried - he saw he at 08:40 - before she was even photographed.
-
Because it clearly didn't happen that way. Jeremy could have had quite a lot of blood on him when he left, he had time to clean up. Sheila didn't fight with anyone - that's obvious! Craig also said that the blood around her mouth was dried - he saw he at 08:40 - before she was even photographed.
correct.sheila was not ;) involved in any fight
-
I am also of this view. How on earth within this framework can you manage to fit the bashing of Nevill, the struggle in the kitchen for control of the gun, the physical contact with her mother, the cut off telephone call, all leaving the culprit in a peaceful and serene condition..
It's clear Nevill was dead, or nearly dead, when he was hit with whatever, probably the rifle. I don't think there was any "struggle" in the kitchen as Nevill was to badly injured. I've not heard of pysical contact with June? Don't believe this. Was the telephone call cut? I think Nevill just left the receiver on the top.
Exactly. If Jeremy wanted to Kill Sheila against her will she would obviously resist and would not have looked "peaceful and serene".
-
Because it clearly didn't happen that way. Jeremy could have had quite a lot of blood on him when he left, he had time to clean up. Sheila didn't fight with anyone - that's obvious! Craig also said that the blood around her mouth was dried - he saw he at 08:40 - before she was even photographed.
Nevill, June and the twins were first shot at distance although no more than a feet or so. This changes blood pressure so blood will not spurt out of later gunshots or injuries from beating with rifle or even stabbing. Even I know this ::)
-
It's clear Nevill was dead, or nearly dead, when he was hit with whatever, probably the rifle. I don't think there was any "struggle" in the kitchen as Nevill was to badly injured. I've not heard of pysical contact with June? Don't believe this. Was the telephone call cut? I think Nevill just left the receiver on the top.
Exactly. If Jeremy wanted to Kill Sheila against her will she would obviously resist and would not have looked "peaceful and serene".
But there was no blood on the telephone, and it's just beyond credibility that the murders happened that way. Everything that we know of Sheila that past week(vacant stare at the party, silent in the car on the journey to the White House, quiet and withdrawn in the shop in Tiptree, exhausted on the telephone to Auntie Pam) shows her mental condition and it is quite conceivable that she was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter..
-
Nevill, June and the twins were first shot at distance although no more than a feet or so. This changes blood pressure so blood will not spurt out of later gunshots or injuries from beating with rifle or even stabbing. Even I know this ::)
..and no random shots which missed, from a woman in the grips of a psychosis.
-
Nevill, June and the twins were first shot at distance although no more than a feet or so. This changes blood pressure so blood will not spurt out of later gunshots or injuries from beating with rifle or even stabbing. Even I know this ::)
Well perhaps you should have thought about how the impact of the rifle on the poor man's skull would cause blood spatter.
-
Well perhaps you should have thought about how the impact of the rifle on the poor man's skull would cause blood spatter.
Blood on Jeremy's clothing in the closet at Bourtree Cottage might have wound this case up thirty years ago.
-
But there was no blood on the telephone, and it's just beyond credibility that the murders happened that way. Everything that we know of Sheila that past week(vacant stare at the party, silent in the car on the journey to the White House, quiet and withdrawn in the shop in Tiptree, exhausted on the telephone to Auntie Pam) shows her mental condition and it is quite conceivable that she was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter..
Why would there be blood on the phone?
Being quite and withdrawn is one thing. Being "led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter.." is quite different.
-
Why would there be blood on the phone?
Being quite and withdrawn is one thing. Being "led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter.." is quite different.
The Jeremy supporters want it all ways so much the story becomes a gross distortion of what took place that August morning. It is incredible that there is a purported telephone call from Nevill which has to happen before he is injured and impossible for Sheila to have accomplished all that was ascribed to her. So what if there's blood on Sheila's feet anyway: she was walking to her death on a bloodied carpet all of her brother's making.
-
..and no random shots which missed, from a woman in the grips of a psychosis.
Difficult to miss when the targets were mostly still and within two or three foot away.
How do you know she was "a woman in the grips of psychoses"? Just because she was sometimes psychoses doesn't mean she was always psychoses. Maybe she was just depressed or very angry and not psychoses.
Here's a man that wasn't psychoses. He was just very angry. He killed his wife, two children and the two pet dogs :'(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327536/Life-for-father-who-killed-wife-and-children.html
Steve there's lots online about this case. The name is Philip Austin. It is said he had no mental illness just very angry.
For those that think Sheila was responsible if we say she was psychoses how would we know? Are we saying those that suffer psychoses aren't at times vary angry but without psychoses?
-
The Jeremy supporters want it all ways so much the story becomes a gross distortion of what took place that August morning. It is incredible that there is a purported telephone call from Nevill which has to happen before he is injured and impossible for Sheila to have accomplished all that was ascribed to her. So what if there's blood on Sheila's feet anyway: she was walking to her death on a bloodied carpet all of her brother's making.
If Sheila committed the murders Neville rang before he was shot, its that's simple and perfectly plausible. What is interesting that during Nevill's alleged phone call to Jeremy he mentions Sheila having the gun not that she had shot anyone.
This actually corroborates the crime scene. And in my opinion Jeremy is not at all smart enough to be that forensically aware to orchestrate such detail. If he is guilty its just another thing that's happened to fall in place in his favour, if he did think of it he would have mentioned it :-\
-
It was June who was doing the walking around dripping blood all around where Sheila lay,then at the window,where she was possibly seen as " the trick of the light ".
Was June the last person to die ? I'm beginning to think so.
-
Well perhaps you should have thought about how the impact of the rifle on the poor man's skull would cause blood spatter.
As I said there wouldn't be any spurting because of Nevills first injuries and the changes in the body to do with blood pressure. There's no blood marks on the furniture or Aga or Walls or anywhere. If you disagree you find me please the marks in the photos.
-
The Jeremy supporters want it all ways so much the story becomes a gross distortion of what took place that August morning. It is incredible that there is a purported telephone call from Nevill which has to happen before he is injured and impossible for Sheila to have accomplished all that was ascribed to her. So what if there's blood on Sheila's feet anyway: she was walking to her death on a bloodied carpet all of her brother's making.
Those photos don't look like Sheilas feet to me. Sheila had beautiful digits.
Did Nevill and June have any blood on they're feet?
-
If Sheila committed the murders Neville rang before he was shot, its that's simple and perfectly plausible. What is interesting that during Nevill's alleged phone call to Jeremy he mentions Sheila having the gun not that she had shot anyone.
This actually corroborates the crime scene. And in my opinion Jeremy is not at all smart enough to be that forensically aware to orchestrate such detail. If he is guilty its just another thing that's happened to fall in place in his favour, if he did think of it he would have mentioned it :-\
But it was very unlikely Nevill would telephone his son to assuage the situation. He was a businessman and used to dealing with matters of his own volition. It's just one more fact which doesn't ring true in the cold light of day.
-
As I said there wouldn't be any spurting because of Nevills first injuries and the changes in the body to do with blood pressure. There's no blood marks on the furniture or Aga or Walls or anywhere. If you disagree you find me please the marks in the photos.
Sorry Jackie, when did you qualify in forensic science? The pictures aren't clear enough to detect small spattering and the wounds on Nevill's head are on the opposite side to the aga. The killer couldn't fail to get some blood on himself! Now I wonder where the towels went in Jeremy's bathroom? ::)
-
If Sheila committed the murders Neville rang before he was shot, its that's simple and perfectly plausible. What is interesting that during Nevill's alleged phone call to Jeremy he mentions Sheila having the gun not that she had shot anyone.
This actually corroborates the crime scene. And in my opinion Jeremy is not at all smart enough to be that forensically aware to orchestrate such detail. If he is guilty its just another thing that's happened to fall in place in his favour, if he did think of it he would have mentioned it :-\
I think you're being kind saying Jeremy is not forensically aware. I call a spade a spade and I would say he's on the fick side.
-
Had Nevill ever telephoned any of his children ever in his life? He was a self-made man, remote from his children who sent Sheila off mid-term to Moira House and thought the cadet force at Gresham's might toughen up his son. Yet unbeknownst to himself he had become psychologically pained by the death of his sister Diana and imprisoned in a time warp existence as he flicked through past theatre programmes, which reminded him of a happier bygone era. True he was aware of external appearances which kept his wife's illness secret and Sheila and Jeremy cloistered from the outside world for so long, but he was the boss, the paterfamilias who prided himself on his autonomy and self-reliance. He would have dealt with Sheila that night face to face, gun or no gun.
-
If Sheila committed the murders Neville rang before he was shot, its that's simple and perfectly plausible. What is interesting that during Nevill's alleged phone call to Jeremy he mentions Sheila having the gun not that she had shot anyone.
This actually corroborates the crime scene. And in my opinion Jeremy is not at all smart enough to be that forensically aware to orchestrate such detail. If he is guilty its just another thing that's happened to fall in place in his favour, if he did think of it he would have mentioned it :-\
Well it would do, given that he told the story and staged the scene to fit it! ::) ::)
-
Sorry Jackie, when did you qualify in forensic science? The pictures aren't clear enough to detect small spattering and the wounds on Nevill's head are on the opposite side to the aga. The killer couldn't fail to get some blood on himself! Now I wonder where the towels went in Jeremy's bathroom? ::)
I'm no more qualified in science forensic than you are to say Jeremy is a psychopathic. As you say it's just an OPINION capitals for mphasis. ::)
The police noticed two weeny spots of blood on the landing. Why wouldn't they notice weeny spots on the agar, walls, furniture, floor, ceiling, etc. Why would blood only go on Jeremy? Jeremy attracted girls like a magnet not blood ::)
If Jeremy still had wet blood on him when he got home that got on his towels why didn't he leave any on the window when he climbed out or on the bike?
-
I'm no more qualified in science forensic than you are to say Jeremy is a psychopathic. As you say it's just an OPINION capitals for mphasis. ::)
The police noticed two weeny spots of blood on the landing. Why wouldn't they notice weeny spots on the agar, walls, furniture, floor, ceiling, etc. Why would blood only go on Jeremy? Jeremy attracted girls like a magnet not blood ::)
If Jeremy still had wet blood on him when he got home that got on his towels why didn't he leave any on the window when he climbed out or on the bike?
Because there is a difference in weeny and spatter - it can be almost invisible but as they thought the killer was Sheila, I guess they weren't too particular.
By the way unless you have a degree in forensic science, you're less qualified to comment on forensics, than I am to comment on psychology. ;) ;D
-
Had Nevill ever telephoned any of his children ever in his life? He was a self-made man, remote from his children who sent Sheila off mid-term to Moira House and thought the cadet force at Gresham's might toughen up his son. Yet unbeknownst to himself he had become psychologically scathed by the death of his sister Diana and imprisoned in a time warp existence as he flicked through past theatre programmes, which reminded him of a happier bygone era. True he was aware of external appearances which kept his wife's illness secret and Sheila and Jeremy cloistered from the outside world for so long, but he was the boss, the paterfamilias who prided himself on his autonomy and self-reliance. He would have dealt with Sheila that night face to face, gun or no gun.
Do you think the paterfamilias would gossip with Barbara Wilson as she claims Nevill did or do you think it was all in her mind?
-
Because there is a difference in weeny and spatter - it can be almost invisible but as they thought the killer was Sheila, I guess they weren't too particular.
By the way unless you have a degree in forensic science, you're less qualified to comment on forensics, than I am to comment on psychology. ;) ;D
You said you have a degree in psychologies. If you did this when you were late teens/early 20 and haven't practiced as a psychologists then I don't see the connection.
The weeny marks on the carpet on the landing are about same size as gun spurt you can look it up.
-
Do you think the paterfamilias would gossip with Barbara Wilson as she claims Nevill did or do you think it was all in her mind?
I think Barbara was a confidant with whom Nevill conversed at times, a counterpoint to June, whom he would not wish to burden given her psychiatric history, predicting his own death in the form of a shooting accident whilst out hunting, if gossip is what you want to call it.
-
You said you have a degree in psychologies. If you did this when you were late teens/early 20 and haven't practiced as a psychologists then I don't see the connection.
The weeny marks on the carpet on the landing are about same size as gun spurt you can look it up.
That's IF I did the degree straight from school - I didn't! But if I did - I'd be still more qualified that you ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't think your second comment is relevant. We don't know Jeremy wasn't covered in blood but we know Sheila wasn't - well only from her own wounds. Still wondering about those towels!!
-
That's IF I did the degree straight from school - I didn't! But if I did - I'd be still more qualified that you ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't think your second comment is relevant. We don't know Jeremy wasn't covered in blood but we know Sheila wasn't - well only from her own wounds. Still wondering about those towels!!
Julie said Jeremy never kept any towels in the bathroom.
-
That's IF I did the degree straight from school - I didn't! But if I did - I'd be still more qualified that you ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't think your second comment is relevant. We don't know Jeremy wasn't covered in blood but we know Sheila wasn't - well only from her own wounds. Still wondering about those towels!!
I'm surprised your contributions to Harrison's book wasn't related to your degree? Instead it was about something you're not qualified in? You know very little about me but if it makes you feel better telling me how well qualified you are please feel free...
Sheila wouldn't have spurt for the reasons I've given Jeremy didn't.
-
I'm surprised your contributions to Harrison's book wasn't related to your degree? Instead it was about something you're not qualified in? You know very little about me but if it makes you feel better telling me how well qualified you are please feel free...
Sheila wouldn't have spurt for the reasons I've given Jeremy didn't.
You're the one who brought up qualifications ::).
My contribution to the book were observations, the kind anyone could make if they were spatially aware. Oh and if they were asked!
I don't agree with your assumptions - any ideas about those towels?
-
Any bloodied garments could have been burned in the Aga.
-
Any bloodied garments could have been burned in the Aga.
Or taken home and washed - along with those pesky towels :).
-
That's interesting Harry. Two shots made in a " downward " position. Meaning : That Neville would have been on the floor ( on his knees ?) with the shooter standing over him-------so it had to be a pretty tall person ( Sheila ) to accommodate the length of the rifle as well. Nobody argues with a shooter.!
It wouldn't be the first time that a pathologist has been in cahoots with the police ! Ian Tomlinson's case was testament to that.
I admit that I suspect something of the kind happened. The police may have asked Craig to help them suppress the fact that Sheila died later than the others, to conceal some error of judgement on their part. What he said just doesn't ring true. People with medical training can normally give an opinion on time of death even if it's only an approximation.
As for Vanezis, he did not perform his autopsy on Sheila till the day after. By that time any indications of a later time of death for Sheila such as the lack of rigor mortis, as seen from how her right arm was moved by the police would have been lost.
It's notable that Vanezis has never commented on the crime scene photographs which allegedly show Sheila died later.
As for Bamber's defence, they were just not smart enough to get a second opinion on such issues from independent experts.
-
I admit that I suspect something of the kind happened. The police may have asked Craig to help them suppress the fact that Sheila died later than the others, to conceal some error of judgement on their part. What he said just doesn't ring true. People with medical training can normally give an opinion on time of death even if it's only an approximation.
As for Vanezis, he did not perform his autopsy on Sheila till the day after. By that time any indications of a later time of death for Sheila such as the lack of rigor mortis, as seen from how her right arm was moved by the police would have been lost.
It's notable that Vanezis has never commented on the crime scene photographs which allegedly show Sheila died later.
As for Bamber's defence, they were just not smart enough to get a second opinion on such issues from independent experts.
I think most people now recognize that Craig was out of his depth with five bodies to deal with.
-
You're the one who brought up qualifications ::).
My contribution to the book were observations, the kind anyone could make if they were spatially aware. Oh and if they were asked!
I don't agree with your assumptions - any ideas about those towels?
from what I have heard about PH book it seems your contributions to the book were the only observations in it.
-
from what I have heard about PH book it seems your contributions to the book were the only observations in it.
Well, you see rather than 'just take someone else's word' - proof is always in the first hand experience. I always like to SEE things for myself.
-
I admit that I suspect something of the kind happened. The police may have asked Craig to help them suppress the fact that Sheila died later than the others, to conceal some error of judgement on their part. What he said just doesn't ring true. People with medical training can normally give an opinion on time of death even if it's only an approximation.
As for Vanezis, he did not perform his autopsy on Sheila till the day after. By that time any indications of a later time of death for Sheila such as the lack of rigor mortis, as seen from how her right arm was moved by the police would have been lost.
It's notable that Vanezis has never commented on the crime scene photographs which allegedly show Sheila died later.
As for Bamber's defence, they were just not smart enough to get a second opinion on such issues from independent experts.
JB's defence were abysmal,there's no other word for it. I'm appalled to think that they didn't even put up a " fight " between any of them as they allowed the prosecution to ride roughshod over the whole case. Their input against that of the prosecution says it all. When you have a poor defence such as this was,it tends to make me feel pretty suspicious. It was a mass murder for God's sake and a man's life was hanging in the balance.
Rivlin gave up on JM because " she was too upset to continue being questioned ".What ? I'd have thought with all his years in court that he'd have seen through this nonsense.
Was it that Rivlin himself thought that JB was guilty,or what ? After all,Rivlin had " changed his hat " from being a prosecuting judge to a defence one in this case.
Then my bone of contention that the trial was held at Chelmsford and not London ?
-
JB's defence were abysmal,there's no other word for it. I'm appalled to think that they didn't even put up a " fight " between any of them as they allowed the prosecution to ride roughshod over the whole case. Their input against that of the prosecution says it all. When you have a poor defence such as this was,it tends to make me feel pretty suspicious. It was a mass murder for God's sake and a man's life was hanging in the balance.
Rivlin gave up on JM because " she was too upset to continue being questioned ".What ? I'd have thought with all his years in court that he'd have seen through this nonsense.
Was it that Rivlin himself thought that JB was guilty,or what ? After all,Rivlin had " changed his hat " from being a prosecuting judge to a defence one in this case.
Then my bone of contention that the trial was held at Chelmsford and not London ?
Perhaps their heart just wasn't in it because even they thought he was guilty.
-
Perhaps their heart just wasn't in it because even they thought he was guilty.
That is NOT the point. Blimey,their demands for payment should also reflect upon that which they contribute in their defence. They didn't exactly earn it.
-
JB's defence were abysmal,there's no other word for it. I'm appalled to think that they didn't even put up a " fight " between any of them as they allowed the prosecution to ride roughshod over the whole case. Their input against that of the prosecution says it all. When you have a poor defence such as this was,it tends to make me feel pretty suspicious. It was a mass murder for God's sake and a man's life was hanging in the balance.
Rivlin gave up on JM because " she was too upset to continue being questioned ".What ? I'd have thought with all his years in court that he'd have seen through this nonsense.
Was it that Rivlin himself thought that JB was guilty,or what ? After all,Rivlin had " changed his hat " from being a prosecuting judge to a defence one in this case.
Then my bone of contention that the trial was held at Chelmsford and not London ?
Lookout I accept that Julie was difficult to cross-examine because of her emotional state, whether feigned or not, but what questions would you have liked Rivlin to ask that he failed to?
-
That is NOT the point. Blimey,their demands for payment should also reflect upon that which they contribute in their defence. They didn't exactly earn it.
It was just one more case to them; let's face it.
-
Lookout I accept that Julie was difficult to cross-examine because of her emotional state, whether feigned or not, but what questions would you have liked Rivlin to ask that he failed to?
That if she'd known that this tragedy was going to happen,why hadn't she said something sooner.
Why did she go on holiday knowing he was a mass murderer.
Why was she even intimate with him when she knew he'd murdered two children.
Did he murder his family. An outright answer is necessary.
The list really is endless considering that she'd known well in advance what his plans were.
He couldn't have asked her what she was going to spend her £25,000 on because nobody knew !!
-
You're the one who brought up qualifications ::).
My contribution to the book were observations, the kind anyone could make if they were spatially aware. Oh and if they were asked!
I don't agree with your assumptions - any ideas about those towels?
No you facetiously said "Sorry Jackie when did you qualify in forensic science"?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg364177.html#msg364177
Whatever I talk about whether it's my connections, friendship with Jeremy, my two horses, Hillsborough or the case you attack me. When NGB is next on I'm going to pm him about this.
-
I admit that I suspect something of the kind happened. The police may have asked Craig to help them suppress the fact that Sheila died later than the others, to conceal some error of judgement on their part. What he said just doesn't ring true. People with medical training can normally give an opinion on time of death even if it's only an approximation.
As for Vanezis, he did not perform his autopsy on Sheila till the day after. By that time any indications of a later time of death for Sheila such as the lack of rigor mortis, as seen from how her right arm was moved by the police would have been lost.
It's notable that Vanezis has never commented on the crime scene photographs which allegedly show Sheila died later.
As for Bamber's defence, they were just not smart enough to get a second opinion on such issues from independent experts.
Why would Dr Craig agree to cover anything up and support the defence at trial? He didn't have to say Sheilas appearance suggested to him she took her own life. He could have said he wasn't qualified to comment and take the middle ground. Or side with the prosecution if as you're suggesting he covered up for someone.
Are you related to Mike by any chance?
-
from what I have heard about PH book it seems your contributions to the book were the only observations in it.
Is there any evidence he was at one time a police officer?
-
Why would Dr Craig agree to cover anything up and support the defence at trial? He didn't have to say Sheilas appearance suggested to him she took her own life. He could have said he wasn't qualified to comment and take the middle ground. Or side with the prosecution if as you're suggesting he covered up for someone.
Are you related to Mike by any chance?
Dr Craig said that Sheila had only one bullet wound when he made his examination and he said that Sheila's body was on "the far side of the bed". His evidence certainly raises some questions. Mike thinks that the police accidentally shot Sheila when they stage managed the body to make it look like she committed suicide on the floor.
Mike basically thinks that Bamber has two alibis.
1 That Sheila died several hours later than the others while Jeremy was with the police.
2 That Nevill called the police after he called Jeremy.
How would you define your position with respect to an alleged alibi?
-
Is there any evidence he was at one time a police officer?
::)
-
Dr Craig said that Sheila had only one bullet wound when he made his examination and he said that Sheila's body was on "the far side of the bed". His evidence certainly raises some questions. Mike thinks that the police accidentally shot Sheila when they stage managed the body to make it look like she committed suicide on the floor.
Mike basically thinks that Bamber has two alibis.
1 That Sheila died several hours later than the others while Jeremy was with the police.
2 That Nevill called the police after he called Jeremy.
How would you define your position with respect to an alleged alibi?
Craig was simply pronouncing death - read his statement, he mentions only ONE shot for each of the victims and Sheila WAS on the far side of the bed. I have some drawers on the far side of my bed - they aren't actually ON the bed but it's how I would them. He also states that Sheila had dried blood coming from her mouth - this puts paid to the notion that blood was actively 'running; from her mouth.
-
Difficult to miss when the targets were mostly still and within two or three foot away.
How do you know she was "a woman in the grips of psychoses"? Just because she was sometimes psychoses doesn't mean she was always psychoses. Maybe she was just depressed or very angry and not psychoses.
Here's a man that wasn't psychoses. He was just very angry. He killed his wife, two children and the two pet dogs :'(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327536/Life-for-father-who-killed-wife-and-children.html
Steve there's lots online about this case. The name is Philip Austin. It is said he had no mental illness just very angry.
For those that think Sheila was responsible if we say she was psychoses how would we know? Are we saying those that suffer psychoses aren't at times vary angry but without psychoses?
Can someone answer this please. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere previously.
-
::)
Is there?
-
Is there?
Such as?
-
Such as?
You're the brains with spatial awareness and a degree in psychologies you tell me?
-
Dr Craig said that Sheila had only one bullet wound when he made his examination and he said that Sheila's body was on "the far side of the bed". His evidence certainly raises some questions. Mike thinks that the police accidentally shot Sheila when they stage managed the body to make it look like she committed suicide on the floor.
Mike basically thinks that Bamber has two alibis.
1 That Sheila died several hours later than the others while Jeremy was with the police.
2 That Nevill called the police after he called Jeremy.
How would you define your position with respect to an alleged alibi?
I cant see anywhere in Craigs stat where he states Sheila had one bullet wound and was on "the far side of the bed"? Please provide your evidence.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1187.0;attach=6164
I don't believe in any of the above. Jeremy doesn't have an alibi.
David is simply the best 10/10.
-
Craig was simply pronouncing death - read his statement, he mentions only ONE shot for each of the victims and Sheila WAS on the far side of the bed. I have some drawers on the far side of my bed - they aren't actually ON the bed but it's how I would them. He also states that Sheila had dried blood coming from her mouth - this puts paid to the notion that blood was actively 'running; from her mouth.
Why would Harry be interested in your drawers on your bed? :o
-
Why would Harry be interested in your drawers on your bed? :o
Harry has now gone into hiding and you will need your psychologies degree and spatial awareness to gently cokes him out ;D
-
I wish we could have the wide awake club back. Those were the days.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1101.msg69668.html#msg69668
Shona if you're reading this hello from me I hope your horses are well. xx
-
Craig was simply pronouncing death - read his statement, he mentions only ONE shot for each of the victims and Sheila WAS on the far side of the bed. I have some drawers on the far side of my bed - they aren't actually ON the bed but it's how I would them. He also states that Sheila had dried blood coming from her mouth - this puts paid to the notion that blood was actively 'running; from her mouth.
Not if Sheila was accidentally shot after Dr Craig's examination.
-
Not if Sheila was accidentally shot after Dr Craig's examination.
And how does this fit with Dr Vanezis who said both shots happened within a few seconds?
-
And how does this fit with Dr Vanezis who said both shots happened within a few seconds?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168
-
And how does this fit with Dr Vanezis who said both shots happened within a few seconds?
Those people are not infallible. Dr Martyn Ismail according to the 2002 Court of Appeal judges, said that the photographs prove that Bamber moved Sheila's body after she was killed. These photographs prove that the police moved her body.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&p=162716#p162700
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
-
Those people are not infallible. Dr Martyn Ismail according to the 2002 Court of Appeal judges, said that the photographs prove that Bamber moved Sheila's body after she was killed. These photographs prove that the police moved her body.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&p=162716#p162700
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
I agree they're not unflappable but for your theories to hold up would require the evidence of two doctors to be wrong, Craig and Vanezis.
Ismail was for the prosecution and would just go along with police procedure that nothing should be moved and his evidence would be on this basis.
I think the police moved Sheila. We can agree on that Harry and on this note I must bid you goodnight my friend.
-
Those people are not infallible. Dr Martyn Ismail according to the 2002 Court of Appeal judges, said that the photographs prove that Bamber moved Sheila's body after she was killed. These photographs prove that the police moved her body.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&p=162716#p162700
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv2/fred1755/Crime%20Scene%20photographs/LOvCi%20with%20lines_zpsgvivsldr.jpg)
They prove nothing of the sort, they were taken at a different angle. However, I would be interested to know why people believe that EP would move Sheila's body a few inches in between photographs?
-
You're the brains with spatial awareness and a degree in psychologies you tell me?
Well yes, psychology might help me understand why you think PH would lie about being a police officer because it says more about you than it does him. I suggest you contact him yourself - I'm sure he would be overjoyed to hear from you.
-
Not if Sheila was accidentally shot after Dr Craig's examination.
The blood around her mouth was DRIED when he saw her and he pronounced her DEAD. He described ALL of the deceased as having only one shot. He just needed a cause of death - he wasn't doing a full examination.
-
Can someone answer this please. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere previously.
Well I'm sorry I'm not ShonaDogs, but Sheila showed all the symptoms of being overdosed on medication and under these circumstances her passivity can be explained. I don't recognize and have never read in any of the literature that she had arguments with anyone those final few days; rather the opposite in that she seemed withdrawn, though took the twins a walk in the grounds and chatted with Jeremy whilst the twins climbed up onto the tractor for the last time.
-
They prove nothing of the sort, they were taken at a different angle. However, I would be interested to know why people believe that EP would move Sheila's body a few inches in between photographs?
Sheila had to be moved very slightly to check for signs of life. Normal procedure.
The only reason her hands moved in between photos is most probably because they had to move them in order to get detailed shots of her.
The precarious way in which her arm lay on her nightdress lends itself to the real possibility that it slipped down due to the vibration of all those cop boots on the bedroom floor and had to be put back. If you compare the photos above you will see that the bottom of the nightie adjacent the socks is tucked in more in one photo.
-
I've heard everything now. Vibration of boots that shifted the position of her nightdress-----oh dear.
Was it a march-past or something ? What exactly would they have been doing to be clumping around when 5 people lay dead ?
Why were such an amount of cops needed,apart from to ruin the outcome of a crime scene ? Which they did ! Obviously any footprints found would have been theirs !
-
Well yes, psychology might help me understand why you think PH would lie about being a police officer because it says more about you than it does him. I suggest you contact him yourself - I'm sure he would be overjoyed to hear from you.
I haven't read his book but I understand he claims he interviewed 3 police officers who were all deceased at the time of publishing. Same for Jeremy's trial lawyer. There's no way of knowing whether these interviews actually took place. It seems a bit to much of a coincidence that no one he claims to have interviewed is actually alive to confirm or deny. If he lied about this then why not lie further and say he was a police officer which would give him a bit of cudos as a crime writer.
He was intending to make a film about the case do you know if he's still going ahead with this? And if so will you be assisting him?
As you know I was once closely involved with Mark Williams Thomas who was going to produce a documentary about Jeremy's case until the hormonally imbalanced women on the campaign team went on a mad rampage. Note how Sarah Hanover and Laura Lake haven't appeared on any of these ridiculous vlogs. They're happy for others to make complete fools of themselves like Trudi Benjamin. When Bob Woffinden and Paul Harrison got in touch with the campaign team they started off as innocent or neutral and ended up guilty. When I was in contact with Mark Williams Thomas and Simon McKay they started off innocent and as far as I know they're still innocent. The campaign team have done more than anyone to keep Jeremy behind bars. They are absolutely useless.
I would say my greatest strength is bringing the right people together to create something truly extraordinary 8) !
-
I haven't read his book but I understand he claims he interviewed 3 police officers who were all deceased at the time of publishing. Same for Jeremy's trial lawyer. There's no way of knowing whether these interviews actually took place. It seems a bit to much of a coincidence that no one he claims to have interviewed is actually alive to confirm or deny. If he lied about this then why not lie further and say he was a police officer which would give him a bit of cudos as a crime writer.
He was intending to make a film about the case do you know if he's still going ahead with this? And if so will you be assisting him?
As you know I was once closely involved with Mark Williams Thomas who was going to produce a documentary about Jeremy's case until the hormonally imbalanced women on the campaign team went on a mad rampage. Note how Sarah Hanover and Laura Lake haven't appeared on any of these ridiculous vlogs. They're happy for others to make complete fools of themselves like Trudi Benjamin. When Bob Woffinden and Paul Harrison got in touch with the campaign team they started off as innocent or neutral and ended up guilty. When I was in contact with Mark Williams Thomas and Simon McKay the started off innocent and as far as I know they're still innocent. The campaign team have done more than anyone to keep Jeremy behind bars. They are absolutely useless.
I would say my greatest strength is bringing the right people together to create something truly extraordinary.
I have no idea what PH is doing but I would guess he's moved on from Jeremy Bamber.
Something truly extraordinary eh? And yet he's still incarcerated, SM is no longer involved and MWT seems to be just a name that you mention frequently - we don't know if either of them are still Jeremy supporters or if they ever were. They simply had a job to do.
Although I must add. I agree that the CT are useless.
-
I haven't read his book but I understand he claims he interviewed 3 police officers who were all deceased at the time of publishing. Same for Jeremy's trial lawyer. There's no way of knowing whether these interviews actually took place. It seems a bit to much of a coincidence that no one he claims to have interviewed is actually alive to confirm or deny. If he lied about this then why not lie further and say he was a police officer which would give him a bit of cudos as a crime writer.
He was intending to make a film about the case do you know if he's still going ahead with this? And if so will you be assisting him?
As you know I was once closely involved with Mark Williams Thomas who was going to produce a documentary about Jeremy's case until the hormonally imbalanced women on the campaign team went on a mad rampage. Note how Sarah Hanover and Laura Lake haven't appeared on any of these ridiculous vlogs. They're happy for others to make complete fools of themselves like Trudi Benjamin. When Bob Woffinden and Paul Harrison got in touch with the campaign team they started off as innocent or neutral and ended up guilty. When I was in contact with Mark Williams Thomas and Simon McKay they started off innocent and as far as I know they're still innocent. The campaign team have done more than anyone to keep Jeremy behind bars. They are absolutely useless.
I would say my greatest strength is bringing the right people together to create something truly extraordinary 8) !
Gosh we agree on more than one thing..
-
Well I'm sorry I'm not ShonaDogs, but Sheila showed all the symptoms of being overdosed on medication and under these circumstances her passivity can be explained. I don't recognize and have never read in any of the literature that she had arguments with anyone those final few days; rather the opposite in that she seemed withdrawn, though took the twins a walk in the grounds and chatted with Jeremy whilst the twins climbed up onto the tractor for the last time.
That doesn't matter Steve. You are you and Shona is Shona. I like you both and you are both very entertaining on the forums. You write beautiful posts and Shona is very funny.
Colin said Sheila was very highly strung and during arguments she would become very violent
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1560.0;attach=7385
Freddie said Sheila had a very quick and violent temper
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=214
Perhaps Sheila was ok and then something happened or something was said that made Sheila very angry but not psychoses? Is this possible?
Caroline has a degree in psycholgies and good spatial awareness she might know?
-
That doesn't matter Steve. You are you and Shona is Shona. I like you both and you are both very entertaining in the forums. You write beautiful posts and Shona is very funny.
Colin said Sheila was very highly strung and during arguments she would become very violent
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1560.0;attach=7385
Freddie said Sheila had a very quick and violent temper
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=214
Perhaps Sheila was ok and then something happened or something was said that made Sheila very angry by not psychoses? Is this possible?
Caroline has a degree in psycholgies and good spatial awareness she might know?
No.
-
No.
I appreciate we don't have a degree in psychologies and good spacial awareness but are you able to explain why not rather than just a "No"?
-
That doesn't matter Steve. You are you and Shona is Shona. I like you both and you are both very entertaining in the forums. You write beautiful posts and Shona is very funny.
Colin said Sheila was very highly strung and during arguments she would become very violent
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1560.0;attach=7385
Freddie said Sheila had a very quick and violent temper
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=214
Perhaps Sheila was ok and then something happened or something was said that made Sheila very angry by not psychoses? Is this possible?
Caroline has a degree in psycholgies and good spatial awareness she might know?
Well it's true when Barbara Wilson rang she said she thought she had interrupted an argument. But I doubt Sheila had any strength left after the weekend parties and Auntie Pam's telephone call which came half an hour after Barbara's tends to confirm this.
-
I appreciate we don't have a degree in psychologies and good spacial awareness but are you able to explain why not rather than just a "No"?
No need to feel inferior - it's not your fault! Perhaps you shouldn't ask about qualifications if not having a degree bugs you so much. However ...
There is a MASSIVE difference in the kind of 'violence' displayed by Sheila and picking up a rifle to shoot 5 people - including your own children - DEAD. Sheila didn't ask for the gun, Jeremy did, Sheila didn't know how to fire it or how to fill the magazine, Jeremy did. Sheila didn't conveniently leave out the gun, Jeremy did - Sheila didn't discuss (with various people) wanting to kill her parents - Jeremy did.
-
No need to feel inferior - it's not your fault! Perhaps you shouldn't ask about qualifications if not having a degree bugs you so much. However ...
There is a MASSIVE difference in the kind of 'violence' displayed by Sheila and picking up a rifle to shoot 5 people - including your own children - DEAD. Sheila didn't ask for the gun, Jeremy did, Sheila didn't know how to fire it or how to fill the magazine, Jeremy did. Sheila didn't conveniently leave out the gun, Jeremy did - Sheila didn't discuss (with various people) wanting to kill her parents - Jeremy did.
I don't have a degree in psychologies that's why I was aksing you as the subject matter relates to psychologies. I'm not the feeling inferior type. How do you know I don't have a degree?
But Colin and Freddie said Sheila displayed angry outbursts and there's no evidence Jeremy did.
How do we know Sheila didn't know how to fill the magazine? It's not difficult.
Jeremy said he left the gun out but chances are Nevill put it away. Not difficult for someone in the house to go to the gun cupboard and find the gun.
Only Julie said Jeremy wanted to kill his parents.
-
I don't have a degree in psychologies that's why I was aksing you as the subject matter relates to psychologies. I'm not the feeling inferior type. How do you know I don't have a degree?
But Colin and Freddie said Sheila displayed angry outbursts and there's no evidence Jeremy did.
How do we know Sheila didn't know how to fill the magazine? It's not difficult.
Jeremy said he left the gun out but chances are Nevill put it away. Not difficult for someone in the house to go to the gun cupboard and find the gun.
Only Julie said Jeremy wanted to kill his parents.
Like I have just posted on the 'Why Jeremy is Innocent' thread - he bottled things up and harboured resentment about both his adoption and being ushered off to boarding school. Sheila let out her anger. Everyone has a temper, it's strange that he seems to have been so controlled, although not so much when he pushed a cake in someone's face. He didn't like being the brunt of a joke - but liked to tease others.
Sheila had never seen the gun before and it's too much of a coincidence that Jeremy left out the gun, just on the night that 'Sheila went crazy'.
No, Jeremy told someone else (I will have to look up his name) about his plan to burn down the farm.
-
I don't have a degree in psychologies that's why I was aksing you as the subject matter relates to psychologies. I'm not the feeling inferior type. How do you know I don't have a degree?
But Colin and Freddie said Sheila displayed angry outbursts and there's no evidence Jeremy did.
How do we know Sheila didn't know how to fill the magazine? It's not difficult.
Jeremy said he left the gun out but chances are Nevill put it away. Not difficult for someone in the house to go to the gun cupboard and find the gun.
Only Julie said Jeremy wanted to kill his parents.
Colin did say that Jeremy used to break the heads off the flowers in the garden and on many occasions walked home 20 miles after a fall out with his father. Colin believes this was the way Jeremy coped with the fact he was not allowed to express his own feelings and opinions. So he must have bottled up all that anger and frustration against the people who stopped him expressing himself and tried to control him. It was a very unhealthy situation.
-
Colin did say that Jeremy used to break the heads of the flowers in the garden and on many occasions walked home 20 miles after a fall out with his father. Colin believes this was the way Jeremy coped with the fact he was not allowed to express his own feelings and opinions. So he must have bottled up all that anger and frustration against the people who stopped him expressing himself and tried to control him. It was a very unhealthy situation.
Totally agree Maggie and I think resentment bred more resentment. The crime scene was very violent - the pressure cooker finally burst.
-
Like I have just posted on the 'Why Jeremy is Innocent' thread - he bottled things up and harboured resentment about both his adoption and being ushered off to boarding school. Sheila let out her anger. Everyone has a temper, it's strange that he seems to have been so controlled, although not so much when he pushed a cake in someone's face. He didn't like being the brunt of a joke - but liked to tease others.
Sheila had never seen the gun before and it's too much of a coincidence that Jeremy left out the gun, just on the night that 'Sheila went crazy'.
No, Jeremy told someone else (I will have to look up his name) about his plan to burn down the farm.
According to some Julie Mugford invented that story about torching the farmhouse but tellingly, Bamber never denied it.
-
To be fair to Jackie there must be thousands of teenage boys who have done all these things to their parents and grown out of the phase. I think circumstances came together with such incredible happenstance to put into his mind a way out from his predicament, summed up in the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" speech to Julie, suggesting that very possibly all this was a flight of fancy which may well all have blown over..
-
According to some Julie Mugford invented that story about torching the farmhouse but tellingly, Bamber never denied it.
No he hasn't. I'm sure that he did tell someone else but I can't remember their name - I think Steve has posted about it before?
-
No he hasn't. I'm sure that he did tell someone else but I can't remember their name - I think Steve has posted about it before?
Well I don't think he ever entrusted his murder plot to anyone except Julie, but he did go on a rant to James Richards that "I hate my f***ing parents."
-
Well I don't think he ever entrusted his murder plot to anyone except Julie, but he did go on a rant to James Richards that "I hate my f***ing parents."
He told RWB "I could easily kill my parents".
-
He told RWB "I could easily kill my parents".
Yes it does seem strange that he said that. I wonder if he ever warned Nevill?
-
Well I don't think he ever entrusted his murder plot to anyone except Julie, but he did go on a rant to James Richards that "I hate my f***ing parents."
Yes, there was him but he did mention to someone about burning the house down. I'll have to try and remember. It's a cast of thousands! ;D
-
Like I have just posted on the 'Why Jeremy is Innocent' thread - he bottled things up and harboured resentment about both his adoption and being ushered off to boarding school. Sheila let out her anger. Everyone has a temper, it's strange that he seems to have been so controlled, although not so much when he pushed a cake in someone's face. He didn't like being the brunt of a joke - but liked to tease others.
Sheila had never seen the gun before and it's too much of a coincidence that Jeremy left out the gun, just on the night that 'Sheila went crazy'.
No, Jeremy told someone else (I will have to look up his name) about his plan to burn down the farm.
But Sheila was also adopted and sent off to boarding school. Why would Jeremy be angry about being adopted? Lots of people are adopted like Steve Jobs and Michael Gove. They are not angry are they?
Most people I know don't have a temper at all. I have a friend who was adopted and she's very laid back and I have never known her to be angry.
Jeremy was annoyed with Susan Battersley squeezing his neck with dairy cream. A bit insensitive I would say when you could say a dairy cream cannister sprayed on his neck might have reminded him of gunshots to his family.
It reminds me of that nasty b***h that shouted "bang, bang" at PC David Rathband
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/27/woman-jail-raoul-moat-jeer
-
Sheila didn't ask for the gun, Jeremy did
Jeremy works on the farm, he has to shoot pests.
Sheila didn't know how to fire it or how to fill the magazine,
There is no substance to this claim. you take a leap of faith
-
But Sheila was also adopted and sent off to boarding school. Why would Jeremy be angry about being adopted? Lots of people are adopted like Steve Jobs and Michael Gove. They are not angry are they?
Most people I know don't have a temper at all. I have a friend who was adopted and she's very laid back and I have never known her to be angry.
Jeremy was annoyed with Susan Battersley squeezing his neck with dairy cream. A bit insensitive I would say when you could say a dairy cream cannister sprayed on his neck might have reminded him of gunshots to his family.
It reminds me of that nasty b***h that shouted "bang, bang" at PC David Rathband
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/27/woman-jail-raoul-moat-jeer
Hi Jackie, All babies removed from their mothers in the first couple of years of life suffer from loss and difficulties with attachment unless they bond on a deep level with a permanent replacement mother/carer. Even those who bond and grow up in secure loving homes usually at some time have problems with self worth etc. I recommend The Primal Wound... it explains about the adoptee, the adoptive mother and the natural mother and their feelings and emotions. Worth a read.
Steve |Jobs is dead and I know nothing about his adoptive family but his drive to succeed and prove himself may have grown because he had a lack of self worth etc. or not. Michael Gove another one who needed to be top dog, goodness knows what goes on in that head. :-\....
I am not saying all adoptees are ready to go for the jugular, in fact the point is that most bury their feelings and insecurities in various ways and many will only show them if they have to face the reality of their adoption or not but we all have buttons which can be pressed by certain situations or phrases and the result depends on the anger and frustration which has built up around such sore spots, if the pressure is very high it can blow and then things can get out of hand very quickly.
-
But Sheila was also adopted and sent off to boarding school. Why would Jeremy be angry about being adopted? Lots of people are adopted like Steve Jobs and Michael Gove. They are not angry are they?
Most people I know don't have a temper at all. I have a friend who was adopted and she's very laid back and I have never known her to be angry.
Jeremy was annoyed with Susan Battersley squeezing his neck with dairy cream. A bit insensitive I would say when you could say a dairy cream cannister sprayed on his neck might have reminded him of gunshots to his family.
It reminds me of that nasty b***h that shouted "bang, bang" at PC David Rathband
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/27/woman-jail-raoul-moat-jeer
Of course not all adopted kids are angry - but I believe Jeremy was. Sheila was able to meet her birth mother but I believe Jeremy was afraid of yet more rejection. Instead he just dismissed it as something he wasn't interested in.
Everyone has some kind of temper - it doesn't mean you will see it.
Yes, I get you point, perhaps when Susan sprayed the cream, he had a flash back to shooting Sheila.
-
Colin did say that Jeremy used to break the heads off the flowers in the garden
OH MY GOD :o I've broken heads off flowers before. sometimes even pulled them out the ground! How many members of my family does than mean I've killed?
;D
-
OH MY GOD :o I've broken heads off flowers before. sometimes even pulled them out the ground! How many members of my family does than mean I've killed?
;D
Very funny David, ;D ;D
-
Jeremy works on the farm, he has to shoot pests.
There is no substance to this claim. you take a leap of faith
Yes, that how he saw his family!
There is no substance to you claims either - doesn't stop you to referring to them as FACTS though.
-
Hi Jackie, All babies removed from their mothers in the first couple of years of life suffer from loss and difficulties with attachment. It is a proven fact and if they don't get bond with a permanent replacement mother/carer they will suffer all their lives. Even those who bond and grow up in secure loving homes have problems with self worth etc. I recommend The Primal Wound... it explains about the adoptee, the adoptive mother and the natural mother and their feelings and emotions. Worth a read.
Steve |Jobs is dead and I know nothing about his adoptive family but his drive to succeed and prove himself may have stemed from his lack of self worth etc. Michael Gove another one who needed to be top dog, goodness knows what goes on in that head. :-\....
Maggie I dont know anything about adoption. I would have thought if you grow up in loving family home it is ok? What about children who are abused by thier natural family?
If a baby is adopted and grows up in loving family as Sheila and Jeremy did with Nevill and June how can this compare with children who are abused by their natural parents?
Loads of cases this year where babies or small children have died at the hands of their natural parents.
I dont agree with you Maggie.
-
Yes, that how he saw his family!
There is no substance to you claims either - doesn't stop you to referring to them as FACTS though.
No substance to my claims? ::)
-
Maggie I dont know anything about adoption. I would have thought if you grow up in loving family home it is ok? What about children who are abused by thier natural family?
If a baby is adopted and grows up in loving family as Sheila and Jeremy did with Nevill and June how can this compare with children who are abused by their natural parents?
Loads of cases this year where babies or small children have died at the hands of their natural parents.
I dont agree with you Maggie.
Hi Jackie if you know nothing about adoption how can you disagree with me? Anyway, you are disagreeing with experts on the subject not with me. :)
Did they grow up in a loving home? We have heard over and over again that there was a lack of hugs and cuddles from either parent. June and Nevil may have loved both children but they were poor at showing it and adopted children need more love than natural children if anything.
It's true many children are abused by their natural parents but that is a completely different issue. You know all this Jackie and it's late so I'm off now. cheers
-
Yes, there was him but he did mention to someone about burning the house down. I'll have to try and remember. It's a cast of thousands! ;D
I bet there a few guys in New Zealand who could tell a few tales about him!
-
Jeremy works on the farm, he has to shoot pests.
There is no substance to this claim. you take a leap of faith
She hated guns so Caroline is probably correct. The person who murdered the family was proficient not only with rifles but with that particular rifle. Hitmen don't go out on hits relying on a weapon to be sitting there ready. In any event how would a hitman know...
1. That the family would all be in residence
and
2. That a weapon was available?
I'm afraid whichever way one looks at this case Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
-
No substance to my claims? ::)
When are you going to post this magical new evidence Dave?
-
When are you going to post this magical new evidence Dave?
David has built up his part somewhat ;)
-
He told RWB "I could easily kill my parents".
Your going to take the word of a man who assumed him guilty and stood to inherit the estate on the basis of a guilty verdict?
If the allegation that Jeremy said "I could easily kill my parents" came from say someone who worked with him in Little Chef or someone he was with on the Scuba diving course for example. someone who has no conflict of interest Then I would not have much reason to doubt the authenticity of the allegation.
-
Hi Jackie if you know nothing about adoption how can you disagree with me? Anyway, you are disagreeing with experts on the subject not with me. :)
Did they grow up in a loving home? We have heard over and over again that there was a lack of hugs and cuddles from either parent. June and Nevil may have loved both children but they were poor at showing it and adopted children need more love than natural children if anything.
It's true many children are abused by their natural parents but that is a completely different issue. You know all this Jackie and it's late so I'm off now. cheers
I was meaning that I disagree with you that Steve Jobs needed to prove himself and Michael Gove needs to be top dog because they were adopted. That's a rubbish argument Maggie.
Bill Gates - Microsoft - not adopted
Larry Page - Google - not adopted
Mark Zuckenburg - Facebook - not adopted
Steve Jobs - Apple - adopted
David Cameron - Tory pm - not adopted
George Osborn - Tory chancellor - not adopted
Boris Johnson - Tory ? - not adopted
Michael Grove - Tory ? - adopted
I don't see any connection with adoption.
You're doing what the family and police did being prejudiced against Jeremy because he was adopted and saying he was bad and would kill his family.
I've seen photos of June with her arms round Sheila and Jeremy. And photos of June and Nevill being affectionate with the twins.
When I was on Jeremy's phone list he talked of a happy life before prison.
This is your post I was referring to.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg364346.html#msg364346
-
Maggie I dont know anything about adoption. I would have thought if you grow up in loving family home it is ok? What about children who are abused by thier natural family?
If a baby is adopted and grows up in loving family as Sheila and Jeremy did with Nevill and June how can this compare with children who are abused by their natural parents?
Loads of cases this year where babies or small children have died at the hands of their natural parents.
I dont agree with you Maggie.
I suppose it depends on how one defines "loving" Jackie. When I was adopted -not overly long before Sheila- it would have been thought loving ENOUGH for "good, Christian people" to give a home to and spend their money on a "flawed" child. I had expensive "things" thrown at me like money was going out of fashion -the kudos for this generosity was my parents'- and gave them a reason to compound my guilt feelings by reminding me, on a regular basis, of what they'd spent on me. Abusing children is NEVER right. If it isn't right to do it to one's own child, it's even less right to do it to someone else's.
-
I was meaning that I disagree with you that Steve Jobs needed to prove himself and Michael Gove needs to be top dog because they were adopted. That's a rubbish argument Maggie.
Bill Gates - Microsoft - not adopted
Larry Page - Google - not adopted
Mark Zuckenburg - Facebook - not adopted
Steve Jobs - Apple - adopted
David Cameron - Tory pm - not adopted
George Osborn - Tory chancellor - not adopted
Boris Johnson - Tory ? - not adopted
Michael Grove - Tory ? - adopted
I don't see any connection with adoption.
You're doing what the family and police did being prejudiced against Jeremy because he was adopted and saying he was bad and would kill his family.
I've seen photos of June with her arms round Sheila and Jeremy. And photos of June and Nevill being affectionate with the twins.
When I was on Jeremy's phone list he talked of a happy life before prison.
This is your post I was referring to.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg364346.html#msg364346
I am not doing any such thing, I am putting forward the point of view that Jeremy could have had as much or even more anger/resentment than Sheila because adoption scars people.
I have no idea what Steve Jobs was like as a person, have you? I don't know what his fears and insecurities were, I know when he was dying he regretted putting his whole life into climbing the greasy pole rather than putting his energy into love and relationships, which he realised are all that is important in life. My answer to you was just a quick thought before I signed off last night. My real answer is the above...... I don't know, .... how could I? So I would say it's an unfair question not a rubbish answer.
The argument I was using is taken from a highly admired study on adoption they are not my own personal theories.
As I have said many times, I have an open mind on the case with reservations on both sides.
As much as I can see there are possibilities of guilt on either side I also feel that June has been given a bad press in the same way that Sheila has been by some.
Having recently finished Colin's book I take on board June had a difficult and apparently controlling personality, possibly a product of her own mental illness which she had suffered from very badly at times. However, Nevil was also lacking, he also seemed to not hand out close parental love and hugs to his children. He did not seem to worry or see any need to compensate for June's lack of ability to give warmth and love. So, although hailed as Sheila's rock I would guess he was in some ways more supportive because he was naturally more outgoing and gregarious but the wicked June versus the fantastic Nevill arguments don't stand up for me, they both seemed to lack parenting skills imo.
All families are a mishmash of different emotions, success and failures, no one is perfect, we all have our failings, it's human nature but in a secure and loving family there is understanding and forgiveness with love as a glue which holds people together overcoming irritations, hurt and frustrations.
If the glue isn't there because of dysfunction and early emotional neglect children grow up damaged and unable to deal with their feelings. If children don't learn by example and respect from their parents that their opinions matter, that they count and are important in their own right, those children can grow up severely damaged.
-
I was meaning that I disagree with you that Steve Jobs needed to prove himself and Michael Gove needs to be top dog because they were adopted. That's a rubbish argument Maggie.
Bill Gates - Microsoft - not adopted
Larry Page - Google - not adopted
Mark Zuckenburg - Facebook - not adopted
Steve Jobs - Apple - adopted
David Cameron - Tory pm - not adopted
George Osborn - Tory chancellor - not adopted
Boris Johnson - Tory ? - not adopted
Michael Grove - Tory ? - adopted
I don't see any connection with adoption.
You're doing what the family and police did being prejudiced against Jeremy because he was adopted and saying he was bad and would kill his family.
I've seen photos of June with her arms round Sheila and Jeremy. And photos of June and Nevill being affectionate with the twins.
When I was on Jeremy's phone list he talked of a happy life before prison.
This is your post I was referring to.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg364346.html#msg364346
Jackie, people feel the need to prove themselves for diverse reasons. Off the top of my head:-
Being the eldest in the family.
Being the youngest in the family.
Being the middle child in a family.
Being made to feel responsible for the family.
Being made to feel worthless within the family.
Add to that list the burden of having being rejected by one family and adopted into another and the picture becomes clear.
-
I am not doing any such thing, I am putting forward the point of view that Jeremy could have had as much or even more anger/resentment than Sheila because adoption scars people.
I have no idea what Steve Jobs was like as a person, have you? I don't know what his fears and insecurities were, I know when he was dying he regretted putting his whole life into climbing the greasy pole rather than putting his energy into love and relationships, which he realised are all that is important in life. My answer to you was just a quick thought before I signed off last night. My real answer is the above...... I don't know, .... how could I? So I would say it's an unfair question not a rubbish answer.
The argument I was using is taken from a highly admired study on adoption they are not my own personal theories.
As I have said many times, I have an open mind on the case with reservations on both sides.
As much as I can see there are possibilities of guilt on either side I also feel that June has been given a bad press in the same way that Sheila has been by some.
Having recently finished Colin's book I take on board June had a difficult and apparently controlling personality, possibly a product of her own mental illness which she had suffered from very badly at times. However, Nevil was also lacking, he also seemed to not hand out close parental love and hugs to his children. He did not seem to worry or see any need to compensate for June's lack of ability to give warmth and love. So, although hailed as Sheila's rock I would guess he was in some ways more supportive because he was naturally more outgoing and gregarious but the wicked June versus the fantastic Nevill arguments don't stand up for me, they both seemed to lack parenting skills imo.
All families are a mishmash of different emotions, success and failures, no one is perfect, we all have our failings, it's human nature but in a secure and loving family there is understanding and forgiveness with love as a glue which holds people together overcoming irritations, hurt and frustrations.
If the glue isn't there because of dysfunction and early emotional neglect children grow up damaged and unable to deal with their feelings. If children don't learn by example and respect from their parents that their opinions matter, that they count and are important in their own right, those children can grow up severely damaged.
Brilliant, BRILLIANT post Maggie.
-
Brilliant, BRILLIANT post Maggie.
Thank you Jane but I think I was only saying in a long winded way what you said in your far more succinct reply.
Pat on the back for both of us but doubt if Jackie and others will agree ;D 8)
-
I wasn't adopted but I wasn't shown as much affection as Sheila and Jeremy were,or anyone else I knew, adopted or not,so I should have grown up to be a murderer or a rogue ?
Instead, I found my own way in life------------the hard way ( if you get my drift )
-
I wasn't adopted but I wasn't shown as much affection as Sheila and Jeremy were,or anyone else I knew, adopted or not,so I should have grown up to be a murderer or a rogue ?
Instead, I found my own way in life------------the hard way ( if you get my drift )
Just how do you measure affection, Lookout. WHATEVER children suffer, being adopted into however loving a home, is a burden. When they're adopted into homes in which expectations on them are high and way beyond their natural capabilities, the burden is exacerbated.
-
I wasn't adopted but I wasn't shown as much affection as Sheila and Jeremy were,or anyone else I knew, adopted or not,so I should have grown up to be a murderer or a rogue ?
Instead, I found my own way in life------------the hard way ( if you get my drift )
Hi, lookout. It's true many adopted people do find their way and have perfectly happy lives, I am not meaning to be offensive to adoptees but the argument is that if Sheila was damaged by rejection at birth and 'rejection' in her family and life there is no reason why Jeremy would have been immune from similar emotions.
Sheila's bad feelings about herself possibly showed itself with her illness but it doesn't mean that because Jeremy didn't display illness that he wasn't in some way sick himself.
I am not saying he was, I have no idea what went on or goes on in JBs head but I am saying he could have had such feelings and he may still have such feelings, they may be deeply buried by now, surely it is a possibility?
-
Hi, lookout. It's true many adopted people do find their way and have perfectly happy lives, I am not meaning to be offensive to adoptees but the argument is that if Sheila was damaged by rejection at birth and 'rejection' in her family and life there is no reason why Jeremy would have been immune from similar emotions.
Sheila's bad feelings about herself possibly showed itself with her illness but it doesn't mean that because Jeremy didn't display illness that he wasn't in some way sick himself.
I am not saying he was, I have no idea what went on or goes on in JBs head but I am saying he could have had such feelings and he may still have such feelings, they may be deeply buried by now, surely it is a possibility?
Unless he talks about those feelings, how will he know that they're not the same feelings that everyone else has. OR as Maggie says, they may be buried so deep he's unaware of them. That's where they'll have their greatest influence on him.
-
Just how do you measure affection, Lookout. WHATEVER children suffer, being adopted into however loving a home, is a burden. When they're adopted into homes in which expectations on them are high and way beyond their natural capabilities, the burden is exacerbated.
Affection isn't being called a " nuisance or a pest ",neither is being a " duffer " a term of endearment either. Nor the threat of " going in a home " very encouraging, for misbehaving.
Speaking of expectations,which there were of myself because brother was clever,it was also expected of me too but I was an entirely different character to my brother and was never given the same encouragement to do well. This is where the " duffer " came into play.
I was a " people person ",they weren't and my brother remains the same to this day,not always approachable with a tendency to be arrogant,as he always was.
Dad and I were close,but even that was wrong.
So don't be xxxx xxx about how xxxx xxxx xx you were !
-
Affection isn't being called a " nuisance or a pest ",neither is being a " duffer " a term of endearment either. Nor the threat of " going in a home " very encouraging, for misbehaving.
Speaking of expectations,which there were of myself because brother was clever,it was also expected of me too but I was an entirely different character to my brother and was never given the same encouragement to do well. This is where the " duffer " came into play.
I was a " people person ",they weren't and my brother remains the same to this day,not always approachable with a tendency to be arrogant,as he always was.
Dad and I were close,but even that was wrong.
So don't be xxxxxxx about how xxxxxxxxxx you were !
Your xxxxxxxxx in the face of something about which you know NOTHING knows no bounds. I won't pretend to know what it feels like to be a biological child in a household where it is put down, yet you have the temerity to disallow the added burden of what I experienced as an adopted child.
-
Your arrogance in the face of something about which you know NOTHING knows no bounds. I won't pretend to know what it feels like to be a biological child in a household where it is put down, yet you have the temerity to disallow the added burden of what I experienced as an adopted child.
Arrogance ? I don't know the meaning of the word in my own world. You have to be in a different world in which to display arrogance. Maybe you're getting mixed up with the word " pride ",which is a far cry from having an attitude.
I'm not disallowing you from the" privilege" of rubbing it in that you were adopted,but please--------you're not the only one and you speak of it as though it's some dreadful doom which it isn't. Where would we be without it ? At the same time,there are millions who weren't adopted but went on to have horrific lives because of their backgrounds and what you don't seem to understand is that biological children suffer Hell too. Look at the figures of mental health in the under 11's. They're not all adopted. Even as young as 5 are reporting symptoms such as anxiety,etc.
Both Sheila and Jeremy did very well during their childhood years and it was up to them,nobody else, to balance themselves out in preparation for adulthood. You can't wipe their behinds all their lives,and the same applies to any child,adopted or not,that they should have gained some understanding of what the future holds and to prepare themselves for that time.
With a solid background,it should be achieved.
Adoption should NEVER be used as an excuse in any way. I find it insulting and unnecessary. Once a child finds its own way in life,why should it be the fault of adoption if things go wrong,or don't go to plan ?
It's like druggies being blamed for crime.The excuse being,he was taking drugs,or " he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing "-------------RUBBISH !
-
Arrogance ? I don't know the meaning of the word in my own world. You have to be in a different world in which to display arrogance. Maybe you're getting mixed up with the word " pride ",which is a far cry from having an attitude.
I'm not disallowing you from the" privilege" of rubbing it in that you were adopted,but please--------you're not the only one and you speak of it as though it's some dreadful doom which it isn't. Where would we be without it ? At the same time,there are millions who weren't adopted but went on to have horrific lives because of their backgrounds and what you don't seem to understand is that biological children suffer Hell too. Look at the figures of mental health in the under 11's. They're not all adopted. Even as young as 5 are reporting symptoms such as anxiety,etc.
Both Sheila and Jeremy did very well during their childhood years and it was up to them,nobody else, to balance themselves out in preparation for adulthood. You can't wipe their behinds all their lives,and the same applies to any child,adopted or not,that they should have gained some understanding of what the future holds and to prepare themselves for that time.
With a solid background,it should be achieved.
Adoption should NEVER be used as an excuse in any way. I find it insulting and unnecessary. Once a child finds its own way in life,why should it be the fault of adoption if things go wrong,or don't go to plan ?
It's like druggies being blamed for crime.The excuse being,he was taking drugs,or " he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing "-------------RUBBISH !
Sorry lookout but I disagree with your opinion on adoption. It is an accepted fact that the emotional wound known as the Primal Wound is inflicted before a baby is conscious of it. This cannot be denied and it does cause difficulties and emotional pain which is often not recognised by the sufferer because how can anyone be aware of what are not normal feelings.
It's true many people have very hard love less childhoods in natural families but babies adopted in the first two years of life and who go on to have a hard love less childhood are disadvantaged from the start.
Children adopted over 2 years of age have different problems, many of these have conscious memories of hideous abuse and rejection and are damaged in ways which are easier to understand.
Because I quote a book about the effects of baby adoption, an area which has only recently begun to be explored, doesn't downgrade the horrors and cruelty inflicted on natural children or the more 'acceptable, heavy handed parenting' which can be so damaging to a little child.
I actually think Jane is very brave to voice her feelings about her childhood as you have been in the past.
I am very aware that I was massively lucky in my upbringing and always appreciate that.
-
Arrogance ? I don't know the meaning of the word in my own world. You have to be in a different world in which to display arrogance. Maybe you're getting mixed up with the word " pride ",which is a far cry from having an attitude.
I'm not disallowing you from the" privilege" of rubbing it in that you were adopted,but please--------you're not the only one and you speak of it as though it's some dreadful doom which it isn't. Where would we be without it ? At the same time,there are millions who weren't adopted but went on to have horrific lives because of their backgrounds and what you don't seem to understand is that biological children suffer Hell too. Look at the figures of mental health in the under 11's. They're not all adopted. Even as young as 5 are reporting symptoms such as anxiety,etc.
Both Sheila and Jeremy did very well during their childhood years and it was up to them,nobody else, to balance themselves out in preparation for adulthood. You can't wipe their behinds all their lives,and the same applies to any child,adopted or not,that they should have gained some understanding of what the future holds and to prepare themselves for that time.
With a solid background,it should be achieved.
Adoption should NEVER be used as an excuse in any way. I find it insulting and unnecessary. Once a child finds its own way in life,why should it be the fault of adoption if things go wrong,or don't go to plan ?
It's like druggies being blamed for crime.The excuse being,he was taking drugs,or " he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing "-------------RUBBISH !
But I'm not the one who is denying or disallowing that some biological children have appalling lives. It's you who condemn me for "rubbing in" the fact of my adoption but seem to have no problem with "rubbing in" how bad was your own childhood. I FULLY recognize that bad is bad but I also recognize that having adoption in the "bad" equation is an added burden on a child who feels it doesn't measure up and has no yardstick for doing so. It is certainly NOT your place to pontificate on how well YOU perceive Sheila and Jeremy -and by default, I- did in our respective childhoods.
You insist you have empathy. You above post suggests as much as could be found in a cold rice pudding.
-
But I'm not the one who is denying or disallowing that some biological children have appalling lives. It's you who condemn me for "rubbing in" the fact of my adoption but seem to have no problem with "rubbing in" how bad was your own childhood. I FULLY recognize that bad is bad but I also recognize that having adoption in the "bad" equation is an added burden on a child who feels it doesn't measure up and has no yardstick for doing so. It is certainly NOT your place to pontificate on how well YOU perceive Sheila and Jeremy -and by default, I- did in our respective childhoods.
You insist you have empathy.
You above post suggests as much as could be found in a cold rice pudding.
------------A reflection of my childhood,perhaps ??
-
Now do you see,I'M blaming MY childhood ? When there's really no need because you DON'T have to emulate what went on.
-
Sorry lookout but I disagree with your opinion on adoption. It is an accepted fact that the emotional wound known as the Primal Wound is inflicted before a baby is conscious of it. This cannot be denied and it does cause difficulties and emotional pain which is often not recognised by the sufferer because how can anyone be aware of what are not normal feelings.
It's true many people have very hard love less childhoods in natural families but babies adopted in the first two years of life and who go on to have a hard love less childhood are disadvantaged from the start.
Children adopted over 2 years of age have different problems, many of these have conscious memories of hideous abuse and rejection and are damaged in ways which are easier to understand.
Because I quote a book about the effects of baby adoption, an area which has only recently begun to be explored, doesn't downgrade the horrors and cruelty inflicted on natural children or the more 'acceptable, heavy handed parenting' which can be so damaging to a little child.
I actually think Jane is very brave to voice her feelings about her childhood as you have been in the past.
I am very aware that I was massively lucky in my upbringing and always appreciate that.
The book you are talking about does not resonate with all adoptees (including myself)
The author herself is not adopted so I find it odd IMO
-
------------A reflection of my childhood,perhaps ??
Lookout, you have told me very succinctly how your childhood was. Yours typed words say one thing, but YOU and your approach tell something entirely different. You're perfectly entitled to blame your childhood for anything you now see as being worthy of it. If you've managed to rise above it, good for you, but make no mistake, it STILL effects you or you wouldn't feel the need to add your voice to mine.
-
Lookout, you have told me very succinctly how your childhood was. Yours typed words say one thing, but YOU and your approach tell something entirely different. You're perfectly entitled to blame your childhood for anything you now see as being worthy of it. If you've managed to rise above it, good for you, but make no mistake, it STILL effects you or you wouldn't feel the need to add your voice to mine.
t wouldn't affect me at all if you didn't keep broaching that particular subject.
-
The book you are talking about does not resonate with all adoptees (including myself)
The author herself is not adopted so I find it odd IMO
I'm glad that is the case for you, David.
It isn't odd. It's empathy.
-
t wouldn't affect me at all if you didn't keep broaching that particular subject.
Are you saying that it's fine as long as it remains buried? I'm fully prepared to take responsibility for what I say but I can't take responsibility for how those words will be accepted because everyone they reach will hear them differently.
-
Arrogance ? I don't know the meaning of the word in my own world. You have to be in a different world in which to display arrogance. Maybe you're getting mixed up with the word " pride ",which is a far cry from having an attitude.
I'm not disallowing you from the" privilege" of rubbing it in that you were adopted,but please--------you're not the only one and you speak of it as though it's some dreadful doom which it isn't. Where would we be without it ? At the same time,there are millions who weren't adopted but went on to have horrific lives because of their backgrounds and what you don't seem to understand is that biological children suffer Hell too. Look at the figures of mental health in the under 11's. They're not all adopted. Even as young as 5 are reporting symptoms such as anxiety,etc.
Both Sheila and Jeremy did very well during their childhood years and it was up to them,nobody else, to balance themselves out in preparation for adulthood. You can't wipe their behinds all their lives,and the same applies to any child,adopted or not,that they should have gained some understanding of what the future holds and to prepare themselves for that time.
With a solid background,it should be achieved.
Adoption should NEVER be used as an excuse in any way. I find it insulting and unnecessary. Once a child finds its own way in life,why should it be the fault of adoption if things go wrong,or don't go to plan ?
It's like druggies being blamed for crime.The excuse being,he was taking drugs,or " he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing "-------------RUBBISH !
Yes you're right, your statement is rubbish! People use drugs and drink by choice - kids don't choose to be adopted and have no control over the process!
-
Your going to take the word of a man who assumed him guilty and stood to inherit the estate on the basis of a guilty verdict?
If the allegation that Jeremy said "I could easily kill my parents" came from say someone who worked with him in Little Chef or someone he was with on the Scuba diving course for example. someone who has no conflict of interest Then I would not have much reason to doubt the authenticity of the allegation.
David I too am interested in Caroline's assertion that Jeremy mentioned the burning of the house plot to someone else. Do you not find it disconcerting that James Richards, a student at the time but who later went on to become a high ranking army official was prepared to stand up in court and testify that Jeremy told him "I f***ing hate my parents", when Jeremy has always denied saying these words, even in jest.
As far as your new evidence is concerned I'm sure we'd all like to know what you've discovered..
-
Yes you're right, your statement is rubbish! People use drugs and drink by choice - kids don't choose to be adopted and have no control over the process!
I think it's lovely that children are adopted rather than face a future of uncertainty,and I look at it in a way where the children had been chosen,in cases where it's medically impossible to bear their own. The children not only fill that void but are usually the longed-for child that had been wanted so badly and there must be many who are very happy,which continues into adult life.
Afterall,life is what you make it.
There are thousands who don't feel adopted and it SHOULDN'T make any difference so far as I'm concerned. A friend once told me that we're all God's children,no matter what.
-
Don't you think that with blood relations there's usually something a child can latch onto in adolescence-a trait from one or both parents that the child can relate to and which reassures as they develop? As far as Nevill and June went they tried their best but they really were intimate strangers at White House Farm.
-
I think it's lovely that children are adopted rather than face a future of uncertainty,and I look at it in a way where the children had been chosen,in cases where it's medically impossible to bear their own. The children not only fill that void but are usually the longed-for child that had been wanted so badly and there must be many who are very happy,which continues into adult life.
Afterall,life is what you make it.
There are thousands who don't feel adopted and it SHOULDN'T make any difference so far as I'm concerned. A friend once told me that we're all God's children,no matter what.
It doesn't matter what you or I think, we have no experience of what it's like to be adopted or to adopt. Jane and Maggie have experience and we can bot LEARN from such experience. I think it's obvious that some adoptees will feel resentment - not all - but quite a few and I think it's clear that Jeremy was/is one of them.
-
I think it's lovely that children are adopted rather than face a future of uncertainty,and I look at it in a way where the children had been chosen,in cases where it's medically impossible to bear their own. The children not only fill that void but are usually the longed-for child that had been wanted so badly and there must be many who are very happy,which continues into adult life.
Afterall,life is what you make it.
There are thousands who don't feel adopted and it SHOULDN'T make any difference so far as I'm concerned. A friend once told me that we're all God's children,no matter what.
I try to eliminate "should" and "shouldn't" from my vocabulary. In my experience it isn't possible to go beyond "is/isn't". Sadly, childhood frequently ISN'T the idealized version you seem to think it is.
-
Don't you think that with blood relations there's usually something a child can latch onto in adolescence-a trait from one or both parents that the child can relate to and which reassures as they develop? As far as Nevill and June went they tried their best but they really were intimate strangers at White House Farm.
Absolutely Steve. My own parents were told that if I was treated like "one of you" IT, my mother's word, would "be like one of you". Just HOW did they believe such was possible?
-
Of course,this is the crux of the whole debate------------that Jeremy had been adopted. Blame that,shall we ?
Children learn from and are guided by their parents whatever the circumstances,and I would have said that Jeremy was June's favourite,whereas he looked up and respected his father as most balanced sons do.
Sheila had far more to chirp about than Jeremy did. I don't remember it spoken of that Sheila was as interested in baking,etc as her brother was. Neither did he seem interested in contacting his birth parents,which Sheila might have felt a pang about not knowing who her father was,among other things she'd been through and was going through at the time.
There was a whole multitude of problems in Sheila's short life which were enough to send the strongest person over the edge.
Both siblings were so different in every way,not because they were adopted because you can get this in bological families too,and this is where the skill of parenting comes in where each child is treated according to their character/persona. You can't expect clones.
Parenting doesn't come easy to many if the instinct isn't there as there's more to raising children than food on the table,clean beds and money. June and Neville were like the many--------clueless,but they did the best they could.
Unfortunately,what must have seemed like a disturbance wasn't just the adoption process,but the many different faces of au-pairs/childminders who would have had a different approach in looking after the children so that was another unknown area in their lives. Stability matters and counts for a lot in a child's life,growing up. Seeing mum ill,then being whsked off. The same instability that Sheila's twins went through.
It wasn't quite dysfunctional but it wasn't far off.
-
Well given the weight of evidence the guilters are attempting an explanation as to why a young man with more prospects at the time than most came to slaughter his entire family. Adoption is only one factor in this gross alienation where not only do you not miss or mourn your intended victims but you justify to yourself that you've somehow done the right thing.
-
Don't you think that with blood relations there's usually something a child can latch onto in adolescence-a trait from one or both parents that the child can relate to and which reassures as they develop? As far as Nevill and June went they tried their best but they really were intimate strangers at White House Farm.
i don't agree completey with that Steve. There is the ld question of Nature and Nurture and it is true that nature is very strong in all of us, however if a baby who bonds well with their replacement mother and grows up in a very secure and loving home they can grow very like their mother. They can be perfectly happy and at ease in that family unit, their problems come in different areas which can cause feelings of unexplained anxiety and stress.
An adoptive process and bonding is a two way process... the mother has to want and love the baby whoever that baby is, she must give every ounce of herself to the child and always put them first and never, ever even think they don't come first, they don't 'fit in', they should be thankful etc. It is a life commitment which makes a mother completely vulnerable to another human being but I believe that is the only way. It is in fact good parenting but being aware every day how lucky you are to have your beautiful child.
Don't think the Bamber's understood the needs of their children at all, the fact they sent them to boarding school at such young ages speaks volumes. No one would ever have made me send my children away at 8 years of age or any other time, I would have killed to keep them.
-
Of course,this is the crux of the whole debate------------that Jeremy had been adopted. Blame that,shall we ?
Children learn from and are guided by their parents whatever the circumstances,and I would have said that Jeremy was June's favourite,whereas he looked up and respected his father as most balanced sons do.
Sheila had far more to chirp about than Jeremy did. I don't remember it spoken of that Sheila was as interested in baking,etc as her brother was. Neither did he seem interested in contacting his birth parents,which Sheila might have felt a pang about not knowing who her father was,among other things she'd been through and was going through at the time.
There was a whole multitude of problems in Sheila's short life which were enough to send the strongest person over the edge.
Both siblings were so different in every way,not because they were adopted because you can get this in bological families too,and this is where the skill of parenting comes in where each child is treated according to their character/persona. You can't expect clones.
Parenting doesn't come easy to many if the instinct isn't there as there's more to raising children than food on the table,clean beds and money. June and Neville were like the many--------clueless,but they did the best they could.
Unfortunately,what must have seemed like a disturbance wasn't just the adoption process,but the many different faces of au-pairs/childminders who would have had a different approach in looking after the children so that was another unknown area in their lives. Stability matters and counts for a lot in a child's life,growing up. Seeing mum ill,then being whsked off. The same instability that Sheila's twins went through.
It wasn't quite dysfunctional but it wasn't far off.
Patterns repeat, Lookout. The tragedy is that we don't recognize the patterns. I'm appalled that I heard myself using the same words, to my then husband's children, as my mother used to me. I didn't think about it. It was automatic. I had no other frame of reference. The ironic thing is, I didn't LIKE the words. They didn't taste right but I didn't know how to do it differently. I have since apologized to them. Bless them, they said their own mother had been much worse than I so they hadn't noticed. Make no mistake, just because Jeremy didn't express his feeling DOESN'T mean he was devoid of them.
-
I'm glad that is the case for you, David.
It isn't odd. It's empathy.
I know it doesn't resonate with all adoptees but that doesn't mean it doesn't have something to say. If things are fine, that's wonderful and absolutely the way it should be. I think maybe it wouldn't hurt for adoptive parents to read it before they adopt because it covers all areas.. adoptive parents, natural mother and adoptive children and as parents we need to know the right answers to various questions and understand the complexities. but it's up to the individual .
My children both read a few pages and said it didn't speak to them which is fine so I read it and found it fascinating, so that may say something about m e. :)Problems can begin when adoptees meet their natural mothers or a very close and loved relative dies but I feel I may sound as if I'm preaching and I really do't mean to. :-X
-
i don't agree completey with that Steve. There is the ld question of Nature and Nurture and it is true that nature is very strong in all of us, however if a baby who bonds well with their replacement mother and grows up in a very secure and loving home they can grow very like their mother. They can be perfectly happy and at ease in that family unit, their problems come in different areas which can cause feelings of unexplained anxiety and stress.
An adoptive process and bonding is a two way process... the mother has to want and love the baby whoever that baby is, she must give every ounce of herself to the child and always put them first and never, ever even think they don't come first, they don't 'fit in', they should be thankful etc. It is a life commitment which makes a mother completely vulnerable to another human being but I believe that is the only way. It is in fact good parenting but being aware every day how lucky you are to have your beautiful child.
Don't think the Bamber's understood the needs of their children at all, the fact they sent them to boarding school at such young ages speaks volumes. No one would ever have made me send my children away at 8 years of age or any other time, I would have killed to keep them.
On that last point I'm sure there were excellent fee paying schools in the vicinity of White House Farm, which does make me wonder about the Bambers' motives in selecting schools they knew very little about irrespective of distance.
As for adoption, Colin in his book writes of the Bambers seeing their children as dolls rather than individuals with human emotions, even though they may have thought in their own way they were doing their best and all would turn out right in the end(in CAL's book there's an incident where June doesn't intervene in a garden row because the Adoption Agency might find out). In my own case when I reminisce the relative whom I most resembled in looks and temperament was my paternal grandfather, whom I barely recollect, but when I heard stories later in life I could empathize. Fortunately I had a strong, loving mother who made up for my rather strange birth father, but then again when I was very small you don't realize the sacrifices and the strain it takes on adults to earn a living to provide. Quite often parents like June who realized too late that they may have made a hash of it (which is what the heartfelt letter written by her was all about) try to compensate with their grandchildren, which tragically worked against Jeremy as he wasn't emotionally confident enough to deal with the love and praise lavished by his parents on the twins.
-
On that last point I'm sure there were excellent fee paying schools in the vicinity of White House Farm, which does make me wonder about the Bambers' motives in selecting schools they knew very little about irrespective of distance.
As for adoption, Colin in his book writes of the Bambers seeing their children as dolls rather than individuals with human emotions, even though they may have thought in their own way they were doing their best and all would turn out right in the end(in CAL's book there's an incident where June doesn't intervene in a garden row because the Adoption Agency might find out). In my own case when I reminisce the relative whom I most resembled in looks and temperament was my paternal grandfather, whom I barely recollect, but when I heard stories later in life I could empathize. Fortunately I had a strong, loving mother who made up for my rather strange birth father, but then again when I was very small you don't realize the sacrifices and the strain it takes on adults to earn a living to provide. Quite often parents like June who realized too late that they may have made a hash of it (which is what the heartfelt letter written by her was all about) try to compensate with their grandchildren, which tragically worked against Jeremy as he wasn't emotionally confident enough to deal with the love and praise lavished by his parents on the twins.
I guess that was the problem, you have to immerse yourself with your children, nowadays adoptive parents are taught how to introduce adoption to children when they are really young. The best way can be to give them photos in a little album which are relevant o their history and talk to them about it before they understand what it means and they just grow up knowing they are adopted. It seems to work and is much better than having to one day sit down with your children and tell them that they are adopted. That must be horrendously confusing and bewildering to a child. In their confusion they must feel rejected, second best and out of control, it's as if they have been living a lie all their lives.... awful.
-
On that last point I'm sure there were excellent fee paying schools in the vicinity of White House Farm, which does make me wonder about the Bambers' motives in selecting schools they knew very little about irrespective of distance.
As for adoption, Colin in his book writes of the Bambers seeing their children as dolls rather than individuals with human emotions, even though they may have thought in their own way they were doing their best and all would turn out right in the end(in CAL's book there's an incident where June doesn't intervene in a garden row because the Adoption Agency might find out). In my own case when I reminisce the relative whom I most resembled in looks and temperament was my paternal grandfather, whom I barely recollect, but when I heard stories later in life I could empathize. Fortunately I had a strong, loving mother who made up for my rather strange birth father, but then again when I was very small you don't realize the sacrifices and the strain it takes on adults to earn a living to provide. Quite often parents like June who realized too late that they may have made a hash of it (which is what the heartfelt letter written by her was all about) try to compensate with their grandchildren, which tragically worked against Jeremy as he wasn't emotionally confident enough to deal with the love and praise lavished by his parents on the twins.
There was certainly a good choice of more local boarding schools for boys but a dearth of those for girls, my own being one of those many which closed.
Interesting that Colin says he thought the Bambers saw their children as dolls. I was encouraged to write down my childhood experiences and in so doing I refer to myself as "The doll thing" because that is how I perceived myself as being.
I have the feeling that many parents find grandparenting MUCH easier than parenting and are far more relaxed with it.
-
I'm glad that is the case for you, David.
It isn't odd. It's empathy.
How can she have empathy if she has not experienced it herself? sympathy may be a more suitable term.
There are some people out there who are adopted and don't even know they are. Its all psychological
-
How can she have empathy if she has not experienced it herself? sympathy may be a more suitable term.
There are some people out there who are adopted and don't even know they are. Its all psychological
Quite obviously counselling isn't one of your many talents. There is a chasm of difference between sympathy and empathy. I won't have experienced a fraction of the problems bought to me but I need empathy to support them. Empathy is the ability to stand outside of oneself and allow another the space to have their own feelings.
I agree, strange as it may be, that there are still those who don't know that they're adopted. Which isn't to say that they feel they fit into their world. Unless they have the tools to express it, how can we know? Our psychology is what makes us who we are. How fitting then that you describe it as being "all psychology".
-
How can she have empathy if she has not experienced it herself? sympathy may be a more suitable term.
There are some people out there who are adopted and don't even know they are. Its all psychological
But given that we have 50% DNA each from our parents it would be logical to think we had something in common with them.
-
But given that we have 50% DNA each from our parents it would be logical to think we had something in common with them.
Fact is Steve that I have many things in common with both my daughters and they have many things in common with each other, so it doesn't really follow. I believe as I said the trick is to be involved with your children, whether natural or adopted. :-\
-
Fact is Steve that I have many things in common with both my daughters and they have many things in common with each other, so it doesn't really follow. I believe as I said the trick is to be involved with your children, whether natural or adopted. :-\
Well I agree that there is a nature versus nurture debate as you can get on a parent's wavelength if they are constantly putting themselves out for you. Unfortunately with June and Jeremy this just wasn't the case. Adopted children also miss out on their natural grandparents which can be a real shame.
-
Well I agree that there is a nature versus nurture debate as you can get on a parent's wavelength if they are constantly putting themselves out for you. Unfortunately with June and Jeremy this just wasn't the case. Adopted children also miss out on their natural grandparents which can be a real shame.
Steve,I never knew both sets of my g/parents. They either died before I was born ( to which I know mum's mum did as she herself was only 10 when her mother died ) or they died during my very former years. Nobody spoke about them,or if so,it was a touch of the Les Dawson's with miming it. So I missed out with grannies and granddads.
-
The only survivor I have who would know mum's side is in a nursing home on the Isle of Man and he doesn't know if it's Christmas Day or Pancake Tuesday.
-
I think the lower rates of crime in the Mediterranean countries can be traced back to the concept of the extended family.
-
It can be traced back to this country too the majority of the time. Some places in the Mediterranean have such laxed laws that allow the criminal element to base themselves there before scarpering onwards to richer pickings. It's not only peculiar to extended families either.
-
Well I agree that there is a nature versus nurture debate as you can get on a parent's wavelength if they are constantly putting themselves out for you. Unfortunately with June and Jeremy this just wasn't the case. Adopted children also miss out on their natural grandparents which can be a real shame.
With respect Steve I cannot agree with you.
I have a perfectly normal loving and healthy relationship with my children, far more so than many natural parents and they adored my parents and my parents were fantastic grandparents who loved them completely.
You are making sweeping statements about adoptive relationships, I would not deny what you suggest may happen but I would bet the problems are much deeper than just not having anything in common with members of your family.
Of course some adoptive children do not gel with their parents and I would guess that imo would be the parents fault in baby adoptions for not providing the necessary bonding and nconditional love which is necessary in all mother/father/baby relationships.
In a well bonded adoptive or natural family where the child is at the centre of the family any problems due to adoption would come from outside the family as they grow and develop not within the family. in any family setting if the gel of love is strong most things can be overcome.
IMO in a happy family the stresses and strains and differences are more about changes in morals etc between the generations rather than anything else and are completely normal in any family situation.
The particular problems in the Bamber family seemed to stem from the fact that the relationship between Sheila and Jeremy and their parents appears to have been highly dysfunctional. The lack of bonding and unconditional love and understanding allowed other emotions such as anger, hate and desperation to grow in the void. :-\
-
With respect Steve I cannot agree with you.
I have a perfectly normal loving and healthy relationship with my children, far more so than many natural parents and they adored my parents and my parents were fantastic grandparents who loved them completely.
You are making sweeping statements about adoptive relationships, I would not deny what you suggest may happen but I would bet the problems are much deeper than just not having anything in common with members of your family.
Of course some adoptive children do not gel with their parents and I would guess that imo would be the parents fault in baby adoptions for not providing the necessary bonding and nconditional love which is necessary in all mother/father/baby relationships.
In a well bonded adoptive or natural family where the child is at the centre of the family any problems due to adoption would come from outside the family as they grow and develop not within the family. in any family setting if the gel of love is strong most things can be overcome.
IMO in a happy family the stresses and strains and differences are more about changes in morals etc between the generations rather than anything else and are completely normal in any family situation.
The particular problems in the Bamber family seemed to stem from the fact that the relationship between Sheila and Jeremy and their parents appears to have been highly dysfunctional. The lack of bonding and unconditional love and understanding allowed other emotions such as anger, hate and desperation to grow in the void. :-\
Well I think this is what I wanted to say.
-
Sorry lookout but I disagree with your opinion on adoption. It is an accepted fact that the emotional wound known as the Primal Wound is inflicted before a baby is conscious of it. This cannot be denied and it does cause difficulties and emotional pain which is often not recognised by the sufferer because how can anyone be aware of what are not normal feelings.
It's true many people have very hard love less childhoods in natural families but babies adopted in the first two years of life and who go on to have a hard love less childhood are disadvantaged from the start.
Children adopted over 2 years of age have different problems, many of these have conscious memories of hideous abuse and rejection and are damaged in ways which are easier to understand.
Because I quote a book about the effects of baby adoption, an area which has only recently begun to be explored, doesn't downgrade the horrors and cruelty inflicted on natural children or the more 'acceptable, heavy handed parenting' which can be so damaging to a little child.
I actually think Jane is very brave to voice her feelings about her childhood as you have been in the past.
I am very aware that I was massively lucky in my upbringing and always appreciate that.
Maggie primal scream sounds like sudo science to me. What about the case where two French baby girls were accidentally swapped at birth? Do they have primal screams?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/families-of-two-women-accidentally-switched-at-birth-awarded-14million-in-ruling-by-french-court-10036285.html
The Queen left her children with nannies when they were babies for months on end to go on tours. Do Charles, Ann, Andrew, and Edward suffer primal screams? 100 or so years ago many women died in childbirth what about all these babies did they suffer primal screams?
Caroline has a degree in psychologies and good spatial awareness I would be interested in what she has she got to say about primal screams?
I am convinced a loving family home conquers all.
-
The father found it difficult to accept the non-biological daughter and he separated from his wife. The Royal Family is buttressed in many ways, though not it seems enough for three of the four children to have experienced failed marriages.
-
Maggie primal scream sounds like sudo science to me. What about the case where two French baby girls were accidentally swapped at birth? Do they have primal screams?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/families-of-two-women-accidentally-switched-at-birth-awarded-14million-in-ruling-by-french-court-10036285.html
The Queen left her children with nannies when they were babies for months on end to go on tours. Do Charles, Ann, Andrew, and Edward suffer primal screams? 100 or so years ago many women died in childbirth what about all these babies did they suffer primal screams?
Caroline has a degree in psychologies and good spatial awareness I would be interested in what she has she got to say about primal screams?
I am convinced a loving family home conquers all.
I think you have your phrases mixed up Jackie as the name of the book is The Primal Wound.
I agree that a truly loving well bonded familyholds a family together but it doesn't help with outside influences which we all have to overcome.
What do I know about the psychology of the children of the Queen ? It is believed that premature babies put into incubators and not held and bonded with the mother will suffer for some extent from separation, and loss of part of themselves.
Don't know what Caroline would say about any of it but strange how so many people with no experience of adoption think they have all the answers. Wish I had all the answers.
-
The father found it difficult to accept the non-biological daughter and he separated from his wife. The Royal Family is buttressed in many ways, though not it seems enough for three of the four children to have experienced failed marriages.
Steve isn't that how it came to light, the father of one of the girls suspected something wasn't right?
Many people have failed marriages. The queen had four children and 3/4 ended in failure :o But Ann and Charles are now happily married as far as anyone knows.
What about all the thousands of women who died in childbirth 100 or so years ago. Their babies were brought up by others. Did they all suffer primal screams?
Prisons are stuffed full with people brought up in care homes not people adopted by middle class families.
-
I think you have your phrases mixed up Jackie as the name of the book is The Primal Wound.
I agree that a truly loving well bonded familyholds a family together but it doesn't help with outside influences which we all have to overcome.
What do I know about the psychology of the children of the Queen ? It is believed that premature babies put into incubators and not held and bonded with the mother will suffer for some extent from separation, and loss of part of themselves.
Don't know what Caroline would say about any of it but strange how so many people with no experience of adoption think they have all the answers. Wish I had all the answers.
What book?
-
Steve isn't that how it came to light, the father of one of the girls suspected something wasn't right?
Many people have failed marriages. The queen had four children and 3/4 ended in failure :o But Ann and Charles are now happily married as far as anyone knows.
What about all the thousands of women who died in childbirth 100 or so years ago. Their babies were brought up by others. Did they all suffer primal screams?
Prisons are stuffed full with people brought up in care homes not people adopted by middle class families.
Hardly surprising as there are many more who have been bought up in care homes than those who have been adopted by middle class families.
-
Hardly surprising as there are many more who have been bought up in care homes than those who have been adopted by middle class families.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
-
Hardly surprising as there are many more who have been bought up in care homes than those who have been adopted by middle class families.
Very true.
-
Very true.
If its true provide the evidence.
-
If its true provide the evidence.
If you're that bothered, you provide it to the contrary.
-
If you're that bothered, you provide it to the contrary.
I'm not that bothered but if you want to argue the point then the obvious thing to do is provide some evidence by way of research, statistics, data.
I can only assume you can't be bothered or you're not interested in the same way you've said you are about housework!
-
The father found it difficult to accept the non-biological daughter and he separated from his wife. The Royal Family is buttressed in many ways, though not it seems enough for three of the four children to have experienced failed marriages.
Like Sheila,Princess Diana had endured a stifled and starchy existence and must have desperately searched for a way out at times. Love was what was lacking in the two of them up until the children came along in which both drew their love from the children until history repeated itself ( divorce ) and for Sheila it meant facing a lonely time when she didn't have the boys with her. What a Godforsaken miserable life for someone so young and not a decent friend to give her the time.
Sheila must have felt that life wasn't worth living, though she hadn't indicated such but her mental health was testament to that,as was Diana's when she had eating problems then attempted to throw herself downstairs.
-
Maggie I saw the film about Steve Jobs. It should be out on DVD now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_%282015_film%29
-
Like Sheila,Princess Diana had endured a stifled and starchy existence and must have desperately searched for a way out at times. Love was what was lacking in the two of them up until the children came along in which both drew their love from the children until history repeated itself ( divorce ) and for Sheila it meant facing a lonely time when she didn't have the boys with her. What a Godforsaken miserable life for someone so young and not a decent friend to give her the time.
Sheila must have felt that life wasn't worth living, though she hadn't indicated such but her mental health was testament to that,as was Diana's when she had eating problems then attempted to throw herself downstairs.
Excellent post Lookout.
-
I'm not that bothered but if you want to argue the point then the obvious thing to do is provide some evidence by way of research, statistics, data.
I can only assume you can't be bothered or you're not interested in the same way you've said you are about housework!
I don't recall saying I'm interested in housework.
-
Like Sheila,Princess Diana had endured a stifled and starchy existence and must have desperately searched for a way out at times. Love was what was lacking in the two of them up until the children came along in which both drew their love from the children until history repeated itself ( divorce ) and for Sheila it meant facing a lonely time when she didn't have the boys with her. What a Godforsaken miserable life for someone so young and not a decent friend to give her the time.
Sheila must have felt that life wasn't worth living, though she hadn't indicated such but her mental health was testament to that,as was Diana's when she had eating problems then attempted to throw herself downstairs.
Yes and both Sheila and Diana self-harmed. I'd like to think that both of them wanted children and drew their love from them as you call it. I wonder if things might have been different had they had daughters instead of sons(and Jeremy out of the picture).
-
Maggie I saw the film about Steve Jobs. It should be out on DVD now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_%282015_film%29
Thanks Jackie. :)
-
I don't recall saying I'm interested in housework.
Read my post again ::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg364472.html#msg364472
-
Yes and both Sheila and Diana self-harmed. I'd like to think that both of them wanted children and drew their love from them as you call it. I wonder if things might have been different had they had daughters instead of sons(and Jeremy out of the picture).
Yes,I wonder about the two sons each. Perhaps one of each ? We'll never know. Very sad indeed.
-
I've recently been reading the Dickinson report. What about this
"There is no doubt looking at the background of the SPEAKMAN/BAMBER and BOUTFLOUR families, that Jeremy and Sheila were completely out of step".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1168.0;attach=5937
A police officer has decided Jeremy and Sheila were completely out of step based on what? What was in step? Whose step were they supposed to be in step with?
-
Yes,I wonder about the two sons each. Perhaps one of each ? We'll never know. Very sad indeed.
In Claire Powell's book Sheila had told her friend Tara that she wished the boys " behaved like boys,roughed-up a bit or they'd end up like ballet dancers ",poor little things. Was there ever a time when CC took them to play footie,or messed about in the park climbing trees ? That's another chapter in their little lives that probably didn't materialse. While the adults only spoke of how they felt,etc etc and as long as their entertainments weren't disrupted !! Makes me sick quite honestly, when most parents should put their children first like I and many others did and to Hell with everything else.
-
I think you have your phrases mixed up Jackie as the name of the book is The Primal Wound.
I agree that a truly loving well bonded familyholds a family together but it doesn't help with outside influences which we all have to overcome.
What do I know about the psychology of the children of the Queen ? It is believed that premature babies put into incubators and not held and bonded with the mother will suffer for some extent from separation, and loss of part of themselves.
Don't know what Caroline would say about any of it but strange how so many people with no experience of adoption think they have all the answers. Wish I had all the answers.
But is there anything unique about adoption? Lots of babies and small children lose their mothers through famine, war, illness/death, accidents. Do these babies and small children all suffer primal screams?
-
Maggie is this book you talk about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Primal_Scream
-
In Claire Powell's book Sheila had told her friend Tara that she wished the boys " behaved like boys,roughed-up a bit or they'd end up like ballet dancers ",poor little things. Was there ever a time when CC took them to play footie,or messed about in the park climbing trees ? That's another chapter in their little lives that probably didn't materialse. While the adults only spoke of how they felt,etc etc and as long as their entertainments weren't disrupted !! Makes me sick quite honestly, when most parents should put their children first like I and many others did and to Hell with everything else.
Thinking that it might be misconstrued I almost wish I hadn't written that about them having boys and not girls, because it's not the children's fault in either case. As for Colin, it's difficult when you're sharing custody and sometimes it's better just to go with the flow, Colin giving them very rich experiences those last few months at art galleries and the Royal Albert Hall, as Londoners are very lucky to have everything on their doorstep. It was Sheila who took the children to Paddington Recreation Ground and really did her best with them as well given her medical condition.
-
Thinking that it might be misconstrued I almost wish I hadn't written that about them having boys and not girls, because it's not the children's fault in either case. As for Colin, it's difficult when you're sharing custody and sometimes it's better just to go with the flow, Colin giving them very rich experiences those last few months at art galleries and the Royal Albert Hall, as Londoners are very lucky to have everything on their doorstep. It was Sheila who took the children to Paddington Recreation Ground and really did her best with them as well given her medical condition.
What did Daniel and Nicholas count as "rich experiences"?
-
Thinking that it might be misconstrued I almost wish I hadn't written that about them having boys and not girls, because it's not the children's fault in either case. As for Colin, it's difficult when you're sharing custody and sometimes it's better just to go with the flow, Colin giving them very rich experiences those last few months at art galleries and the Royal Albert Hall, as Londoners are very lucky to have everything on their doorstep. It was Sheila who took the children to Paddington Recreation Ground and really did her best with them as well given her medical condition.
No,it isn't the children's faults as they didn't ask to be born. Art galleries and the RAH aren't exactly places of interest for 6 year olds and I would have said that it was where their father's interest lay more so. However,I suppose it was better than nothing. As for Sheila,she was in no fit state to entertain the boys any more than she did. What a sad state of affairs it all was.
-
Of course not all adopted kids are angry - but I believe Jeremy was. Sheila was able to meet her birth mother but I believe Jeremy was afraid of yet more rejection. Instead he just dismissed it as something he wasn't interested in.
Everyone has some kind of temper - it doesn't mean you will see it.
Yes, I get you point, perhaps when Susan sprayed the cream, he had a flash back to shooting Sheila.
At the time of the cream spraying incident Julie claims she had told Susan. What sort of young women invite a mass murderer to their party and mess about with him using spray cream :o :o :o What have you got to say about this with your psychologies degree and good spatial awareness?
-
I have no idea what PH is doing but I would guess he's moved on from Jeremy Bamber.
Something truly extraordinary eh? And yet he's still incarcerated, SM is no longer involved and MWT seems to be just a name that you mention frequently - we don't know if either of them are still Jeremy supporters or if they ever were. They simply had a job to do.
Although I must add. I agree that the CT are useless.
Moved on to what? I would think his crime writing has reached an end?
-
No,it isn't the children's faults as they didn't ask to be born. Art galleries and the RAH aren't exactly places of interest for 6 year olds and I would have said that it was where their father's interest lay more so. However,I suppose it was better than nothing. As for Sheila,she was in no fit state to entertain the boys any more than she did. What a sad state of affairs it all was.
Mrs Brenchers statement was pretty harrowing in the part where Sheila sobbed like a child in her arms. Mrs B had said it was the first time that she'd seen Sheila showing emotion ? Then the next thing,Sheila had shown the poor woman the door.
-
I think the lower rates of crime in the Mediterranean countries can be traced back to the concept of the extended family.
Do you have any evidence for the lower rates of crime? What are the reporting methods compared with UK?
-
No,it isn't the children's faults as they didn't ask to be born. Art galleries and the RAH aren't exactly places of interest for 6 year olds and I would have said that it was where their father's interest lay more so. However,I suppose it was better than nothing. As for Sheila,she was in no fit state to entertain the boys any more than she did. What a sad state of affairs it all was.
Of course they're not Lookout. As much as I like Steve he's a complete cultural snob. Bet he doesn't watch TOWIE :'(
I do learn lots from him though as I usually have to Google a word or two in a post ;D
-
Of course they're not Lookout. As much as I like Steve he's a complete cultural snob. Bet he doesn't watch TOWIE :'(
I do learn lots from him though as I usually have to Google a word or two in a post ;D
Steve's alright Jackie. He's a likeable soul really.
TOWIE should be back later on. I'm miffed about the split with Arg and Lydia though. I put up with watching Cheshire Housewives,so catty it's unbelievable. I like Ampika in that because she doesn't care.
-
New VLOG tomorrow. There's a lovely pic of Trudi on Bambertweets too.
-
Like I have just posted on the 'Why Jeremy is Innocent' thread - he bottled things up and harboured resentment about both his adoption and being ushered off to boarding school. Sheila let out her anger. Everyone has a temper, it's strange that he seems to have been so controlled, although not so much when he pushed a cake in someone's face. He didn't like being the brunt of a joke - but liked to tease others.
Sheila had never seen the gun before and it's too much of a coincidence that Jeremy left out the gun, just on the night that 'Sheila went crazy'.
No, Jeremy told someone else (I will have to look up his name) about his plan to burn down the farm.
You are talking about Charles Marsden. Jeremy did not tell Marsden that he had a plan to burn down the farm. There is a thread on Marsden started by Naughty Nun.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159278.html#msg159278
It's very strange that you seem to have forgotten Marsden's name and what he really said, since you were highly critical of Steve_uk for reading too much into what Marsden said.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159549.html#msg159549
"There is not so much difference in hindsight between Jeremy speculating that the Farm might burn down and DS Stan Jones saying words to the effect that "if you burned down the Farm."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566
"There is a MASSIVE difference!! Is this where Julie got the idea about the fire too? He was the boyfriend of 'julie's' friend so I would bet that both Mugford and Marsden (sounds like a double act - quite apt! ;D) are quoting the SAME incident and NOT that JB said the comment on separate occasions it was simply embroidered!! Marsden was obviously was not a good witness because he was never used!!"
I know David1898 thinks that Julie Mugford was coerced into giving false evidence. I know, I don't believe Julie made up the story about burning the house down. It's far more likely that it was one of those yarns which dodgy Stan Jones told her to say during those thirty-one interviews. He seems to have got the idea from Marsden. Just added a little to it.
-
You are talking about Charles Marsden. Jeremy did not tell Marsden that he had a plan to burn down the farm. There is a thread on Marsden started by Naughty Nun.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159278.html#msg159278
It's very strange that you seem to have forgotten Marsden's name and what he really said, since you were highly critical of Steve_uk for reading too much into what Marsden said.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159549.html#msg159549
"There is not so much difference in hindsight between Jeremy speculating that the Farm might burn down and DS Stan Jones saying words to the effect that "if you burned down the Farm."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566
"There is a MASSIVE difference!! Is this where Julie got the idea about the fire too? He was the boyfriend of 'julie's' friend so I would bet that both Mugford and Marsden (sounds like a double act - quite apt! ;D) are quoting the SAME incident and NOT that JB said the comment on separate occasions it was simply embroidered!! Marsden was obviously was not a good witness because he was never used!!"
I know David1898 thinks that Julie Mugford was coerced into giving false evidence. I know, I don't believe Julie made up the story about burning the house down. It's far more likely that it was one of those yarns which dodgy Stan Jones told her to say during those thirty-one interviews. He seems to have got the idea from Marsden. Just added a little to it.
Another one prepared to believe EVERYONE except Jeremy lied. ::)
-
You are talking about Charles Marsden. Jeremy did not tell Marsden that he had a plan to burn down the farm. There is a thread on Marsden started by Naughty Nun.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159278.html#msg159278
It's very strange that you seem to have forgotten Marsden's name and what he really said, since you were highly critical of Steve_uk for reading too much into what Marsden said.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159549.html#msg159549
"There is not so much difference in hindsight between Jeremy speculating that the Farm might burn down and DS Stan Jones saying words to the effect that "if you burned down the Farm."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566
"There is a MASSIVE difference!! Is this where Julie got the idea about the fire too? He was the boyfriend of 'julie's' friend so I would bet that both Mugford and Marsden (sounds like a double act - quite apt! ;D) are quoting the SAME incident and NOT that JB said the comment on separate occasions it was simply embroidered!! Marsden was obviously was not a good witness because he was never used!!"
I know David1898 thinks that Julie Mugford was coerced into giving false evidence. I know, I don't believe Julie made up the story about burning the house down. It's far more likely that it was one of those yarns which dodgy Stan Jones told her to say during those thirty-one interviews. He seems to have got the idea from Marsden. Just added a little to it.
You're certainly well informed about the case,well done and a good post.
-
You're certainly well informed about the case,well done and a good post.
So you don't think it at all suspicious that Jeremy mentioned the farm burning down to Charles Marsden when this was his first plan to get rid of the family? It's just yet another conspiracy is it? More people lyingly. The size of this conspiracy grows bigger everyday. ::)
-
So you don't think it at all suspicious that Jeremy mentioned the farm burning down to Charles Marsden when this was his first plan to get rid of the family? It's just yet another conspiracy is it? More people lyingly. The size of this conspiracy grows bigger everyday. ::)
How many people have lied , in your version of events , of JB being guilty ?
AE , RB , SJ , RC , all lied according to you over the silencer , didnt they ?
You also claim JM is a liar , at times .
Was the bank manager lying , when he claimed JM arrived at the bank with a police officer ?
-
As David said, Julie either secretly read AE' s and RB's diaries. Or secretly plotted with them the downfall of Bamber.
Doing either is impressive as Julie was with Bamber being whisked around England and Holland during this one month period.
Julie must have also done the same with Charles Marsden. As Bamber would never have considered burning down WHF, would he ?
-
How many people have lied , in your version of events , of JB being guilty ?
AE , RB , SJ , RC , all lied according to you over the silencer , didnt they ?
You also claim JM is a liar , at times .
Was the bank manager lying , when he claimed JM arrived at the bank with a police officer ?
Certainly Jeremy has lied but for such a conspiracy to have take place, how many people do you think would have had to lie? Common sense should tell you that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for so many to have lied and kept quiet all these years. According to some, plans were already underway to frame Bamber before they even discovered the bodies - the so called 'call from Nevill to police' kept from Jeremy for what reason? Ludicrous!
-
Certainly Jeremy has lied but for such a conspiracy to have take place, how many people do you think would have had to lie? Common sense should tell you that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for so many to have lied and kept quiet all these years. According to some, plans were already underway to frame Bamber before they even discovered the bodies - the so called 'call from Nevill to police' kept from Jeremy for what reason? Ludicrous!
Yes totally ludicrous! According to Bamber supporters everybody lied except Bamber and everybody was in this huge conspiracy against him.
I've never heard so much deluded and fictitious crap ever!
-
Neville did phone the police ( 999 ) because I've since learned that he was desperate and just managed to tell EP that Sheila was shooting at the family.
So why the lies ESSEX POLICE ? Come on,let's hear that tape,because it's in your possession !!
-
Neville did phone the police ( 999 ) because I've since learned that he was desperate and just managed to tell EP that Sheila was shooting at the family.
So why the lies ESSEX POLICE ? Come on,let's hear that tape,because it's in your possession !!
No he didn't.
-
No he didn't.
We'll see shall we ??
-
We'll see shall we ??
yes, you will.
-
We'll see shall we ??
Why would this call be kept secret Lookout? Had their been such a call, Taff Jones would have used it to fend off the relatives. it was PROOF that Jeremy was innocent, the kind of evidence that couldn't be refuted. Had it been the case, the relatives would have had no log to stand on and would have had to slip into the back ground. So WHY would EP keep such a call secret?
-
Why would this call be kept secret Lookout? Had their been such a call, Taff Jones would have used it to fend off the relatives. it was PROOF that Jeremy was innocent, the kind of evidence that couldn't be refuted. Had it been the case, the relatives would have had no log to stand on and would have had to slip into the back ground. So WHY would EP keep such a call secret?
You'd better ask EP that question. Why did EP do lots of things to hamper the defence ? Like hiding documents,photo's and audio-tapes for the past 30 years.
-
You'd better ask EP that question. Why did EP do lots of things to hamper the defence ? Like hiding documents,photo's and audio-tapes for the past 30 years.
You're passing the buck, you can't answer because there is no logical reason why such a call would be kept quiet in the early stage of the investigation. NONE!
-
Maggie I dont know anything about adoption. I would have thought if you grow up in loving family home it is ok? What about children who are abused by thier natural family?
If a baby is adopted and grows up in loving family as Sheila and Jeremy did with Nevill and June how can this compare with children who are abused by their natural parents?
Loads of cases this year where babies or small children have died at the hands of their natural parents.
I dont agree with you Maggie.
Quote from Jeremy "I'm sure my life would have been very different if I hadn't been adopted"
-
Quote from Jeremy "I'm sure my life would have been very different if I hadn't been adopted"
Even in the happiest adoption situations for some if not all people it must be very hard to be torn between not knowing where you come from, being frightened to learn the reality of where you come from and on discovery hating where you come from, or the opposite of that or something in between.
How do adopted children really cope with the reality of trying to forgive a mother who,no matter how hard they try to understand the reasons and excuse her, in their minds she rejected them? If that is coupled with feeling rejected in their adoptive home it is a very tough situation for them. imo
-
Even in the happiest adoption situations for some if not all people it must be very hard to be torn between not knowing where you come from, being frightened to learn the reality of where you come from and on discovery hating where you come from, or the opposite of that or something in between.
How do adopted children really cope with the reality of trying to forgive a mother who rejected them? If that is coupled with feeling rejected in their adoptive home it is a very tough situation for them. imo
Maggie a lot would depend on the upbringing of the adopted child as to whether he/she was " adjusted " to the facts about their bio-parents and the circumstances which brought about the adoption,always assuming that they'd been told.
With truth and understanding told to the child,the " burden " becomes lighter in later years,then the option of meeting up,or not is then reserved for the child's/adult's benefit in future years. Some don't have the desire to meet their bio parents,or do so out of curiosity.
-
Maggie a lot would depend on the upbringing of the adopted child as to whether he/she was " adjusted " to the facts about their bio-parents and the circumstances which brought about the adoption,always assuming that they'd been told.
With truth and understanding told to the child,the " burden " becomes lighter in later years,then the option of meeting up,or not is then reserved for the child's/adult's benefit in future years. Some don't have the desire to meet their bio parents,or do so out of curiosity.
I can't tell you how much my hackles rise when people, who have no experience of how it feels to be in a situation, pontificate to those who have, on how best to manage it.
-
I can't tell you how much my hackles rise when people, who have no experience of how it feels to be in a situation, pontificate to those who have, on how best to manage it.
Don't be so touchy. I wasn't " pontificating " at all,it's your misinterpretations as usual. I WASN'T telling anyone anything,I was just suggesting,but hey-ho if you want to take everything as read then that's entirely up to you,but you border on the neurotic,to me.
-
Don't be so touchy. I wasn't " pontificating " at all,it's your misinterpretations as usual. I WASN'T telling anyone anything,I was just suggesting,but hey-ho if you want to take everything as read then that's entirely up to you,but you border on the neurotic,to me.
The saying goes that one needs to stand/walk in another's shoes to understand what it feels like to be them before passing judgement. There is no shame in not having the ability to do this, but there is arrogance in assuming one can.
-
Try focussing on the many child refugees who've been orphaned after whose parents drowned making their escape--------------I do ! I rarely think of myself nor let the past take over. I'm a realist who focusses on the here and now,not how badly done to I was.
It's not all about YOU you know !
It's much easier for you, I'll bet, to show SYMPATHY -from a distance- for "child refugees who've been orphaned" than to show EMPATHY to someone close to home. "I" don't exist in such a situation. You are all about "I". Were this not so, you wouldn't take everything so personally.
-
Try focussing on the many child refugees who've been orphaned after whose parents drowned making their escape--------------I do ! I rarely think of myself nor let the past take over. I'm a realist who focusses on the here and now,not how badly done to I was.
It's not all about YOU you know !
And yet your whole post is about YOU!
-
It's much easier for you, I'll bet, to show SYMPATHY -from a distance- for "child refugees who've been orphaned" than to show EMPATHY to someone close to home. "I" don't exist in such a situation. You are all about "I". Were this not so, you wouldn't take everything so personally.
What ? ME take everything personally ? Surely that pertains to yourself at the very mention of adoption ? What I do take personally are your incessant accusations of me being without " empathy "
-
What ? ME take everything personally ? Surely that pertains to yourself at the very mention of adoption ? What I do take personally are your incessant accusations of me being without " empathy "
If you had any, you wouldn't be ranting about me "going on about adoption". You'd understand why.
-
What ? ME take everything personally ? Surely that pertains to yourself at the very mention of adoption ? What I do take personally are your incessant accusations of me being without " empathy "
Lookout you're the most empathetic person I've ever met in my whole life. You given up much of your retirement over the last few years to support Jeremy the best way you know how to. xxx
-
Quote from Jeremy "I'm sure my life would have been very different if I hadn't been adopted"
That was in response to the following in 2004. At this time he had spent about 19 years in prison. Of course he was being filosofical about his situation who wouldn't. ::)
I said when I talked to him on the phone he told me he had a very happy life before prison.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/He+went+to+lovely+people+who+gave+him+the+best+start+in+life.+He...-a0112751004
Why didn't you ask to go on his phone list? Never to late and you could ask him about the wallet and trailer.
Talking of trailers I think I might wash my horse box out as its a nice day ^-^
-
Even in the happiest adoption situations for some if not all people it must be very hard to be torn between not knowing where you come from, being frightened to learn the reality of where you come from and on discovery hating where you come from, or the opposite of that or something in between.
How do adopted children really cope with the reality of trying to forgive a mother who,no matter how hard they try to understand the reasons and excuse her, in their minds she rejected them? If that is coupled with feeling rejected in their adoptive home it is a very tough situation for them. imo
Maggie do any of us know where we come from? Gods creatures, swamps, African Savana?
What about mothers who put their children in care homes? How do these children feel? What about mothers that allow their children to be abused by their partners. I could go on and on.
You're too hung up on adoption Maggie and need to chll out about it all.
-
Lookout you're the most empathetic person I've ever met in my whole life. You given up much of your retirement over the last few years to support Jeremy the best way you know how to. xxx
I've never been one to blow my own trumpet but you've done it for me,Jackie. ;D ;D ;D ;D xxxx
-
Why would this call be kept secret Lookout? Had their been such a call, Taff Jones would have used it to fend off the relatives. it was PROOF that Jeremy was innocent, the kind of evidence that couldn't be refuted. Had it been the case, the relatives would have had no log to stand on and would have had to slip into the back ground. So WHY would EP keep such a call secret?
very good point caroline taff jones would not have stayed silent ,may even have leaked it to the press when taken off the case.
-
I've never been one to blow my own trumpet but you've done it for me,Jackie. ;D ;D ;D ;D xxxx
Then how is it you always manage to imply you do just about everything better than anyone else OR should that be you don't believe anyone matches up to your own perceived high standards?
-
Maggie do any of us know where we come from? Gods creatures, swamps, African Savana?
What about mothers who put their children in care homes? How do these children feel? What about mothers that allow their children to be abused by their partners. I could go on and on.
You're too hung up on adoption Maggie and need to chll out about it all.
i think youre wrong maggie's not hung up about anythink.and for you to analyze it that way is insulting,as for chilling out ,she's the most chilled out person on here,dont forget she's a moderator so she reads both angles ,allways cool in responses
-
Maggie do any of us know where we come from? Gods creatures, swamps, African Savana?
What about mothers who put their children in care homes? How do these children feel? What about mothers that allow their children to be abused by their partners. I could go on and on.
You're too hung up on adoption Maggie and need to chll out about it all.
read reply 1264, by me
-
Maggie do any of us know where we come from? Gods creatures, swamps, African Savana?
What about mothers who put their children in care homes? How do these children feel? What about mothers that allow their children to be abused by their partners. I could go on and on.
You're too hung up on adoption Maggie and need to chll out about it all.
The only reason I have talked about adoption is in relation to the Jeremy Bamber case and the effect adoption may have had on the subsequent lives of both Sheila and Jeremy.
It is true many children.... 'God's creatures' do suffer in this country and through out the world but I cannot see how these very sad facts are relevant to the discussion questioning the guilt or innocence of Jeremy Bamber. Hope that helps.
-
That was in response to the following in 2004. At this time he had spent about 19 years in prison. Of course he was being filosofical about his situation who wouldn't. ::)
I said when I talked to him on the phone he told me he had a very happy life before prison.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/He+went+to+lovely+people+who+gave+him+the+best+start+in+life.+He...-a0112751004
Why didn't you ask to go on his phone list? Never to late and you could ask him about the wallet and trailer.
Talking of trailers I think I might wash my horse box out as its a nice day ^-^
i doubt if caroline would want to be on a childkillers phone list.the photos ive seen of him in the nick ,it seems he's very happy where he is allways smiling for the camera.as for the trailer wont it be a muckie job,better you than me
-
i doubt if caroline would want to be on a childkillers phone list.the photos ive seen of him in the nick ,it seems he's very happy where he is allways smiling for the camera.as for the trailer wont it be a muckie job,better you than me
Writing as Caroline did and receiving letters means she has to touch items the child killer has touched much muckier than cleaning out my horse box ::)
-
i think youre wrong maggie's not hung up about anythink.and for you to analyze it that way is insulting,as for chilling out ,she's the most chilled out person on here,dont forget she's a moderator so she reads both angles ,allways cool in responses
Maggie said all babies adopted suffer primal screams because they're separated from their natural mothers. But she can't explain those accidentally swapped at birth. Do they suffer primal screams? Or babies that lose their mothers in childbirth, natural disasters, wars, famines, illness followed by death, accidents. Do all these babies suffer primal screams?
-
Maggie said all babies adopted suffer primal screams because they're separated from their natural mothers. But she can't explain those accidentally swapped at birth. Do they suffer primal screams? Or babies that lose their mothers in childbirth, natural disasters, wars, famines, illness followed by death, accidents. Do all these babies suffer primal screams?
You seem to be demanding hard and fast concrete answers. You should be aware that psychology doesn't give them. The best answer I came give is that I believe it's highly likely that those children you list DO suffer loss at some level which will result -at some point in their lives- as depression which could manifest itself in numerous ways ie PTSD, eating disorders, addictions, dependent on the age of the child at the time of loss.
There was a moment in our history when children, when admitted to hospital, were denied parental visits. The child's world, without it's mother, would have been a scary place and the child screamed for it's mother. It was deemed -during that time in our thinking- to be badly behaved. Over time -a few days- the screaming would lessen, until the time that the child accepted that it's mother wasn't coming back -effectively abandoning her child- and the crying ceased. It was at this time that the child was said to be behaving itself. We now know that what we were witnessing, rather than good behaviour, was depression.
Loss is experienced by us all. As adults, we have had time to develop coping strategies. Children don't have this luxury. A newborn has had 9 months of hearing it's mother's voice before birth. By 6 weeks it also recognizes her touch and her smell. It will recognize if it isn't she who puts a teat to it's lips. It will be totally helpless if this primary source of comfort is removed.
As a continuum, an interesting experiment was carried out. A given number of people were asked to congregate silently and pick one other person. After which the couples were asked to pick another couple -again, silently. The new foursome then picked another foursome. At the end of the experiment there were always a group on the outside who hadn't been picked -had been rejected?- This "wallflower" group always turned out to be people who had been adopted, fostered or bought up in care homes.
-
Maggie said all babies adopted suffer primal screams because they're separated from their natural mothers. But she can't explain those accidentally swapped at birth. Do they suffer primal screams? Or babies that lose their mothers in childbirth, natural disasters, wars, famines, illness followed by death, accidents. Do all these babies suffer primal screams?
Of course they do, any baby who is born prematurely and put in an incubator or a baby removed from its mother temporarily or permanently will suffer the same wound which cannot be healed even if the mother returns to the child. The loss and the wound it causes cannot be healed because the intimate relationship of the dependant baby who is still as much a part of their natural mother as when they were in the womb cannot heal the part which has been lost, the part which suddenly just disappeared. The connection is severed and the severing causes the wound which will always remain.
How much of a problem that becomes depends on the future development of the baby, if they are able to deeply bond with their alternative permanent carer if they have one and their life experiences.
A child can grow up well adjusted in a happy loving family but an incident which is beyond their control can trigger the dormant pain of the wound.
Of course we all have experiences in childhood and adulthood which leave lasting psychological effects but the reason for this discussion is to show that Jeremy Bamber will have suffered severely from separation from his mother even if he wasn't aware of it. Further separations and feelings of rejection would have been difficult for him to cope with on some level, even if he wasn't aware of it.
Sheila appeared to display her difficulties via illness, erratic behaviour and voicing her inability to bond with her mother.
Jeremy appears to have struggled in his own way but being a young man educated in a public school and growing up in the same atmosphere at home ie. 'Boys don't cry' , a 'stiff upper lip', 'take it on the chin' etc. He would have had little outlet for his struggles with pain and loss which he probably didn't understand, which in turn MAY have lead to him releasing all his anger and pain in one night.
On the other hand it MAY have nothing to do with the murders, it is just a theory and I know that doesn't make it fact.
-
Writing as Caroline did and receiving letters means she has to touch items the child killer has touched much muckier than cleaning out my horse box ::)
caroline researched the whole case and relised jb was guilty,and to her credit she freely admits she was wrong in the past .unlike you.you really must clear the wool from your eyes ,unless your too proud just like taff jones ,to admit youve been duped ;)as for muckier i will accept your word on it ,you being an expert in that field
-
caroline researched the whole case and relised jb was guilty,and to her credit she freely admits she was wrong in the past .unlike you.you really must clear the wool from your eyes ,unless your too proud just like taff jones ,to admit youve been duped ;)as for muckier i will accept your word on it ,you being an expert in that field
I think we have a virus Sami! ;) ;D
-
Speaking of viruses,I had notification this morning that an attempt to get into my mail had been averted.
Having not long set-up my new laptop ( a Christmas present ! ) I thought I'd be safe with all the gadgets giving me the security that's " obviously " needed. Doesn't take the swines long,does it ? ::) However because I received the notification meant that whoever was trying,didn't succeed.
-
Speaking of viruses,I had notification this morning that an attempt to get into my mail had been averted.
Having not long set-up my new laptop ( a Christmas present ! ) I thought I'd be safe with all the gadgets giving me the security that's " obviously " needed. Doesn't take the swines long,does it ? ::) However because I received the notification meant that whoever was trying,didn't succeed.
any thoughts on who it could be lookout,its not the 1st time its happened is it
-
any thoughts on who it could be lookout,its not the 1st time its happened is it
It's a London ISP.
-
It's a London ISP.
get it traced and report it to police,but please be polite to them or they may not do anything
-
It's a London ISP.
Whether it can be traced to an address,I don't know,but I don't care so long as it's been blocked.
-
Maggie said all babies adopted suffer primal screams because they're separated from their natural mothers. But she can't explain those accidentally swapped at birth. Do they suffer primal screams? Or babies that lose their mothers in childbirth, natural disasters, wars, famines, illness followed by death, accidents. Do all these babies suffer primal screams?
I can confirm not all adoptees have primal screams
Source - Am adopted and no primal scream ;D
-
Whether it can be traced to an address,I don't know,but I don't care so long as it's been blocked.
thats what a good security program can do,they tryed stealing my passwords once when i was logged on to barclaycard but were thwarted thanks to my anti spyware,
-
Maggie do any of us know where we come from? Gods creatures, swamps, African Savana?
What about mothers who put their children in care homes? How do these children feel? What about mothers that allow their children to be abused by their partners. I could go on and on.
You're too hung up on adoption Maggie and need to chll out about it all.
Actually Jackie, or is it Holly??, am sure it is Holly, I'm only 'hung up' with the fact that you are an uninvited guest on here.
Actually, that statement is not completely true because you must have had permission from the forum member allowing you to use their ID and account .
As you are banned for life from this forum, I feel I have no choice but to close down the account you have been using.
-
How do adopted children really cope with the reality of trying to forgive a mother who,no matter how hard they try to understand the reasons and excuse her, in their minds she rejected them? If that is coupled with feeling rejected in their adoptive home it is a very tough situation for them. imo
That's not how I see it at all. I'm grateful it was decided to put me up for adoption, My mother could not have looked after me properly and I have a much better life and upbringing as a result of her decision.
-
thats what a good security program can do,they tryed stealing my passwords once when i was logged on to barclaycard but were thwarted thanks to my anti spyware,
I won't bank online for that reason.
-
I can confirm not all adoptees have primal screams
Source - Am adopted and no primal scream ;D
sorry to hear that david,hope its not affected you too badly in life.
-
I won't bank online for that reason.
chilling to think someones trying to spy on you when you use the computer >:(
-
anyway,can someone tell me the story of the game jb said they played at christmas when they were young,involving jb and sc distracting june so neville could pinch a mince pie,such innocent games :)
-
Hide and seek ?
-
That's not how I see it at all. I'm grateful it was decided to put me up for adoption, My mother could not have looked after me properly and I have a much better life and upbringing as a result of her decision.
That's wonderful, David. You and your adopted mother/parents were obviously able to form the sort of bond that many adopted children can only dream of. That alone, however, for some, may NOT silence the primal scream OR heal the wound.
-
Hide and seek ?
oh thats it,is it.he certainly cant play it anymore cos half the country know where he is hiding 'in the nick' ;)
-
I can confirm not all adoptees have primal screams
Source - Am adopted and no primal scream ;D
There are heaps of success stories .
-
There are heaps of success stories .
Whilst I'm delighted at their success, they're not the ones who I'm concerned for.
-
There are heaps of success stories .
Of course there are lookout, I have a very happy and loving family but that doesn't mean there are not insecurities thrown up.
An adoption is not a failure because a child struggles with it at times and is able to discuss it with their Parents in a loving situation and is given the support and security to help them to deal with such difficulties.
An adoption is a failure if a child wants to discuss their difficulties/insecurities with a parent and they are not listened to causing the child to feel rejected, unloved and bewildered.
Girls tend to be more vocal about their feelings and in a secure relationship may feel safe to express themselves whereas boys tend to keep their feelings to themselves and go and kick a ball or whatever boys do ;D
I agree there are very many wonderful outcomes of adoption which have given many children life chances they could never have experienced otherwise.
Time to move on, I think. ;)
-
to add a personal note to it,i was put into a home for about 6 months when i was 14,and ive never forgiven me r fella for it,infact i hate him to this day,no relationship whatso ever between us two.
-
to add a personal note to it,i was put into a home for about 6 months when i was 14,and ive never forgiven me r fella for it,infact i hate him to this day,no relationship whatso ever between us two.
You're entitled to have those feelings, Sami. That appalling experience was yours. No one else knows what it felt like to be 14 year old you.
-
You're entitled to have those feelings, Sami. That appalling experience was yours. No one else knows what it felt like to be 14 year old you.
thanks jane :)
-
You're passing the buck, you can't answer because there is no logical reason why such a call would be kept quiet in the early stage of the investigation. NONE!
How right Caroline and thanks for jogging my memory about the pub conversation between Jeremy and Malcolm Deckers about the possibility of the farm burning down at Christmas 1984, which surely must have swayed some who tend to believe in Jeremy's innocence.
-
You seem to be demanding hard and fast concrete answers. You should be aware that psychology doesn't give them. The best answer I came give is that I believe it's highly likely that those children you list DO suffer loss at some level which will result -at some point in their lives- as depression which could manifest itself in numerous ways ie PTSD, eating disorders, addictions, dependent on the age of the child at the time of loss.
There was a moment in our history when children, when admitted to hospital, were denied parental visits. The child's world, without it's mother, would have been a scary place and the child screamed for it's mother. It was deemed -during that time in our thinking- to be badly behaved. Over time -a few days- the screaming would lessen, until the time that the child accepted that it's mother wasn't coming back -effectively abandoning her child- and the crying ceased. It was at this time that the child was said to be behaving itself. We now know that what we were witnessing, rather than good behaviour, was depression.
Loss is experienced by us all. As adults, we have had time to develop coping strategies. Children don't have this luxury. A newborn has had 9 months of hearing it's mother's voice before birth. By 6 weeks it also recognizes her touch and her smell. It will recognize if it isn't she who puts a teat to it's lips. It will be totally helpless if this primary source of comfort is removed.
As a continuum, an interesting experiment was carried out. A given number of people were asked to congregate silently and pick one other person. After which the couples were asked to pick another couple -again, silently. The new foursome then picked another foursome. At the end of the experiment there were always a group on the outside who hadn't been picked -had been rejected?- This "wallflower" group always turned out to be people who had been adopted, fostered or bought up in care homes.
How terrible Jane, though it doesn't surprise me. We had a caretaker in the 1970s who claimed he could pick out in primary school those who would end up in jail.
-
to add a personal note to it,i was put into a home for about 6 months when i was 14,and ive never forgiven me r fella for it,infact i hate him to this day,no relationship whatso ever between us two.
That's a shame sami. I don't know all the facts so can't really comment, but once your parents are dead there really is no further chance of communication.
-
to add a personal note to it,i was put into a home for about 6 months when i was 14,and ive never forgiven me r fella for it,infact i hate him to this day,no relationship whatso ever between us two.
Hi sami, I am sorry to hear what you have been through.
I know when you first came on the forum I did think you were a troll but I can see I was wrong and I do apologise for misjudging you. :)
-
Hi sami, I am sorry to hear what you have been through.
I know when you first came on the forum I did think you were a troll but I can see I was wrong and I do apologise for misjudging you. :)
thank you maggie, :)
-
That's a shame sami. I don't know all the facts so can't really comment, but once your parents are dead there really is no further chance of communication.
thanks steve,your spot on sometimes i do wonder how i would feel when he dies,but theres no bond there. like the one people would expect between father n son.anyway life can be cruel but we struggle on human spirit :)
-
Hi sami, I am sorry to hear what you have been through.
I know when you first came on the forum I did think you were a troll but I can see I was wrong and I do apologise for misjudging you. :)
Maggie you are so right sami is one lovely genuine guy with a heart of gold.
-
Maggie you are so right sami is one lovely genuine guy with a heart of gold.
thanks sue x .i must say iam overwhelmed by the kindness shown by forum members ,human nature at its very best :)
-
thanks sue x .i must say iam overwhelmed by the kindness shown by forum members ,human nature at its very best :)
sami you have earned and deserve kindness xxx
-
if it wasnt such a hidious crime ,i would be congratulating jb and telling him to turn it into a book and boardgame,this puzzle he has set.i think it was a family member that summed this case up.'NO ONE WINS'
-
How terrible Jane, though it doesn't surprise me. We had a caretaker in the 1970s who claimed he could pick out in primary school those who would end up in jail.
I remember as a kid at school I always made a bee-line for the " waifs and strays " to make friends with because even at a young age I'd twigged that they were the ones who were always cast aside. I seemed to collect them,poor things. I was old enough to know it was cruel and mean to have been treated as they were just because they were " scruffy ",aww.
-
I remember as a kid at school I always made a bee-line for the " waifs and strays " to make friends with because even at a young age I'd twigged that they were the ones who were always cast aside. I seemed to collect them,poor things. I was old enough to know it was cruel and mean to have been treated as they were just because they were " scruffy ",aww.
That was kind of you lookout. I can't help but recall in one of the books the taunting of Jeremy on the school bus, then assuming he came home to an absent June and Nevill in the fields, then at eight years old packed off to Gresham's. Not an excuse, but cause for detachment and alienation.
-
That was kind of you lookout. I can't help but recall in one of the books the taunting of Jeremy on the school bus, then assuming he came home to an absent June and Nevill in the fields, then at eight years old packed off to Gresham's. Not an excuse, but cause for detachment and alienation.
interesting steve,i also think it may have played a part in jb's final act
-
It looked as though Neville at one time had to hold the fort for a time during one of June's " turns " when she'd stayed at Pam's for weeks,recuperating,so the family had parted company during times like that too,and as kids you'd be puzzled as to why mum was away for so long. Neville was none too happy with that either.
-
It looked as though Neville at one time had to hold the fort for a time during one of June's " turns " when she'd stayed at Pam's for weeks,recuperating,so the family had parted company during times like that too,and as kids you'd be puzzled as to why mum was away for so long. Neville was none too happy with that either.
I also found it strange in CAL's book we are told that she couldn't cope with Nevill's mother coming down of an evening partaking of a sweet sherry. I mean it's not as if she were holding a wild party. Maybe June was too ill to realize that charity begins at home.
-
I also found it strange in CAL's book we are told that she couldn't cope with Nevill's mother coming down of an evening partaking of a sweet sherry. I mean it's not as if she were holding a wild party. Maybe June was too ill to realize that charity begins at home.
Steve, it would be easier to assess the situation, re June and her ma in law, if we knew the whole story. I can give you a whole raft of possibilities before touching on the suggestion that June, known to be the most charitable of women, would have begrudged anyone a glass of sweet sherry.
-
I also found it strange in CAL's book we are told that she couldn't cope with Nevill's mother coming down of an evening partaking of a sweet sherry. I mean it's not as if she were holding a wild party. Maybe June was too ill to realize that charity begins at home.
There's more to June's illness than is known !
-
the brain is a complex bit of kit,when it starts misfunctioning the results are terrible
-
There's more to June's illness than is known !
If it isn't known, then how does anyone know there is more to it?
-
If it isn't known, then how does anyone know there is more to it?
Because I have a feeling about it. Two lots of ECT for severe depression and her " unnatural " outburst when she'd caught Sheila in the field as Claire Powell had described her as being on the verge of hysteria.Her overall inability to deal with anything that was part of life. You can't be like that when you've got children or they end up the same-------------well Sheila did.
Staying for weeks on end with her sister after a bout of depression and leaving Neville to it. Then latterly when we'd learned that she'd been seeing her GP regularly up until the murders. Do we know why ? NO. Do we know about her medication ? NO. Have we ever heard about all the medication that was removed from WHF ? NO.
Because they were private people and kept to themselves,these are answers nobody would know except her GP and whatever was contained in her medical records.
-
Because I have a feeling about it. Two lots of ECT for severe depression and her " unnatural " outburst when she'd caught Sheila in the field as Claire Powell had described her as being on the verge of hysteria.Her overall inability to deal with anything that was part of life. You can't be like that when you've got children or they end up the same-------------well Sheila did.
Staying for weeks on end with her sister after a bout of depression and leaving Neville to it. Then latterly when we'd learned that she'd been seeing her GP regularly up until the murders. Do we know why ? NO. Do we know about her medication ? NO. Have we ever heard about all the medication that was removed from WHF ? NO.
Because they were private people and kept to themselves,these are answers nobody would know except her GP and whatever was contained in her medical records.
I feel the need to look at this a little more closely. Firstly, how the hell does CP know about her "unnatural" outburst? and "unnatural" to whom? How does CP know that she was on the verge of hysteria?
Where would you have suggested that she stayed if not with her sister? As you say, we know nothing of her medication or how frequently she was seeing her docter so you're just guessing.
-
I feel the need to look at this a little more closely. Firstly, how the hell does CP know about her "unnatural" outburst? and "unnatural" to whom? How does CP know that she was on the verge of hysteria?
Where would you have suggested that she stayed if not with her sister? As you say, we know nothing of her medication or how frequently she was seeing her docter so you're just guessing.
CP had said that June was screaming. Why would you scream ?
-
CP had said that June was screaming. Why would you scream ?
How would she know that? "Scream" in any case can mean different things to different people depending on how they view verbal violence.
-
How would she know that? "Scream" in any case can mean different things to different people depending on how they view verbal violence.
I'm not sure if even Colin described " that moment " as such--------in his book. One thing I do know and that was that he hadn't got a good word to say about her. Says it all really.
-
I'm not sure if even Colin described " that moment " as such--------in his book. One thing I do know and that was that he hadn't got a good word to say about her. Says it all really.
most people will say that about their motherinlaw.i personally love my motherinlaw its her daughter i cant stand ;)
-
most people will say that about their motherinlaw.i personally love my motherinlaw its her daughter i cant stand ;)
sami hahaha very funny X
-
most people will say that about their motherinlaw.i personally love my motherinlaw its her daughter i cant stand ;)
I loved my mother-in-law too,such a kind person.Her sister too was lovely.It ran in the family I think.
-
I'm not sure if even Colin described " that moment " as such--------in his book. One thing I do know and that was that he hadn't got a good word to say about her. Says it all really.
I rather think the feeling may have mutual. I feel certain that Colin was left in no doubt that he wasn't their preferred husband for their daughter.
-
most people will say that about their motherinlaw.i personally love my motherinlaw its her daughter i cant stand ;)
I've been divorced since 1992. I adored my ma in law when I was married to her son and still do. We are the best of friends.
-
Reading Poppy Ann Miller and attempting to discern the relevant from the immaterial, it seems Jeremy experienced an idyllic childhood until he was eight and a half, the time of course, when he was packed off to Gresham's, which only proved a fresh incubus to surmount.
https://www.the-newshub.com/general/jeremy-bamber-a-thirty-year-injustice83
-
Reading Poppy Ann Miller and attempting to discern the relevant from the immaterial, it seems Jeremy experienced an idyllic childhood until he was eight and a half, the time of course, when he was packed off to Gresham's, which only proved a fresh incubus to surmount.
https://www.the-newshub.com/general/jeremy-bamber-a-thirty-year-injustice83
I would agree with that, I think the second rejection was when the resentment started.
-
I would agree with that, I think the second rejection was when the resentment started.
Yes the primal rejection from the birth mother and the perceived rejection from both parents at eight years old. Jeremy tells us in Blood Relations he had no problems with June until 1978, which would make him 17 or 18, but there's no further elucidation. Everything in the garden was rosy according to his most recent statements, which makes me think as James MacNeish thinks with David Bain that unless a curb is put upon this emotion all the vitriol would rapidly come spewing out and the game would be up.
-
can someone please engage mike .its unfair he;s asking the questions and than answering them,please help :)
-
can someone please engage mike .its unfair he;s asking the questions and than answering them,please help :)
That's the usual even if someone does engage.
-
Yes don't worry sami; it's his preferred modus vivendi.
-
I mean modus operandi.
-
both your above posts are funny lads :)) :)) ;)
-
we have to wonder why other killers including child killers get released,but jb is still there,could it be that he has not acknowledged his crime.i dont believe if released he would kill again.
-
we have to wonder why other killers including child killers get released,but jb is still there,could it be that he has not acknowledged his crime.i dont believe if released he would kill again.
Yes, he killed 5 people and has never taken responsibility - far from it. Someone recently accused me of 'hating' Jeremy. I don't hate him at all - I do think the crime warrants the punishment though.
-
Yes, he killed 5 people and has never taken responsibility - far from it. Someone recently accused me of 'hating' Jeremy. I don't hate him at all - I do think the crime warrants the punishment though.
same with me caroilne ,ive no feeling for him either way.as it was a crime for gain i doubt he would repeat it,but one never knows for sure,
-
theres also the little matter of the angles,bet jb never dreamt that 30 years down the line people would look at the angles of the 2 shots and show clearly that sc did not commit suicide,tha angle of the first shot cannot be deniaed as it was impossible for sheila to make,never in a million years could she make that shot,she would have to hold the rifle in a impossible postion
-
same with me caroilne ,ive no feeling for him either way.as it was a crime for gain i doubt he would repeat it,but one never knows for sure,
His sentence is rather odd IMO. Life without Parole is typically given to the likes of Robert Black or Dennis Nilsen. Those who cannot help killing over and over again for their own amusement.
My own theory is they wont parole him because once out he will make a big song and dance about being wrongfully convicted. He could not keep a low profile even if he tried, news reporters will go looking and find him.
-
theres also the little matter of the angles,bet jb never dreamt that 30 years down the line people would look at the angles of the 2 shots and show clearly that sc did not commit suicide,tha angle of the first shot cannot be deniaed as it was impossible for sheila to make,never in a million years could she make that shot,she would have to hold the rifle in a impossible postion
Your the only one making this assertion. The pathologists have never agreed to this idea.
-
Is sentence is rather odd IMO. Life without Parole is typically given to the likes of Robert Black or Dennis Nilsen. Those who cannot help killing over and over again for their own amusement.
My own theory is they wont parole him because once out he is out he will make a big song and dance about being wrongfully convicted. He could not keep a low profile even if he tried, news reporters will go looking and find him.
thats also a good point david.as the saying goes 'let sleeping dogs llie'.they wouldnt want him trying to prove it was a moj.
-
Your the only one making this assertion. The pathologists have never agreed to this idea.
i think your wrong even lookout feels the shot was not fired by sc by the way it hit the bone ask her iam sure she will explain.i will try and find the diagram showing the path of the bullets.
-
i think your wrong even lookout feels the shot was not fired by sc by the way it hit the bone ask her iam sure she will explain.i will try and find the diagram showing the path of the bullets.
There is no straight path of that bullet. Bullets can begin to tumble and go off in different directions.
The pathologist mentioned this at trial I will see if I can find it later on.
This Diagram of a bullet path entering is a good example
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/AK-74_5.45x39mm_wound_ballistics.gif/300px-AK-74_5.45x39mm_wound_ballistics.gif)
-
There is no straight path of that bullet. Bullets can begin to tumble and go off in different directions.
The pathologist mentioned this at trial I will see if I can find it later on.
This Diagram of a bullet path entering is a good example
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/AK-74_5.45x39mm_wound_ballistics.gif/300px-AK-74_5.45x39mm_wound_ballistics.gif)
i beg to differ with you on this one david.i can see your committed to getting your million pound ,lets hope jb is not pulling the wool over your eyes,iam sure it will be drinks all round for the forum members , ;)
-
i beg to differ with you on this one david.i can see your committed to getting your million pound ,lets hope jb is not pulling the wool over your eyes,iam sure it will be drinks all round for the forum members , ;)
Hahaha I wish ;D . That offer is not advertised anymore and I think it may have been to try lure a policeman out the woodwork to bring something forward.
-
His sentence is rather odd IMO. Life without Parole is typically given to the likes of Robert Black or Dennis Nilsen. Those who cannot help killing over and over again for their own amusement.
My own theory is they wont parole him because once out he will make a big song and dance about being wrongfully convicted. He could not keep a low profile even if he tried, news reporters will go looking and find him.
Maybe what motivates him now is the thought of compensation for thirty years' incarceration. Why would he not come after Ann Eaton's children and would you like to take the risk?
-
Hahaha I wish ;D . That offer is not advertised anymore and I think it may have been to try lure a policeman out the woodwork to bring something forward.
yes ,if one did come out of the woodwork.would what he said hold any weight people will say he is doing it for money :)
-
Maybe what motivates him now is the thought of compensation for thirty years' incarceration. Why would he not come after Ann Eaton's children and would you like to take the risk?
theres always that chance steve,also one of the letters he wrote ,he mentions getting members of his family charged, with what i dont know
-
theres always that chance steve,also one of the letters he wrote ,he mentions getting members of his family charged, with what i dont know
He can only drop hints without embroiling himself further into lies and facts he shouldn't know were he innocent.
-
Maybe what motivates him now is the thought of compensation for thirty years' incarceration. Why would he not come after Ann Eaton's children and would you like to take the risk?
He has no motive. Whatever motivates him now seems to be the same motive since day one of being in prison, he does not seem to have changed strategy
-
He has no motive. Whatever motivates him now seems to be the same motive since day one of being in prison, he does not seem to have changed strategy
no your right he hasnt,but why would he ,admit his guilty and lose any chance of parole n compensation
-
He has no motive. Whatever motivates him now seems to be the same motive since day one of being in prison, he does not seem to have changed strategy
The motive was money, and if Malcolm Deckers' words that Jeremy told him if the Farm burned down at Christmas 1984 he would be the sole owner do not chill your heart I don't know what will. True there was no Plan B, except to insist if caught that everyone else but him was telling lies.
-
The motive was money, and if Malcolm Deckers' words that Jeremy told him if the Farm burned down at Christmas 1984 he would be the sole owner do not chill your heart I don't know what will. True there was no Plan B, except to insist if caught that everyone else but him was telling lies.
And that is the main argument from the innocent side.
-
The motive was money, and if Malcolm Deckers' words that Jeremy told him if the Farm burned down at Christmas 1984 he would be the sole owner do not chill your heart I don't know what will. True there was no Plan B, except to insist if caught that everyone else but him was telling lies.
When I said no motive I was meaning that he has no motive for what you were suggesting if he was released
-
When I said no motive I was meaning that he has no motive for what you were suggesting if he was released
Well nobody knows for sure. What I might be sympathetic to is improving the mental health of long-term prisoners, which I wonder if this was at all envisaged as a consequence of the abolition of the death penalty in 1965.
-
If anyone had motives,it was the two women.
-
If anyone had motives,it was the two women.
which two,lookout
-
If anyone had motives,it was the two women.
What would those motives be?
-
The mystery for me in this case is not the who but the why: why an erudite well educated person could be so moved by the power of money that he was willing to slaughter five, the murders planned calculatingly over a period. Does materialism trump all other considerations as its universality spread from the small village to the cosmopolitan city of which Jeremy sampled both, or is this more sinisterly the threnody of the human condition and the inescapable urge to relieve oneself at any cost of the uniformity of the daily grind?
-
The mystery for me in this case is not the who but the why: why an erudite well educated person could be so moved by the power of money that he was willing to slaughter five, the murders planned calculatingly over a period. Does materialism trump all other considerations as its universality spread from the small village to the cosmopolitan city of which Jeremy sampled both, or is this more sinisterly the threnody of the human condition and the inescapable urge to relieve oneself at any cost of the uniformity of the daily grind?
steve i think hate of his parents played a part.the horrible experience of been packed off and both nb and jb ignoring his pleas to return home ,also if he did experience abuse or bullying by other pupils.we know who he would blame in later life,bw was around the farm more than most people and the interveiw she gave showed jb 's nature ,what reason would she have to lie,she never stood to gain anything ;)
-
steve i think hate of his parents played a part.the horrible experience of been packed off and both nb and jb ignoring his pleas to return home ,also if he did experience abuse or bullying by other pupils.we know who he would blame in later life,bw was around the farm more than most people and the interveiw she gave showed jb 's nature ,what reason would she have to lie,she never stood to gain anything ;)
Yes the stem I'm sure was the hatred of his parents, which he has never admitted despite several witnesses to the contrary, the killing of Sheila and the twins being a tidying up exercise and of course Sheila the scapegoat, part of the persona of persiflage in which Jeremy indulged, meaning that after the event he was unable to differentiate between the comedy and the tragedy.
-
Sheila loathed her mother,that's why she'd told everyone that she came into contact with,including her psychiatrist. Latterly,it would have seemed that Neville had been out of favour too because he was supporting June and her fragile state and seemingly siding with her to keep the peace.Gone would be the long phone-calls in the early hours when Sheila would pour her heart out to her father.
I suppose Sheila got to such a pitch that she'd felt that she didn't have anyone.
-
I think she was just past caring at the end what anyone thought of her, though it's impossible to say what impact this had on her daily actions and thought processes. Nevill was off work with stress from his magistrates job and according to Barbara Wilson a shadow of his former self. I think Jeremy saw the opportunity this presented and of course with Sheila's illness the parents had taken their eyes off the ball to where the real danger lay.
-
Sheila loathed her mother,that's why she'd told everyone that she came into contact with,including her psychiatrist. Latterly,it would have seemed that Neville had been out of favour too because he was supporting June and her fragile state and seemingly siding with her to keep the peace.Gone would be the long phone-calls in the early hours when Sheila would pour her heart out to her father.
I suppose Sheila got to such a pitch that she'd felt that she didn't have anyone.
Please explain "everyone she came into contact with". I don't recall seeing this reported and me thinks it's a rather sweeping statement.
-
I think she was just past caring at the end what anyone thought of her, though it's impossible to say what impact this had on her daily actions and thought processes. Nevill was off work with stress from his magistrates job and according to Barbara Wilson a shadow of his former self. I think Jeremy saw the opportunity this presented and of course with Sheila's illness the parents had taken their eyes off the ball to where the real danger lay.
Steve, I'm not sure that we can be totally certain of that. The letter Mike posted -re Nevill's leave- was dated 1982. It could be, like many other things on here, that it was a case of two and two making five.
-
I'm afraid Jeremy hadn't noticed anyone but himself in those days. He knew his mother was unwell,also Sheila but he hadn't bothered finding out what the problems were,hence why he studied mental illness while in prison. He couldn't have questioned his father either if he'd appeared ill to outsiders.
Jeremy appeared to know NOTHING of what was going on or what went on that night.
-
Steve, I'm not sure that we can be totally certain of that. The letter Mike posted -re Nevill's leave- was dated 1982. It could be, like many other things on here, that it was a case of two and two making five.
Yes possibly Jane. We do know from Barbara Wilson's evidence that Nevill was worried about something, he was stooping and mentioned he might be the victim of a shooting accident as the season approached.
-
I think she was just past caring at the end what anyone thought of her, though it's impossible to say what impact this had on her daily actions and thought processes. Nevill was off work with stress from his magistrates job and according to Barbara Wilson a shadow of his former self. I think Jeremy saw the opportunity this presented and of course with Sheila's illness the parents had taken their eyes off the ball to where the real danger lay.
i will agree with that ,also steve his greed was absolute and sheila the twins had to go for that reason,he didnt want to share with them ;)
-
i will agree with that ,also steve his greed was absolute and sheila the twins had to go for that reason,he didnt want to with them ;)
How terrible. Not one thought to spare the twins and share the estate after killing three. I'm just reading an article by Barbara Death, or DeAth as she spells it. It is very sympathetic towards Jeremy and gives some of the local colour. http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/barbara-death
-
How terrible. Not one thought to spare the twins and share the estate after killing three. I'm just reading an article by Barbara Death, or DeAth as she spells it. It is very sympathetic towards Jeremy and gives some of the local colour. http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/barbara-death
Thanks for that Steve, that is interesting particularly the comments that the Sea Wall would not have been deserted around the Osea Road Caravan Park.
I have always imagined the Sea Wall to have been totally deserted at that time of night but according to Barbara DeAth people used to sit outside and socialise or fish from there at night during the holiday season.
She paints a very different picture to th one in my mind.
-
I'm afraid Jeremy hadn't noticed anyone but himself in those days. He knew his mother was unwell,also Sheila but he hadn't bothered finding out what the problems were,hence why he studied mental illness while in prison. He couldn't have questioned his father either if he'd appeared ill to outsiders.
Jeremy appeared to know NOTHING of what was going on or what went on that night.
if he knew both were unwell.why didnt he do the studying then so he could help them,forgive me ,what use is studying it now,no i think he done the studying for his own defence to try and show sc did it
-
just read it steve,i must say she lives in cloud coukoo land,bailed until an appeal'never'also at the end she says theres always one,well no there was 10 all in the jury
-
Thanks for that Steve, that is interesting particularly the comments that the Sea Wall would not have been deserted around the Osea Road Caravan Park.
I have always imagined the Sea Wall to have been totally deserted at that time of night but according to Barbara DeAth people used to sit outside and socialise or fish from there at night during the holiday season.
She paints a very different picture to th one in my mind.
Yes she does. I wonder if it was so full of activity midweek though?
-
Yes she does. I wonder if it was so full of activity midweek though?
Well she was speaking about holiday time so no reason why these things only happened at the weekend. :-\
Was also interesting to hear about their treatment when the Boutflour's took over.
It's a different perspective anyway. :)
-
just read it steve,i must say she lives in cloud coukoo land,bailed until an appeal'never'also at the end she says theres always one,well no there was 10 all in the jury
It actually read -to me- like it had more to do with getting revenge on the Boutflours for the loss of their caravan, than support for Jeremy.
-
just read it steve,i must say she lives in cloud coukoo land,bailed until an appeal'never'also at the end she says theres always one,well no there was 10 all in the jury
Yes I wonder when it was written?
-
It actually read -to me- like it had more to do with getting revenge on the Boutflours for the loss of their caravan, than support for Jeremy.
That's exactly what I thought ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It actually read -to me- like it had more to do with getting revenge on the Boutflours for the loss of their caravan, than support for Jeremy.
It may have been about that, truth is we ddon't really know but for all that if it is fact it does seem a bit brutal to treat them that way. :-\
-
It may have been about that, truth is we ddon't really know but for all that if it is fact it does seem a bit brutal to treat them that way. :-\
I guess they wanted to improve the look of the site - there is no easy way to tell them.
-
I guess they wanted to improve the look of the site - there is no easy way to tell them.
But look what they did with N@J Bamber-totally destroyed.
-
But look what they did with N@J Bamber-totally destroyed.
Steve, that site is VERY far from being destroyed. Reformed, upgraded, certainly. A credit to the hard work of the family who run it.
-
Steve, that site is VERY far from being destroyed. Reformed, upgraded, certainly. A credit to the hard work of the family who run it.
Well I mean the looting of the farm assets. Didn't Jeremy want to work on the caravan site all along for whatever reason?
-
I guess they wanted to improve the look of the site - there is no easy way to tell them.
I can see that but they could maybe have been a bit more diplomatic, they were long-standing tennants. However, I have no idea what actually was said or done so it's impossible to judge.
-
I can see that but they could maybe have been a bit more diplomatic, they were long-standing tennants. However, I have no idea what actually was said or done so it's impossible to judge.
It does smack of a money-making exercise, but I suppose the days of the compassionate country squire were fast disappearing with rampant capitalism taking its place, as Nevill Bamber became an anachronism on his own land in the new Thatcherite Brave New World.
-
It does smack of a money-making exercise, but I suppose the days of the compassionate country squire were fast disappearing with rampant capitalism taking its place, as Nevill Bamber became an anachronism on his own land in the new Thatcherite Brave New World.
they have the cheek to cry about being out of pocket,but not mention the poor twins at all
-
That reminds me: does anyone know anything about this Henry Smith trust which owned the White House Farm?
-
it wouldnt surprise me if jb was doing a bit of serving up at the camp site,i mean dealing cannibas ;)
-
it wouldnt surprise me if jb was doing a bit of serving up at the camp site,i mean dealing cannibas ;)
Well he had been groomed for the Farm and not the Caravan Park. He was even tied to the Farm under the conditions of Nevill's will.
-
I can see that but they could maybe have been a bit more diplomatic, they were long-standing tennants. However, I have no idea what actually was said or done so it's impossible to judge.
Maybe they were diplomatic but by that time the caravaners had the hump.
-
Well he had been groomed for the Farm and not the Caravan Park. He was even tied to the Farm under the conditions of Nevill's will.
thats right steve and i bet he hated being in the harvester 10 to 12 hrs a day
-
also ep cannot be blamed for the shoddy investigation in early days ,the blame lies with the lead detective and jb's pal 'taff jones,if he believed jb was being set up by ep he didnt mention it ;)
-
interesting not a drop of blood exiting the wounds has ran down vertically
-
An article from 2003, translated from the Spanish. It confirms Jeremy's perceived cuckoo status, a cause for his increasing alienation as he returns from the forsaken environment of Gresham's school to an even lonelier existence during the holidays at White House Farm. Who Michael Turner is and what his undisclosed documents were remain a mystery.
Jeremy Bamber, sentenced to prison for 18 years for killing five members of his adoptive family, announced it will sue some of his relatives who survived the slaughter.
Jeremy Bamber, who is serving a minimum sentence of 25 years for having assassinated in 1986 five members of his adoptive family, announced it will begin a civil lawsuit in British courts to indict four of his relatives have influenced unduly about his adoptive grandmother to amend his will and disinherit. According to him, that prevented him from inheriting his share of the cottage of the family, located in Essex, Great Britain, whose value is estimated at 1.6 million pounds. Bamber also claims a retroactive rent for the house and interest on the value of the lost inheritance. Its total claim amounts to 1.2 million pounds.
The murderer spends his days and nights in a maximum security prison in northern England, where it coexists with other prisoners who, like him, serving long sentences. All details of the application were published by him in his own website (www.jeremybamber.com), which functions as a kind of headquarters unusual fan club that somehow idolizes. On Monday, one of his followers confirmed that the announcement of the demand was genuine and said Bamber would not resort to any lawyer to represent him, suggesting that the murderer will defend itself alone.
Adoptive relatives of Bamber not remained silent. In fact, his adoptive grandmother, 82, said: "He killed five members of his own family and now wants to bother us again. I have nothing to say about the court action. It's stupid. He is only interested in advertising. " In 1986, Bamber, who by then was 28, was found guilty of murdering his adoptive parents, Neville and June Bamber, in his house in Essex, to have immediate access to the family fortune, estimated at 500,000 lbs sterling. He was also sentenced for the murder of his half-sister, Sheila Caffell, and her twin sons, Nicholas and Daniel.
The allegation the judge who sentenced him says that his crimes were "evil beyond all reason." In the statement of 4,300 words Bamber posted on his website he says he now understands why her uncle and aunt named "Cuckoo". He had the always believed that was an affectionate name, but now realizes it was "a cruel nickname used to refer to a stranger who came to the family nest and inherited what, in his view, not his." The aforementioned legal action that is about to undertake is the latest in a long series that began in 1989, when he lost his first appeal.
Last year, his case was transferred back to the appeals court for committing review of criminal cases in Britain, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice. At the beginning of the appeal, counsel Michael Turner, who then represented Bamber said the defense had not presented a number of crucial documents that could have helped his client. However, although they admitted that the commission was entitled to review the case, three judges of the court said there was no doubt that they had committed the murders Bamber. In fact, it also has a pending case before the European court of human rights.
-
Is Jeremy so level-headed and collected today because his anger was condensed into the five people he hated most and when he despatched them it dissipated, or is he still burning in an eternal acrimony as he realizes what might have been? Susannah gives her thoughts: http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/susannah
-
Is Jeremy so level-headed and collected today because his anger was condensed into the five people he hated most and when he despatched them it dissipated, or is he still burning in an eternal acrimony as he realizes what might have been? Susannah gives her thoughts: http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/susannah
where does he get these fruit cakes from steve,statement of complete nonsense :)) :))also steve i think it was you who mentioned ,he may still be bitter because he done all the work and the family took the lot
-
where does he get these fruit cakes from steve,statement of complete nonsense :)) :))also steve i think it was you who mentioned ,he may still be bitter because he done all the work and the family took the lot
Yes sami I can't understand this dichotomy between a cool exterior and machinations past and present.
-
Yes sami I can't understand this dichotomy between a cool exterior and machinations past and present.
Nobody,unless they're completely insane could act in this manner,nor continue in confinement for over 30 years and remain symptom free.
-
Nobody,unless they're completely insane could act in this manner,nor continue in confinement for over 30 years and remain symptom free.
ib is not insane,he is a cool calculated killer and very clever
-
ib is not insane,he is a cool calculated killer and very clever
I don't care what you say or think but a " calculated and clever killer " DOES show symptoms of sorts while being cooped up,especially after 30 odd years. There would be symptoms similar to that of a psychotic character-------anxiety,behavioural problems,personality disorder ( anti-social ) emotional instability and a whole host of other symptoms including paranoia too. These symptoms are akin to psychopathy as well.
I don't recollect anything having been diagnosed in JB's case---------Sheila's,yes.
-
I don't care what you say or think but a " calculated and clever killer " DOES show symptoms of sorts while being cooped up,especially after 30 odd years. There would be symptoms similar to that of a psychotic character-------anxiety,behavioural problems,personality disorder ( anti-social ) emotional instability and a whole host of other symptoms including paranoia too. These symptoms are akin to psychopathy as well.
I don't recollect anything having been diagnosed in JB's case---------Sheila's,yes.
what makes you think he is not showing signs of the above ,we cant tell because he is sitting in the nick
-
I don't care what you say or think but a " calculated and clever killer " DOES show symptoms of sorts while being cooped up,especially after 30 odd years. There would be symptoms similar to that of a psychotic character-------anxiety,behavioural problems,personality disorder ( anti-social ) emotional instability and a whole host of other symptoms including paranoia too. These symptoms are akin to psychopathy as well.
I don't recollect anything having been diagnosed in JB's case---------Sheila's,yes.
Why are you talking about 'symptoms'? There are no symptoms, psychopathy is NOT an illness.Psychopathy and psychosis bear no similarities what so ever.
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2012/11/12/psychosis-psychopathy/
-
what makes you think he is not showing signs of the above ,we cant tell because he is sitting in the nick
Do they only employ blind prison officers in Cat A prisons then ?
-
Do they only employ blind prison officers in Cat A prisons then ?
No, but given that there are no 'symptoms' of being a psychopath and that it is in no way related to psychosis - I'm not sure what you point is? They are completely different conditions.
-
No, but given that there are no 'symptoms' of being a psychopath and that it is in no way related to psychosis - I'm not sure what you point is? They are completely different conditions.
There is no way of diagnosing psychopathy either apart from an MRI scan. Nobody can say that anyone's a psychopath unless they've got the proof from the scan,so where did your diagnosis come from ?
The conditions that I mentioned are those attached to a serial killer as well as a psychopath. Even a lie-detector can come close to diagnosing a psychopath because of an " abnormally " low pulse rate.
-
There is no way of diagnosing psychopathy either apart from an MRI scan. Nobody can say that anyone's a psychopath unless they've got the proof from the scan,so where did your diagnosis come from ?
The conditions that I mentioned are those attached to a serial killer as well as a psychopath. Even a lie-detector can come close to diagnosing a psychopath because of an " abnormally " low pulse rate.
You are totally mixing things up because you still don't know what a psychopath is. A serial killer can be insane or he/she could be a psychopath (not insane). The term 'serial killer' isn't a condition, it simply describes what the person has done. No sure where you are getting your info from Lookout but it's pretty dodgy. Psychopaths don't have an abnormally low pulse rate.
-
You are totally mixing things up because you still don't know what a psychopath is. A serial killer can be insane or he/she could be a psychopath (not insane). The term 'serial killer' isn't a condition, it simply describes what the person has done. No sure where you are getting your info from Lookout but it's pretty dodgy. Psychopaths don't have an abnormally low pulse rate.
I DO know what a psychopath is,it's YOU who obviously doesn't !! I've worked with them for God's sake.
You believe what you want to and 'll believe what I want too. I don't go by text books ! I go by experience.
-
what makes you think he is not showing signs of the above ,we cant tell because he is sitting in the nick
Why should there be anymore signs of Jeremy being Jeremy, than there are of you being you.
-
I DO know what a psychopath is,it's YOU who obviously doesn't !! I've worked with them for God's sake.
You believe what you want to and 'll believe what I want too. I don't go by text books ! I go by experience.
So as everyone of those you worked with would have been totally different, what, in your estimation, is the common denominator of psychopathy?
-
I DO know what a psychopath is,it's YOU who obviously doesn't !! I've worked with them for God's sake.
You believe what you want to and 'll believe what I want too. I don't go by text books ! I go by experience.
You clearly don't know - you are mixing up insanity and psychopathy. You listed a set of symptoms that have NOTHING to do with psychopathy and make erroneous claims about abnormally low blood pressure. Don't claim to be the only one here with experience - there is no reason as a nurse, you would have had any contact with psychopaths. If you had worked with them, you would know what one is!!
-
You are totally mixing things up because you still don't know what a psychopath is. A serial killer can be insane or he/she could be a psychopath (not insane). The term 'serial killer' isn't a condition, it simply describes what the person has done. No sure where you are getting your info from Lookout but it's pretty dodgy. Psychopaths don't have an abnormally low pulse rate.
So in your view,those who " acted or performed " as Jeremy's behaviour had been described------is a psychopath ?
-
You clearly don't know - you are mixing up insanity and psychopathy. You listed a set of symptoms that have NOTHING to do with psychopathy and make erroneous claims about abnormally low blood pressure. Don't claim to be the only one here with experience - there is no reason as a nurse, you would have had any contact with psychopaths. If you had worked with them, you would know what one is!!
Besides which, since when were people hospitalised for being psychopaths?
-
So in your view,those who " acted or performed " as Jeremy's behaviour had been described------is a psychopath ?
Eh? Those people who FIT the traits of a psychopath are a psychopath. Someone who can kill five people without showing any remorse or taking any responsibility is (in my view) a psychopath and displays all the traits of a psychopath.
-
So as everyone of those you worked with would have been totally different, what, in your estimation, is the common denominator of psychopathy?
Wthout an EEG or MRI there's no way of knowing and the way a person behaves isn't one way of telling.
It's not something that can be diagnosed unless a person has murdered multiple people such as Sutcliffe and those like him.
Because Jeremy doesn't show or display remorse is NOT a symptom of psychopathy in HIS case simply because he didn't do anything.
Patients at the hospital were downright cruel to those who were vulnerable and usually ended up in the padded cell because of their continual urge to inflict pain,and who enjoyed doing it. It's this wanton cruelty that points towards psychopathy and can be seen in children from an early age. It's part of a marker that follows into adult life. Those who get a kick out of inflicting pain !! The fearless ones.
-
Besides which, since when were people hospitalised for being psychopaths?
Well. you might get a few in hospital because they have an illness, but they won't be there because they're a psychopath ;D ;D ;D. More likely to find one or two as doctors or surgeons.
-
There is no way of diagnosing psychopathy either apart from an MRI scan. Nobody can say that anyone's a psychopath unless they've got the proof from the scan,so where did your diagnosis come from ?
The conditions that I mentioned are those attached to a serial killer as well as a psychopath. Even a lie-detector can come close to diagnosing a psychopath because of an " abnormally " low pulse rate.
lie detecters fall in the same catergory as tarot cards ,astrolagy ,its already been proven that killers can pass them and some innocent people can fail them.as for mri scan ive only heard of a few trials in the usa,i dont think the nhs uses it to determine a persons mental illness ;)
-
Well. you might get a few in hospital because they have an illness, but they won't be there because they're a psychopath ;D ;D ;D. More likely to find one or two as doctors or surgeons.
It begins with a personality disorder,which in the 50's wasn't recognised as such,or if so it only appeared to be borderline. Bi-polar was another illness which manifested itself into psychopathy if not treated/recognised or treated with the wrong medication.
One or two patients were admitted with mild depression and were put with patients who were severely mentally ill and as a consequence,the depressives became as violent as those who were classed as dangerous. Whether this was because they were mixed or whether there was more to the depressive illness I don't know because I only remember that they were the ones who received ECT.
The older sick ones were the religious bods and who attempted to take their lives.
-
lie detecters fall in the same catergory as tarot cards ,astrolagy ,its already been proven that killers can pass them and some innocent people can fail them.as for mri scan ive only heard of a few trials in the usa,i dont think the nhs uses it to determine a persons mental illness ;)
Psychopathy, of course, not being in the category of mental illness, but a personality disorder.
-
It begins with a personality disorder,which in the 50's wasn't recognised as such,or if so it only appeared to be borderline. Bi-polar was another illness which manifested itself into psychopathy if not treated/recognised or treated with the wrong medication.
One or two patients were admitted with mild depression and were put with patients who were severely mentally ill and as a consequence,the depressives became as violent as those who were classed as dangerous. Whether this was because they were mixed or whether there was more to the depressive illness I don't know because I only remember that they were the ones who received ECT.
The older sick ones were the religious bods and who attempted to take their lives.
OK, you haven't described a psychopath at all - bi-polar, psychotic, depressive - none of these terms have anything to do with psychopathy. If you had had a few psychopaths in the mix, they would probably have sold the other patients the Brooklyn Bridge - that's how you would have known they were psychopaths! Psychopaths are controlled and in such situations as the one you mention, they wouldn't be violent - they wouldn't show their hand.
-
OK, you haven't described a psychopath at all - bi-polar, psychotic, depressive - none of these terms have anything to do with psychopathy. If you had had a few psychopaths in the mix, they would probably have sold the other patients the Brooklyn Bridge - that's how you would have known they were psychopaths! Psychopaths are controlled and in such situations as the one you mention, they wouldn't be violent - they wouldn't show their hand.
The psychopathic patients showed a marked reduction of the frontal lobe of their brain.
Behaviour DOESN'T always indicate psychopathy which you seem to believe.
-
The world is full of them if you count greed,a NEED to get to the top of the ladder and everything else that makes someone a human being.
Your version of a psychopath is far different to mine. Psychopaths CAN be violent wth a clever way of denying and covering up ! This is how and why you can't tell only by medical intervention or that makes you paranoid yourself.
-
By the way they DO have a lower than normal pulse rate--------------they have to have in order not to be detected on a lie-detector. I 'm surprised you didn't pick up on that one.
-
Like it or not,psychopathy is still a mental condition.
-
The psychopathic patients showed a marked reduction of the frontal lobe of their brain.
Behaviour DOESN'T always indicate psychopathy which you seem to believe.
When did I say behaviour indicates psychopathy? We ALL have behaviour but we're not all psychopaths. You seem to be tying yourself in knots.
-
The world is full of them if you count greed,a NEED to get to the top of the ladder and everything else that makes someone a human being.
Your version of a psychopath is far different to mine. Psychopaths CAN be violent wth a clever way of denying and covering up ! This is how and why you can't tell only by medical intervention or that makes you paranoid yourself.
Now you're getting it! Who does that remind you of? ;) ;D ;D
-
Like it or not,psychopathy is still a mental condition.
If you want to put is like that - then so is normality!
-
Now you're getting it! Who does that remind you of? ;) ;D ;D
reminds me of the one n only,jb, :)
-
By the way they DO have a lower than normal pulse rate--------------they have to have in order not to be detected on a lie-detector. I 'm surprised you didn't pick up on that one.
You have just explained how it may have been possible for Jeremy to have passed the stress detection test.
-
You have just explained how it may have been possible for Jeremy to have passed the stress detection test.
That answer was expected. Quite the opposite of Caroline' s swift reply of a slow pulse not being a symptom of psychopathy. So in YOUR view,is it or isn't it ?
-
That answer was expected. Quite the opposite of Caroline' s swift reply of a slow pulse not being a symptom of psychopathy. So in YOUR view,is it or isn't it ?
depends what you think psychopathy is,some people have a natural low pulse or have a defect which causes it,are they psychopaths
-
depends what you think psychopathy is,some people have a natural low pulse or have a defect which causes it,are they psychopaths
I'm talking healthy adults.
-
I'm talking healthy adults.
so healthy adults with a low pulse are psychopaths ;)
-
That answer was expected. Quite the opposite of Caroline' s swift reply of a slow pulse not being a symptom of psychopathy. So in YOUR view,is it or isn't it ?
The only possible answer I can give you is if it's true that ALL psychopaths have a low pulse rate then it must follow that all those with a low pulse rate COULD be psychopaths.
-
so healthy adults with a low pulse are psychopaths ;)
Some are because they can control their heart rate. Because Jeremy attends the gym to keep fit his heart rate would be naturally low anyway.
-
Some are because they can control their heart rate. Because Jeremy attends the gym to keep fit his heart rate would be naturally low anyway.
iam totally lost on this one ,see what maggies opinion is
-
iam totally lost on this one ,see what maggies opinion is
me too ssami all too complicated this for me.
-
iam totally lost on this one ,see what maggies opinion is
Sami, having told us that psychopaths have low pulses, lookout is hastening to assure us that the only reason Jeremy's is low is because he works out in a gym.
-
Sami, having told us that psychopaths have low pulses, lookout is hastening to assure us that the only reason Jeremy's is low is because he works out in a gym.
well spotted jane,i missed that ;)
-
Sami, having told us that psychopaths have low pulses, lookout is hastening to assure us that the only reason Jeremy's is low is because he works out in a gym.
A fit athlete's resting pulse is about 40. Mine varies between 68/70.A normal pulse is between 60 and 100. It also depends on activity.
Because psychopaths are controlling they can control their pulse rate--------for obvious reasons.
-
A fit athlete's resting pulse is about 40. Mine varies between 68/70.A normal pulse is between 60 and 100. It also depends on activity.
Because psychopaths are controlling they can control their pulse rate--------for obvious reasons.
None of which precludes Jeremy.
-
By the way they DO have a lower than normal pulse rate--------------they have to have in order not to be detected on a lie-detector. I 'm surprised you didn't pick up on that one.
No they don't! The reason they can fool a POLYGRAPH, is because they don't get stressed under pressure. Nothing to do with a low blood pressure. I didn't pick up on it because it isn't true. Some will have lower blood pressure than others because they are fit, or in some cases ill.
-
None of which precludes Jeremy.
Or is even true!
-
A fit athlete's resting pulse is about 40. Mine varies between 68/70.A normal pulse is between 60 and 100. It also depends on activity.
Because psychopaths are controlling they can control their pulse rate--------for obvious reasons.
so can buddist monks and indian yogi's,do you class them as psychopaths
-
so can buddist monks and indian yogi's,do you class them as psychopaths
I may as well seeing as any behaviour that isn't within the " norm " is counted as psychopathy. Whatever counts as normal behaviour that is,seeing as we're all different and have different ways of grieving/mourning etc and living our daily lives ( minus the glares of cameras thrust in your face )
-
so can buddist monks and indian yogi's,do you class them as psychopaths
Didn't Jeremy toy with the idea of relocating to a Buddhist monastery in India with Roland Pargeter? I think he began to regret the murders at that stage, whatever bravado he told Julie in the aftermath.
-
Didn't Jeremy toy with the idea of relocating to a Buddhist monastery in India with Roland Pargeter? I think he began to regret the murders at that stage, whatever bravado he told Julie in the aftermath.
i think he wanted to go to india to sample their hashish
-
i think he wanted to go to india to sample their hashish
Maybe when he came off his cocaine highs he realized that all that glisters is not gold, with Julie waiting on the doorstep of Moreshead Mansions, Brett still in tow and Virginia Greaves at the end of a telephone, with of course five people he couldn't care less about six feet underground.
-
Maybe when he came off his cocaine highs he realized that all that glisters is not gold, with Julie waiting on the doorstep of Moreshead Mansions, Brett still in tow and Virginia Greaves at the end of a telephone, with of course five people he couldn't care less about six feet underground.
beautifully put,steve ;)
-
I'd read that it was the Islamic religion that he was either studying or reading about.
-
I'd read that it was the Islamic religion that he was either studying or reading about.
who told you that lookout
-
who told you that lookout
I read about it quite some time back
-
I read about it quite some time back
was it before he went in the nick
-
was it before he went in the nick
No,while he was inside. I remember being taken aback at the time.
-
No,while he was inside. I remember being taken aback at the time.
could well be true i agree,there are some who turn to islam while in the nick not only islam but other faiths aswell
-
could well be true i agree,there are some who turn to islam while in the nick not only islam but other faiths aswell
I've been doing a search to see if I can find it.
-
I've been doing a search to see if I can find it.
It's in a post by NN who is Holly on the red forum, who is pretty knowledgeable.It was posted on this forum on the 20th of December 2012.
-
It's in a post by NN who is Holly on the red forum, who is pretty knowledgeable.It was posted on this forum on the 20th of December 2012.
i believe you lookout :)
-
i believe you lookout :)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3700.msg147931.html#msg147931
There is no firm evidence - just a comment.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3700.msg147931.html#msg147931
There is no firm evidence - just a comment.
Even so,I wouldn't say she was unreliable in her sources.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3700.msg147931.html#msg147931
There is no firm evidence - just a comment.
That fact he has not changed his identity to an Islamic name should speak volumes on the matter ;D
-
That fact he has not changed his identity to an Islamic name should speak volumes on the matter ;D
Jeramad Bambladen ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeramad Bambladen ;D
jeramy convicted childkiller is a better name for him :)) :)) :)) :))
-
jeramy convicted childkiller is a better name for him :)) :)) :)) :))
I wish you'd stop trying to convince yourself---------you're being too precise and it shows.
-
I wish you'd stop trying to convince yourself---------you're being too precise and it shows.
iam trying to convince you,my mind has been made up quite sometime ago :)) :))
-
anyone have the link to the report of exactly what firearms and ammo were found at whf when the police searched it.thanks :)
-
anyone have the link to the report of exactly what firearms and ammo were found at whf when the police searched it.thanks :)
Try those who burnt the evidence !! Or PII.
-
Try those who burnt the evidence !! Or PII.
thats not helpful lookout,as ive said before iam only trying to learn the facts :)
-
What intrigues me is how the human brain can convince itself it is innocent of a crime. As Carol Ann Lee puts it in her article: " Quite a few people I have interviewed have said to me that he has convinced himself that he is innocent. However I'm not sure that he is consciously lying."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/history/595845/Inside-the-mind-of-a-murderer-Carol-Ann-Lee-Jeremy-Bamber
-
What intrigues me is how the human brain can convince itself it is innocent of a crime. As Carol Ann Lee puts it in her article: " Quite a few people I have interviewed have said to me that he has convinced himself that he is innocent. However I'm not sure that he is consciously lying."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/history/595845/Inside-the-mind-of-a-murderer-Carol-Ann-Lee-Jeremy-Bamber
yes that is a puzzle steve
-
What intrigues me is how the human brain can convince itself it is innocent of a crime. As Carol Ann Lee puts it in her article: " Quite a few people I have interviewed have said to me that he has convinced himself that he is innocent. However I'm not sure that he is consciously lying."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/history/595845/Inside-the-mind-of-a-murderer-Carol-Ann-Lee-Jeremy-Bamber
I think it's survival in the brain Steve, we have to remember most murderers don't have any wriggle room, Bambers case is different because of the early shoddy police work it allows plenty of doubt, doubt allows appeals and brings in supporters.. Most people if they do anything wrong they feel remorse or guilt, these type of people don't have these feelings.
-
anyone have the link to the report of exactly what firearms and ammo were found at whf when the police searched it.thanks :)
Jeremy made a list at Police's request and it's in Roger Wilkes' book, which I don't have to hand.
-
Jeremy made a list at Police's request and it's in Roger Wilkes' book, which I don't have to hand.
thanks steve,i will look into it :)
-
Didn't an anonymous psychologist on the Defence team claim Jeremy was guilty and had buried the memory deeply within the recesses of his mind? I was wondering how much credence can be given to this phenomenon? https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Repressed-Memory-Memories-Allegations/dp/0312141238
-
If true,the mind can only contain feelings of guilt for so long as certain aspects of behaviour would show through--------such as having a bad temper used to cover up guilt other than the usual looking everywhere but at the person you're speaking to,or both of course.
I haven't read the link yet,but I will do ( after I've switched the sprouts on )
-
If true,the mind can only contain feelings of guilt for so long as certain aspects of behaviour would show through--------such as having a bad temper used to cover up guilt other than the usual looking everywhere but at the person you're speaking to,or both of course.
I haven't read the link yet,but I will do ( after I've switched the sprouts on )
Total codswallop, Lookout. You appear to be saying that any show of bad temper is a sign of buried guilt feelings. How many of us might that apply to? If applied to Jeremy, who the hell is going to be concerned about another arsey prisoner. Prisons must be full of those.
-
I'm assuming the principle is the same whether you refuse to admit to mass murder or stealing from a sweet shop. Did Jeremy ever apologize for anything ever and if not is there a reason why? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-who-never-apologize-are-probably-happier-than-you-12584567/?no-ist
-
I'm assuming the principle is the same whether you refuse to admit to mass murder or stealing from a sweet shop. Did Jeremy ever apologize for anything ever and if not is there a reason why? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-who-never-apologize-are-probably-happier-than-you-12584567/?no-ist
An interesting question, Steve. There are those who are bought up to feel responsible and guilty. They will never fail to apologise. Then there are those who believe that theirs is the only way, hate to be made to feel wrong but see it as weakness to apologise. There is also another group who have been led to believe that it's unnecessary for them to apologise.
-
Total codswallop, Lookout. You appear to be saying that any show of bad temper is a sign of buried guilt feelings. How many of us might that apply to? If applied to Jeremy, who the hell is going to be concerned about another arsey prisoner. Prisons must be full of those.
Gee thanks again for that vote of confidence ::) I would imagine that any guilt shows itself when it comes to the forefront of the mind, making that person tetchy and somewhat uneasy that a " happening " just won't go away.
Because I personally don't have that affliction I can't say by experience,I can only imagine a mind being troubled in this way.
There is NO need for rank bad manners------unless of course you can't help it !!
-
Gee thanks again for that vote of confidence ::) I would imagine that any guilt shows itself when it comes to the forefront of the mind, making that person tetchy and somewhat uneasy that a " happening " just won't go away.
Because I personally don't have that affliction I can't say by experience,I can only imagine a mind being troubled in this way.
There is NO need for rank bad manners------unless of course you can't help it !!
Lookout, guilt is guilt is guilt so I guess that makes us all -if we're honest- guilty of something, and before you talk about degrees of guilt, there's no way to measure, so one could feel more guilty for not paying a fare than could another for murder.We simply CANNOT say, that because someone is tetchy, they're hiding guilt.
Oh, and just so we're clear, my "codswallop" comment -HARDLY bad manners- was directed NOT at you, but my view of the comment you made.
-
Lookout, guilt is guilt is guilt so I guess that makes us all -if we're honest- guilty of something, and before you talk about degrees of guilt, there's no way to measure, so one could feel more guilty for not paying a fare than could another for murder.We simply CANNOT say, that because someone is tetchy, they're hiding guilt.
Oh, and just so we're clear, my "codswallop" comment -HARDLY bad manners- was directed NOT at you, but my view of the comment you made.
Only a hardened criminal would hide any sign of guilt. Jeremy's hardly a hardened criminal,he doesn't even come anywhere near the description. Nor is he a mass murderer.
Most criminals are edgy from what I've seen. Hiding something.Fear of being dobbed in or caught. Ever met an honest criminal ? Conmen with the gift of the gab-----shifty beggars with no conscience.
Anyone,it doesn't have to be a criminal,if they're hiding something, will appear on edge or uncomfortable.
Those who've got nothing to hide are entirely different, are happy,content and laid-back characters and who are not afraid of confrontation of any kind.
Irritated would be a word best used for those who experience the odd blip in life as opposed to tetchy which usually indicates some sort of deep-seated problem. A baby/toddler can be tetchy,which means that they have a physical problem,be it teething or stomach ache. In an adult it usually spells a problem about worry of sorts-------the mind, and can become out of character for a person who's normally placid sparking something more than just a blip.
If you go through life doing the right thing,there's no place for guilt is there ?
-
Only a hardened criminal would hide any sign of guilt. Jeremy's hardly a hardened criminal,he doesn't even come anywhere near the description. Nor is he a mass murderer.
Most criminals are edgy from what I've seen. Hiding something.Fear of being dobbed in or caught. Ever met an honest criminal ? Conmen with the gift of the gab-----shifty beggars with no conscience.
Anyone,it doesn't have to be a criminal,if they're hiding something, will appear on edge or uncomfortable.
Those who've got nothing to hide are entirely different, are happy,content and laid-back characters and who are not afraid of confrontation of any kind.
Irritated would be a word best used for those who experience the odd blip in life as opposed to tetchy which usually indicates some sort of deep-seated problem. A baby/toddler can be tetchy,which means that they have a physical problem,be it teething or stomach ache. In an adult it usually spells a problem about worry of sorts-------the mind, and can become out of character for a person who's normally placid sparking something more than just a blip.
If you go through life doing the right thing,there's no place for guilt is there ?
oh but he is ,hardened or softened,makes no difference ,the posts in the other topic prove that .'lastest from trudi'.police dont watch people unless they think there is something criminal going on :)
-
Only a hardened criminal would hide any sign of guilt. Jeremy's hardly a hardened criminal,he doesn't even come anywhere near the description. Nor is he a mass murderer.
Most criminals are edgy from what I've seen. Hiding something.Fear of being dobbed in or caught. Ever met an honest criminal ? Conmen with the gift of the gab-----shifty beggars with no conscience.
Anyone,it doesn't have to be a criminal,if they're hiding something, will appear on edge or uncomfortable.
Those who've got nothing to hide are entirely different, are happy,content and laid-back characters and who are not afraid of confrontation of any kind.
Irritated would be a word best used for those who experience the odd blip in life as opposed to tetchy which usually indicates some sort of deep-seated problem. A baby/toddler can be tetchy,which means that they have a physical problem,be it teething or stomach ache. In an adult it usually spells a problem about worry of sorts-------the mind, and can become out of character for a person who's normally placid sparking something more than just a blip.
If you go through life doing the right thing,there's no place for guilt is there ?
Lookout, I've rarely heard such sanctimonious, smug, judgemental and condescending words. It must be truly hard for you to have to share a world with others when you are the only one in it who has never erred.
For your information, living with guilt -whether or not it's ones responsibility- becomes a way of life. A part of one's personality. No one notices that anything is different, but Hey, don't let that disturb the pious, guilt free world you inhabit. And you reckon you know what empathy is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
Didn't an anonymous psychologist on the Defence team claim Jeremy was guilty and had buried the memory deeply within the recesses of his mind? I was wondering how much credence can be given to this phenomenon? https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Repressed-Memory-Memories-Allegations/dp/0312141238
I think the idea of him burying the memory is rubbish.
-
Only a hardened criminal would hide any sign of guilt. Jeremy's hardly a hardened criminal,he doesn't even come anywhere near the description. Nor is he a mass murderer.
Most criminals are edgy from what I've seen. Hiding something.Fear of being dobbed in or caught. Ever met an honest criminal ? Conmen with the gift of the gab-----shifty beggars with no conscience.
Anyone,it doesn't have to be a criminal,if they're hiding something, will appear on edge or uncomfortable.
Those who've got nothing to hide are entirely different, are happy,content and laid-back characters and who are not afraid of confrontation of any kind.
Irritated would be a word best used for those who experience the odd blip in life as opposed to tetchy which usually indicates some sort of deep-seated problem. A baby/toddler can be tetchy,which means that they have a physical problem,be it teething or stomach ache. In an adult it usually spells a problem about worry of sorts-------the mind, and can become out of character for a person who's normally placid sparking something more than just a blip.
If you go through life doing the right thing,there's no place for guilt is there ?
Promise me you will never write a book on any aspect of human psychology ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jeremy isn't a hardened criminal? He's been locked up for 30 years! Of course he is ::)
Most criminals are 'edgy' - how man have you met? Jeremy can hardly have a fear of being 'dobbed in' he's already been 'dobbed in' ;D ;D
People with no conscience have no conscience Lookout - they don't feel guilt - Jeremy feels no guilt. None of it means anything to him other than he thinks he's been wronged because he should have gotten away with it.
Placid my A ............ se!
-
I think the idea of him burying the memory is rubbish.
totally agree caroline :)
-
oh but he is ,hardened or softened,makes no difference ,the posts in the other topic prove that .'lastest from trudi'.police dont watch people unless they think there is something criminal going on :)
So they'll be watching him in prison too then and reporting back on his behaviour there then ? Funny, I haven't heard anything untoward about him or any dealings with drugs.
-
So they'll be watching him in prison too then and reporting back on his behaviour there then ? Funny, I haven't heard anything untoward about him or any dealings with drugs.
i doubt any cat a prisoner would be dealing drugs in prison,he's on rule 43 isnt he
-
i doubt any cat a prisoner would be dealing drugs in prison,he's on rule 43 isnt he
Makes no difference to " hardened criminals " what rule is applied.
-
Makes no difference to " hardened criminals " what rule is applied.
i dont know how much you know about the prison system .rule 43 is protection and segregation from the main population,these day they also have drugs dogs to come in at random ,cat a are tge most watched prisoners in the nick
-
i dont know how much you know about the prison system .rule 43 is protection and segregation from the main population,these day they also have drugs dogs to come in at random ,cat a are tge most watched prisoners in the nick
Tell that to Caroline because she didn't believe me. Perhaps she'll agree with you ! Perhaps !
-
Tell that to Caroline because she didn't believe me. Perhaps she'll agree with you ! Perhaps !
Didn't believe you about what?
-
Tell that to Caroline because she didn't believe me. Perhaps she'll agree with you ! Perhaps !
i will have to read what context caroline said it in,cause she may be right :)
-
i dont know how much you know about the prison system .rule 43 is protection and segregation from the main population,these day they also have drugs dogs to come in at random ,cat a are tge most watched prisoners in the nick
Sami, rule 43 is generally for sex offenders etc. Jeremy is not a rule 43 prisoner - he's not in segregation.
-
Didn't believe you about what?
That Cat A prisoners are under 24hr surveillance. When I said their behaviour is monitored you disputed it.
-
Didn't believe you about what?
That Cat A prisoners are under 24hr surveillance. When I said their behaviour is monitored you disputed it.
-
That Cat A prisoners are under 24hr surveillance. When I said their behaviour is monitored you disputed it.
That wasn't me Lookout - that was a discussion over cameras - you're getting confused.
-
Sami, rule 43 is generally for sex offenders etc. Jeremy is not a rule 43 prisoner - he's not in segregation.
appoligies ,in that case he could easily deal in drugs,and no he would not be under 24hrs surveillance ,as lookout thinks he would
-
appoligies ,in that case he could easily deal in drugs,and no he would not be under 24hrs surveillance ,as lookout thinks he would
Jesus Christ,it was you who said 24hr surveillance,as Caroline said,I had referred to cameras-------stop twisting what I say !!
-
Jesus Christ,it was you who said 24hr surveillance,as Caroline said,I had referred to cameras-------stop twisting what I say !!
I could say the same given that you have just accused me of something I didn't do.
-
I could say the same given that you have just accused me of something I didn't do.
The difference being that I didn't twist anything.
-
The difference being that I didn't twist anything.
No, you got it completely wrong and don't have the good grace to apologise! I won't hold my breath.
-
Sami, rule 43 is generally for sex offenders etc. Jeremy is not a rule 43 prisoner - he's not in segregation.
yes i agree caroline,it can also be used by any prisoner if they feel threatened.why other prisoners havnt got to him yet i dont know,he is a child killer afterall
-
As was Eddie Gilfoyle,allegedly,but was released on licence nearly 6 years ago from the same prison.!!
-
Jesus Christ,it was you who said 24hr surveillance,as Caroline said,I had referred to cameras-------stop twisting what I say !!
how the heck can he be under 24hrs surveillance as you said, if theres no cameras in cells
-
how the heck can he be under 24hrs surveillance as you said, if theres no cameras in cells
It was YOU who said he was under 24hr surveillance NOT me ! I'd said cameras iin the place.
-
It was YOU who said he was under 24hr surveillance NOT me ! I'd said cameras iin the place.
please check your posts,you were the one who said the above
-
please check your posts,you were the one who said the above
You said that Cat A prisoners are the most watched. How ? Do the guards have eyes at the back of their asses or what ??
-
You said that Cat A prisoners are the most watched. How ? Do the guards have eyes at the back of their asses or what ??
dont turn it around you were the one who said jb was under 24hrs surveillence in prison
-
dont turn it around you were the one who said jb was under 24hrs surveillence in prison
There HAS to be video cameras in high security prsons or how can the guards keep a check on prisoners or corrupt guards passing drugs in ? It's called surveillance and it IS used !!
-
Read about surveillance in prisons !!
-
There HAS to be video cameras in high security prsons or how can the guards keep a check on prisoners or corrupt guards passing drugs in ? It's called surveillance and it IS used !!
I can't see how it would be necessary in a separate, high security wing. It would be it's own surveillance area.
-
There HAS to be video cameras in high security prsons or how can the guards keep a check on prisoners or corrupt guards passing drugs in ? It's called surveillance and it IS used !!
there are NO cameras in cells
-
I can't see how it would be necessary in a separate, high security wing. It would be it's own surveillance area.
Not necessary ?? You've got to be kidding ! Just read about it and stop arguing.
-
Not necessary ?? You've got to be kidding ! Just read about it and stop arguing.
How come you think it's I who is arguing with you, rather than you who is arguing with everyone else?
-
How come you think it's I who is arguing with you, rather than you who is arguing with everyone else?
Because you're more or less saying there's no surveillance when I've read that there is.
-
Because you're more or less saying there's no surveillance when I've read that there is.
While at the same time I'm trying to deal with an xxxxx who's ACCUSED me of making some post about a secret ? But won't come up with the goods. How xxxxxxxx some folk can be !! I certainly know how Jeremy felt in the Lions Den !!
-
While at the same time I'm trying to deal with an xxxxx who's ACCUSED me of making some post about a secret ? But won't come up with the goods. How xxxxxxxx some folk can be !! I certainly know how Jeremy felt in the Lions Den !!
Are you saying you have NEVER said a COLP report was secreted away and a sanitized one released for public consumption?
-
stop giving maggie extra work to do,you could have made the statement above without the insults
Dont take offence Sami I have enjoyed debating with you and reading your posts.
-
Are you saying you have NEVER said a COLP report was secreted away and a sanitized one released for public consumption?
Quote---------COLP 1991.
" On completion of the COLP enquiry,two reports were produced. The published report concluded there was no case to answer to any of the complaints made by Jeremy Bamber against Essex Police. While the undisclosed confidential report found as fact that fabricated evidence had been adduced to impugn the credibility of Jeremy Bamber thus resulting in a guilty verdict at his trial in 1986. unquote "
What's secret about this ?
-
on another note,theres still the little matter of the bullets found on the worktop,jb said the box was full or nearly full when he loaded the rifle from that box,when pointed out to him that there were too many bullets remaining he could not explain it ,maybe someone on here can :)
-
no offence taken what so ever,it was for lookout to read justice :)
Leave me out of your conversations please--------thankyou !
-
Leave me out of your conversations please--------thankyou !
sure no problem :)
-
Quote---------COLP 1991.
" On completion of the COLP enquiry,two reports were produced. The published report concluded there was no case to answer to any of the complaints made by Jeremy Bamber against Essex Police. While the undisclosed confidential report found as fact that fabricated evidence had been adduced to impugn the credibility of Jeremy Bamber thus resulting in a guilty verdict at his trial in 1986. unquote "
What's secret about this ?
OK. The words were written. Are you asking us to believe that they're official. That COLP would announce to the world that the published report wasn't worth the paper it was written on? I would dearly LOVE to know who was responsible for the above JB propaganda. It would appear that it's the above which isn't worth the paper it's written on.
-
OK. The words were written. Are you asking us to believe that they're official. That COLP would announce to the world that the published report wasn't worth the paper it was written on? I would dearly LOVE to know who was responsible for the above JB propaganda. It would appear that it's the above which isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Well of course you would,wouldn't you ? That report also contains S.Jone's written words that he found a silencer on the morning of the murders.The same was corroborated by Simpson at a press conference and subsequently reported in the " Echo " of 17th September 1985.
-
Well of course you would,wouldn't you ? That report also contains S.Jone's written words that he found a silencer on the morning of the murders.The same was corroborated by Simpson at a press conference and subsequently reported in the " Echo " of 17th September 1985.
And clearly you believe it all to be gospel truth. What sort of publication is the "Echo"? It isn't one I've heard of.
-
And clearly you believe it all to be gospel truth. What sort of publication is the "Echo"? It isn't one I've heard of.
Here we go------and you expect me to be civil ? Is there NOTHING you believe to be the truth,or do you prefer the lies and spin that goes in the direction of his guilt ?
-
And clearly you believe it all to be gospel truth. What sort of publication is the "Echo"? It isn't one I've heard of.
The Liverpool Echo is big in the North Jane, similar to the Manchester Evening News. I don't know what kind of authority it is on the Bamber killings though.
-
There is an Essex Echo with publications in Basildon and surrounding areas. Go and visit a local library and see it there.
-
The Liverpool Echo is big in the North Jane, similar to the Manchester Evening News. I don't know what kind of authority it is on the Bamber killings though.
Thank-you Steve. I thought it was some sort of small provincial paper. We have several of those here.
-
Are you saying you have NEVER said a COLP report was secreted away and a sanitized one released for public consumption?
NO,I DIDN'T say any such thing.
-
Here we go------and you expect me to be civil ? Is there NOTHING you believe to be the truth,or do you prefer the lies and spin that goes in the direction of his guilt ?
You only had to tell me what Steve did. Just for the record, having slammed into me, do YOU believe everything you see written in newspapers?
-
You only had to tell me what Steve did. Just for the record, having slammed into me, do YOU believe everything you see written in newspapers?
Not everything no,but why shouldn't I believe this ? Because YOU say so ?
It was originally copied from a COLP report.Does that mean that you don't believe that either ?
-
Quote---------COLP 1991.
" On completion of the COLP enquiry,two reports were produced. The published report concluded there was no case to answer to any of the complaints made by Jeremy Bamber against Essex Police. While the undisclosed confidential report found as fact that fabricated evidence had been adduced to impugn the credibility of Jeremy Bamber thus resulting in a guilty verdict at his trial in 1986. unquote "
What's secret about this ?
Not everything no,but why shouldn't I believe this ? Because YOU say so ?
It was originally copied from a COLP report.Does that mean that you don't believe that either ?
So effectively, you're saying that COLP allegedly stated openly that one report was published and another report, saying something entirely different, was secreted away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
So effectively, you're saying that COLP allegedly stated openly that one report was published and another report, saying something entirely different, was secreted away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They're NOT my words !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
So effectively, you're saying that COLP allegedly stated openly that one report was published and another report, saying something entirely different, was secreted away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:)) :)) :))
-
They're NOT my words !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't play semantics with me, Lookout. They may not be YOUR words but it seems as if they're words which you believe to be true. I have NEVER said what you should believe. I have only stated what I DON'T believe.
-
Don't play semantics with me, Lookout. They may not be YOUR words but it seems as if they're words which you believe to be true. I have NEVER said what you should believe. I have only stated what I DON'T believe.
There is no second COLP report.
-
There is no second COLP report.
Unless people are referring to the 2001 Bamber Enquiry that took place before his appeal as the "second COLP report"
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18800573.html (https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18800573.html)
-
Unless people are referring to the 2001 Bamber Enquiry that took place before his appeal as the "second COLP report"
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18800573.html (https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18800573.html)
Whatever, there aren't 2 COLP reports.
-
Whatever, there aren't 2 COLP reports.
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/zealotry_definition.png)
::)
-
That about sums things up !!
-
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/zealotry_definition.png)
::)
It's NOT a case of other views! There isn't another COLP report and if anyone is a zealot its you seeing conspiracies around every corner. The notion that there are two reports is just stupid.
-
That about sums things up !!
It also sums you up!
-
It's NOT a case of other views! There isn't another COLP report and if anyone is a zealot its you seeing conspiracies around every corner. The notion that there are two reports is just stupid.
here here ;)
-
It also sums you up!
I suppose it's better than being paranoid !!
-
I suppose it's better than being paranoid !!
Paranoid about what? ???
-
Unless people are referring to the 2001 Bamber Enquiry that took place before his appeal as the "second COLP report"
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18800573.html (https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18800573.html)
i bet youve been searching all night looking for a clip or video showing that rifle ejecting empty cases over to the left hand side,needless to say you havnt found one ;D
-
i bet youve been searching all night looking for a clip or video showing that rifle ejecting empty cases over to the left hand side,needless to say you havnt found one ;D
why would I need to?
-
why would I need to?
you allways back up your posts with a clip. caption .or a diagram.only you believe :)
-
david ,i simple question how did jb know how much money was in nb wallet he's been asked but has never provided an answer,maybe you know or can ask jb for the answer,
-
david ,i simple question how did jb know how much money was in nb wallet he's been asked but has never provided an answer,maybe you know or can ask jb for the answer,
Could it be that he'd opened it after he bashed him that fateful night, counted it yet left it in situ along with one half of the wetsuit to cycle back unencumbered to Bourtree Cottage?
-
Could it be that he'd opened it after he bashed him that fateful night, counted it yet left it in situ along with one half of the wetsuit to cycle back unencumbered to Bourtree Cottage?
i think youve hit the nail on the head there,steve ;)
-
Emilia di Girolamo thinks Jeremy is innocent as she writes scripts for EastEnders, Shelley Cook had a dream and Tom Sturgeon recalls how Jeremy speaks of the plans he and Nevill had for White House Farm. I wonder what they were Tom? http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tom-sturgeon
-
Emilia di Girolamo thinks Jeremy is innocent as she writes scripts for EastEnders, Shelley Cook had a dream and Tom Sturgeon recalls how Jeremy speaks of the plans he and Nevill had for White House Farm. I wonder what they were Tom? http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tom-sturgeon
very touching load of crap ;D
-
Emilia di Girolamo thinks Jeremy is innocent as she writes scripts for EastEnders, Shelley Cook had a dream and Tom Sturgeon recalls how Jeremy speaks of the plans he and Nevill had for White House Farm. I wonder what they were Tom? http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/tom-sturgeon
Emilia assertion that "The police log, hidden from the defense at the time of Jeremy’s trial, clearly quotes Nevill Bamber, ‘My daughter’s gone beserk, she’s got hold of one of my guns'" couldn't be more wrong. People make this claim quite often BUT this log was available to the jury and wasn't hidden at all. The log of 'Jeremy's call to police' was read out and referred to by West himself so BOTH were part of the trial evidence.
-
is that a propagater for starting seedling off,bottom left hand corner,black with transparent top.opinions please :-\
-
is that a propagater for starting seedling off,bottom left hand corner,black with transparent top.opinions please :-\
Yes it is Sami.
-
Yes it is Sami.
may be an innocent reason for the farm to have one they did grow poppies.than again if jb was cultivating some plants he would not have left it in his own room which he had a key for,far safer to dump its contents and leave it in the office on that morning,if found by police in his room than it would not look good for jb's character ;)
-
may be an innocent reason for the farm to have one they did grow poppies.than again if jb was cultivating some plants he would not have left it in his own room which he had a key for,far safer to dump its contents and leave it in the office on that morning,if found by police in his room than it would not look good for jb's character ;)
It's too small for farm use, so must have been more for personal use.
If it belonged to Jeremy I would have thought he would have kept it in his cottage.
-
It's too small for farm use, so must have been more for personal use.
If it belonged to Jeremy I would have thought he would have kept it in his cottage.
yes .they is also a golden rule when supplying drugs and when growing them,that is never keep anything incriminating stuff in ones own house,its the first place police will go if you ever get caught on the street with drugs or hydroponics gear,also if someone grasses you up they will break your door down first,best to keep it at a 3rd parties house
-
yes .they is also a golden rule when supplying drugs and when growing them,that is never keep anything incriminating stuff in ones own house,its the first place police will go if you ever get caught on the street with drugs or hydroponics gear,also if someone grasses you up they will break your door down first,best to keep it at a 3rd parties house
But I guess it leaves us to wonder at which point in the proceedings could Jeremy have transferred the cultivator from Bourtree Cottage to WHF. Whilst no one would ever have suspected Nevill of being involved with illegal drugs, Nevill would never, willingly, have allowed anything smacking of the illegal to be housed/found at WHF.
-
But I guess it leaves us to wonder at which point in the proceedings could Jeremy have transferred the cultivator from Bourtree Cottage to WHF. Whilst no one would ever have suspected Nevill of being involved with illegal drugs, Nevill would never, willingly, have allowed anything smacking of the illegal to be housed/found at WHF.
Could someone please explain the significance of the cultivator, Nevill's licence to grow poppies and any linkage to surveillance of WHF: it's all running through my head.
-
Could someone please explain the significance of the cultivator, Nevill's licence to grow poppies and any linkage to surveillance of WHF: it's all running through my head.
Steve, in the grand scheme of things, it maybe of no significance whatsoever. If Nevill had a licence to grow poppies -and he probably wasn't the only one- is it really feasible to imagine he was under any sort of surveillance?
-
Steve, in the grand scheme of things, it maybe of no significance whatsoever. If Nevill had a licence to grow poppies -and he probably wasn't the only one- is it really feasible to imagine he was under any sort of surveillance?
Not with the public expenditure cuts of the 1980s I would have thought. On another note I am missing lookout and look forward to her return from Cleethorpes.
-
Since posting the above, I've been reliably informed that the plastic box is NOT a propagator. It IS an '85 version of an Eley plastic container for 50 bullets.
-
Not with the public expenditure cuts of the 1980s I would have thought. On another note I am missing lookout and look forward to her return from Cleethorpes.
Thank-you Steve. I had been wondering where was Lookout. Whilst I rarely agree with anything she says, the forum isn't the same without her input, and I wouldn't like to think she was poorly.
-
Thank-you Steve. I had been wondering where was Lookout. Whilst I rarely agree with anything she says, the forum isn't the same without her input, and I wouldn't like to think she was poorly.
She's one of those posters I miss, along with Campion and several others. I do hope I didn't offend her with choosing her holiday destination and like you hope she is well.
-
Since posting the above, I've been reliably informed that the plastic box is NOT a propagator. It IS an '85 version of an Eley plastic container for 50 bullets.
Jane I can assure you it IS a propagator. Look at the electric wire coming from it.
I have been a gardener for many years, and had a identical propagator.
-
You could get 7,00 bullets in that box.
-
Steve, in the grand scheme of things, it maybe of no significance whatsoever. If Nevill had a licence to grow poppies -and he probably wasn't the only one- is it really feasible to imagine he was under any sort of surveillance?
He didn't grow opium poppies, he grew hemp. Some farms do now grow the opium poppy but only since 2002. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028504/The-opium-fields-England--heroin-producing-poppies-grown-make-NHS-pain-relief-drugs.html
-
Could someone please explain the significance of the cultivator, Nevill's licence to grow poppies and any linkage to surveillance of WHF: it's all running through my head.
Looks to me like it is just stuff that was removed from the cupboard so they would take a picture to show the depth of it.
-
Voila la link:- http://gunauction.com/buy/10295331
-
Can you see the air vents on top Jane?
-
Can you see the air vents on top Jane?
Hey Buddy, don't shoot me. I'm just the messenger. I wouldn't know the difference between a propagator and a bullet box if my life depended on it!!!!
-
Hey Buddy, don't shoot me. I'm just the messenger. I wouldn't know the difference between a propagator and a bullet box if my life depended on it!!!!
No intention of shooting Jane, shoot the informant :))
-
yes it certainly looks like a propagater,a' heated version' a few friends who like to grow they own 'herbs' have the same one.he may not have been using it at the time of the murders.but just kept it for future use ,anyway he's cunning enough to have moved it that morning from his locked bedroom to the office.homegrown cannabis was not common in the 80's ,but it does make you wonder abouts the reports of jb growing cannabis ;)
-
yes it certainly looks like a propagater,a' heated version' a few friends who like to grow they own 'herbs' have the same one.he may not have been using it at the time of the murders.but just kept it for future use ,anyway he's cunning enough to have moved it that morning from his locked bedroom to the office.homegrown cannabis was not common in the 80's ,but it does make you wonder abouts the reports of jb growing cannabis ;)
I can't remember now where Julie said he grew cannabis. I do recall that she said he was moody without it.
-
I can't remember now where Julie said he grew cannabis. I do recall that she said he was moody without it.
He grew it in his garden and I believe there were a few places around the farm.
-
I can't remember now where Julie said he grew cannabis. I do recall that she said he was moody without it.
steve if she said he's moody without it ,that means he was a regular smoker of cannabis and not just now n than
-
He grew it in his garden and I believe there were a few places around the farm.
yes caroline the farm is a big place.i also fancy his room if he had the key for it.would be interesting if bw could tell us if she ever saw it in the office.iam convinced had the police found it in jb's locked room,they would have treated jb with more caution.imo
-
theres an old chinese saying.'many minds are better than one' how ignorant taff jones was thinking only his opinion mattered and the other officers didnt know better than him.
-
theres an old chinese saying.'many minds are better than one' how ignorant taff jones was thinking only his opinion mattered and the other officers didnt know better than him.
He was probably trying to cover his tracks as it became increasingly clear he had been duped by Jeremy before he was given gardening leave.
-
He was probably trying to cover his tracks as it became increasingly clear he had been duped by Jeremy before he was given gardening leave.
'gardening leave' nicely put steve :))
-
You know I was thinking that in the aftermath Jeremy never wrote to the relatives but he did write to Colin, however vile the letters were. Could it be that he thought Colin owed him for allowing him to start anew, not realizing of course what emotional trauma he had suffered from the loss of his boys?
-
You know I was thinking that in the aftermath Jeremy never wrote to the relatives but he did write to Colin, however vile the letters were. Could it be that he thought Colin owed him for allowing him to start anew, not realizing of course what emotional trauma he had suffered from the loss of his boys?
Depends on your mind,Steve.
-
I won't post the letters again unless requested to. He did make the relatives appear at some Land Tribunal hearing which was to take place at Full Sutton Prison, but from what I recall in the books it all fell through.
-
As a possible new trial is discussed in another thread let us reflect for a moment on the prevailing zeitgeist of the 1980s, whose influences pervaded many and caught Jeremy Bamber up in their midst.
One episode in particular struck a chord.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x22f5u3?collectionXid=x492bk
-
After all the dissimulation and the controversies, this case remains a human story of five lives tragically taken one summer morning thirty-three years ago. It's the story of how one man's hatred for his parents grew insidiously inside his brain until the only solution was to kill those whom he deemed responsible for his plight, and there followed the collateral damage of his sister and nephews, who also had to die under his evil scheme. The tragic irony remains that he killed one set of prison guards only to replace them with another as he languishes now behind a new set of bars. Amongst the living Colin has borne the brunt, but we as a human race are also somewhat tarnished as we reflect on the anniversary and what might have been.
-
After all the dissimulation and the controversies, this case remains a human story of five lives tragically taken one summer morning thirty-three years ago. It's the story of how one man's hatred for his parents grew insidiously inside his brain until the only solution was to kill those whom he deemed responsible for his plight, and there followed the collateral damage of his sister and nephews, who also had to die under his evil scheme. The tragic irony remains that he killed one set of prison guards only to replace them with another as he languishes now behind a new set of bars. Amongst the living Colin has borne the brunt, but we as a human race are also somewhat tarnished as we reflect on the anniversary and what might have been.
Is this a blurb for your crime-fiction novel?
-
Is this a blurb for your crime-fiction novel?
No it's a tribute to the five victims who needn't have died thirty-three years ago today. As for Jeremy Bamber he can have as many badminton lessons as he likes. I don't wish to make his life in prison as miserable as deprivation of liberty must be, with nothing to look forward to save crabby old age.
-
I won't post the letters again unless requested to. He did make the relatives appear at some Land Tribunal hearing which was to take place at Full Sutton Prison, but from what I recall in the books it all fell through.
Can you post them please?
-
Can you post them please?
They're really not worth reading Indigo:
Wormwood Scrubs 16 August 1988
DEAR COLIN
I READ THE ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S INDEPENDENT WITH MUCH SADNESS I ALWAYS FEEL WHEN I READ ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
YOUR LETTER TODAY, COLIN, WAS I'M AFRAID A TOUCH PREMATURE. YOUR WRITING TO ME HOPING, I GUESS, FOR THE LAST FEW PIECES OF THE JIGSAW SO THAT YOU MAY HOLD THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT POSSIBLE. IF I COULD FURNISH YOU WITH WHAT YOU WANTED THEN I WOULD GLADLY DO SO-WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT FATEFUL NIGHT WILL NEVER BE FULLY EXPLAINED, IN FACT YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME MORE THAN I COULD YOU.
THE PAPER DID MENTION IN THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY THAT I WAS APPEALING AND NO DOUBT YOU KNEW THAT ANYWAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY QUASH MY CONVICTION, COLIN, BECAUSE IT'S VERY PROBABLE THEY WILL DO SO? YOU MAY BELIEVE ME GUILTY,YOU MAY NOT, BUT I HOPE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE YOU'LL TRY AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE AT MY APPEAL I WILL PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND BY DOING THAT THE CORNER-STONE OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED BY WHOM I CANNOT PROVE YET AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO FOR MY APPEAL BUT EVENTUALLY I'LL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OF FIVE PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TALKING RIDDLES AND I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'Y EXPLAIN IN A LETTER TO YOU. IT SEEMS SO POINTLESS ME SENDING YOU THIS LETTER AS IT'LL ONLY ADD TO YOUR CONFUSION BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE TO ME MUST HAVE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL SO MY REPLYING IS THE LEAST I CAN DO...
IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT SHEILA IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO YOU SHOULD QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT ME-I'M NOT GAY OR BI-SEXUAL, I WASN'T A COCAINE SMUGGLER, I DIDN'T KNOW HALF THE PEOPLE I'D BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH, I DIDN'T BREAK SOMEONE'S ARM AT SCHOOL, I DIDN'T KITE CHEQUES AND I DIDN'T RAPE JULIE. WHAT OTHER ODIOUS STUFF THEY WROTE I CAN'T RECALL-EVEN DURING MY TRIAL THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT.
I WON'T GO ON, YOU KNOW ME AND WHAT I WAS LIKE AND I DIDN'T WRITE TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY INNOCENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM, JUST WELL WHATEVER
LOVE
JEREMY
P.S I TRULY WISH I COULD HELP YOU.
-
They're really not worth reading Indigo:
Wormwood Scrubs 16 August 1988
DEAR COLIN
I READ THE ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S INDEPENDENT WITH MUCH SADNESS I ALWAYS FEEL WHEN I READ ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
YOUR LETTER TODAY, COLIN, WAS I'M AFRAID A TOUCH PREMATURE. YOUR WRITING TO ME HOPING, I GUESS, FOR THE LAST FEW PIECES OF THE JIGSAW SO THAT YOU MAY HOLD THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT POSSIBLE. IF I COULD FURNISH YOU WITH WHAT YOU WANTED THEN I WOULD GLADLY DO SO-WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT FATEFUL NIGHT WILL NEVER BE FULLY EXPLAINED, IN FACT YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME MORE THAN I COULD YOU.
THE PAPER DID MENTION IN THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY THAT I WAS APPEALING AND NO DOUBT YOU KNEW THAT ANYWAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY QUASH MY CONVICTION, COLIN, BECAUSE IT'S VERY PROBABLE THEY WILL DO SO? YOU MAY BELIEVE ME GUILTY,YOU MAY NOT, BUT I HOPE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE YOU'LL TRY AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE AT MY APPEAL I WILL PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND BY DOING THAT THE CORNER-STONE OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED BY WHOM I CANNOT PROVE YET AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO FOR MY APPEAL BUT EVENTUALLY I'LL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OF FIVE PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TALKING RIDDLES AND I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'Y EXPLAIN IN A LETTER TO YOU. IT SEEMS SO POINTLESS ME SENDING YOU THIS LETTER AS IT'LL ONLY ADD TO YOUR CONFUSION BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE TO ME MUST HAVE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL SO MY REPLYING IS THE LEAST I CAN DO...
IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT SHEILA IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO YOU SHOULD QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT ME-I'M NOT GAY OR BI-SEXUAL, I WASN'T A COCAINE SMUGGLER, I DIDN'T KNOW HALF THE PEOPLE I'D BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH, I DIDN'T BREAK SOMEONE'S ARM AT SCHOOL, I DIDN'T KITE CHEQUES AND I DIDN'T RAPE JULIE. WHAT OTHER ODIOUS STUFF THEY WROTE I CAN'T RECALL-EVEN DURING MY TRIAL THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT.
I WON'T GO ON, YOU KNOW ME AND WHAT I WAS LIKE AND I DIDN'T WRITE TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY INNOCENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM, JUST WELL WHATEVER
LOVE
JEREMY
P.S I TRULY WISH I COULD HELP YOU.
Think he's talking about the silencer?
-
SCRUBS PRISON, WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER. I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM OR DAD. HOW SAD, COLIN, THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE, MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU COLIN, WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO, EH, WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON, MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
I HAD A REPORT FROM A TOP FORENSIC SCIENTIST WHO CAN SAY THAT THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE USED AT MY TRIAL WAS SERIOUSLY AT ODDS WITH THE FACTS-THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE USED WAS CRUCIAL FOR A CONVICTION AND I CAN NOW DEMOLISH IT-WHAT THAT MEANS IS I'M LIKELY TO HAVE A RETRIAL OR BE RELEASED AND THEN IT WILL BE MY TURN TO USE THE MEDIA FOR MY OWN SELFISH INTERESTS-PAY BACK FOR THOSE PEOPLE TOO BLIND TO SEE TRUTH. SHEILA KILLED HER CHILDREN AND MY MUM AND DAD AND THEN SHOT HERSELF AND I'M 9/10ths OF THE WAY TO PROVING THAT. BUT WITH NO THANKS TO YOU. DON'T BOTHER TO WRITE BACK EVER, COLIN, COS YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN MY LIFE.
-
Think he's talking about the silencer?
Yes I think so. The list must include Robert Boutflour, David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Basil Cock and one more.
-
Yes I think so. The list must include Robert Boutflour, David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Basil Cock and one more.
Actually, I think he's referring to Robert Boutflour, David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Peter Eaton and Stan Jones.
-
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS. MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW. NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOUR USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING, YOU WERE ALRIGHT, COLIN, ONCE, BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SEE YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEACH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME..I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF, IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER GET TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL FUCK THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
-
SCRUBS PRISON, WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER. I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM OR DAD. HOW SAD, COLIN, THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE, MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU COLIN, WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO, EH, WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON, MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
I HAD A REPORT FROM A TOP FORENSIC SCIENTIST WHO CAN SAY THAT THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE USED AT MY TRIAL WAS SERIOUSLY AT ODDS WITH THE FACTS-THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE USED WAS CRUCIAL FOR A CONVICTION AND I CAN NOW DEMOLISH IT-WHAT THAT MEANS IS I'M LIKELY TO HAVE A RETRIAL OR BE RELEASED AND THEN IT WILL BE MY TURN TO USE THE MEDIA FOR MY OWN SELFISH INTERESTS-PAY BACK FOR THOSE PEOPLE TOO BLIND TO SEE TRUTH. SHEILA KILLED HER CHILDREN AND MY MUM AND DAD AND THEN SHOT HERSELF AND I'M 9/10ths OF THE WAY TO PROVING THAT. BUT WITH NO THANKS TO YOU. DON'T BOTHER TO WRITE BACK EVER, COLIN, COS YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN MY LIFE.
Thanks for posting them Steve , now I have read them they ring a distant bell and i think i've seen them somewhere else over the years.
-
YOU'VE DONE ME MUCH HARM WITH YOUR SELFISH USE OF THE MEDIA SO I'D USE THE SAME TO GET MY OWN BACK. LOOK FORWARD TO AN ARTICLE SOON COLIN MAY IT PRICK YOUR CONSCIENCE IF YOU HAVE ONE, YOUR NOTHING BUT A LEACH JUST THINK WHAT YOUR FEEDING OFF.
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
-
Isn't it concerning that a lot of investigating officers in many cases who are supposed to be impartial when carrying out their investigations seem only to opt for those witnesses who they believe will help them secure a conviction ??
So with this in mind how can those who are facing false allegations ever have a hope of defending themselves, particularly as there is no legal aid either ?
Jeremy has fought and remains fighting with his hands tied behind his back with no hope ( let's be honest ) of seeing freedom. It would have to be a tremendous breakthrough of unseen evidence before he is cleared and up to now nobody has solved anything.
-
Isn't it concerning that a lot of investigating officers in many cases who are supposed to be impartial when carrying out their investigations seem only to opt for those witnesses who they believe will help them secure a conviction ??
So with this in mind how can those who are facing false allegations ever have a hope of defending themselves, particularly as there is no legal aid either ?
Jeremy has fought and remains fighting with his hands tied behind his back with no hope ( let's be honest ) of seeing freedom. It would have to be a tremendous breakthrough of unseen evidence before he is cleared and up to now nobody has solved anything.
I think all sides on the forum wish to be fair lookout. We've got some photographs in the public domain but not others, which is a shock, but I wonder exactly what the Defence is pinning its hopes on now? I agree that it look as if Jeremy's fate is outside his control and I suppose you have to hope either the relatives or Julie Smerchanski recant, a scenario which with every day passing looks all the more improbable.
-
I think all sides on the forum wish to be fair lookout. We've got some photographs in the public domain but not others, which is a shock, but I wonder exactly what the Defence is pinning its hopes on now? I agree that it look as if Jeremy's fate is outside his control and I suppose you have to hope either the relatives or Julie Smerchanski recant, a scenario which with every day passing looks all the more improbable.
Because of the unacceptable number of MOJ's that have arisen it goes without saying that looking for a conviction, be it for promotional reasons, clashes of personality ( instant hatred of the offender ) or a quick turnover of prisoners clearly isn't working.
Whether the relatives and Julie have ever had the slightest inkling that all couldn't be as it had seemed given the constant pleas of innocence from Jeremy, I wouldn't know but I know one thing and that's nobody is going to ever admit anything at this stage----not even EP.
-
I must be one of the few people totally unfazed by Jeremy Bamber's letters to Colin Caffell. It was probably unforeseen by her, but Sheila Caffell left trail of destruction and chaos among the living, in the wake of her episode and the killings. There could have been some closure in this, had the relatives not become involved to the extent and in the manner which they did. In the first instance, everyone involved was a victim of Sheila Caffell, who was a victim of circumstance. And secondly, everyone is a victim of the relatives, who, in blind arrogance, drove and assisted the efforts to cover up the truth.
-
I must be one of the few people totally unfazed by Jeremy Bamber's letters to Colin Caffell. It was probably unforeseen by her, but Sheila Caffell left trail of destruction and chaos among the living, in the wake of her episode and the killings. There could have been some closure in this, had the relatives not become involved to the extent and in the manner which they did. In the first instance, everyone involved was a victim of Sheila Caffell, who was a victim of circumstance. And secondly, everyone is a victim of the relatives, who drove and assisted the efforts to cover up the truth.
Yes, you must be.
-
Yes, you must be.
Yes, it's not an issue for me. As I see two victims slugging it out.
-
Yes, it's not an issue for me. As I see two victims slugging it out.
There is no understanding on Jeremy's side for Colin's loss. To me, Colin is the ONLY living victim and Jeremy's lack of empathy towards Colin just makes him sound more guilty.
-
There is no understanding on Jeremy's side for Colin's loss. To me, Colin is the ONLY living victim and Jeremy's lack of empathy towards Colin just makes him sound more guilty.
Jeremy's real or perceived lack of empathy seems to have contributed to his downfall. However I believe it to be a cursed circumstance for him in this case, rather than an indicator of involvement.
-
Sheila, once married to Colin, happened to have been Jeremy's sister who he thought a lot of.
So work that out-------to Caroline.
-
Jeremy's real or perceived lack of empathy seems to have contributed to his downfall. However I believe it to be a cursed circumstance for him in this case, rather than an indicator of involvement.
Why was he so evasive during Police interrogation irrespective of whether you believe him innocent or guilty?
-
Jeremy would possibly have felt that Colin let his sister down.Hence Jeremy's cool attitude towards him.
-
Jeremy would possibly have felt that Colin let his sister down.Hence Jeremy's cool attitude towards him.
He didn't feel he'd let SHEILA down. Jeremy's letter to Colin was about JEREMY. HE felt he'd been let down by Colin, he was aghast at the lack of support from Colin. Read the letter, Steve kindly posted.
-
He didn't feel he'd let SHEILA down. Jeremy's letter to Colin was about JEREMY. HE felt he'd been let down by Colin, he was aghast at the lack of support from Colin. Read the letter, Steve kindly posted.
My post was in answer to Caroline's !
-
Sheila, once married to Colin, happened to have been Jeremy's sister who he thought a lot of.
So work that out-------to Caroline.
How do you know what he thought of her? ::)
He called her a nutter - so much love, so little time!
-
My post was in answer to Caroline's !
And I agree with Mat.
-
There is no understanding on Jeremy's side for Colin's loss. To me, Colin is the ONLY living victim and Jeremy's lack of empathy towards Colin just makes him sound more guilty.
Yes because looked at from Jeremy's point of view they had all gained financially at his expense. No thought whatsoever for the emotional loss of those concerned.
-
Why was he so evasive during Police interrogation irrespective of whether you believe him innocent or guilty?
Have you ever been questioned by the police, Steve? Anyone who has, could tell you why you may avoid questions or make no comment. This is true regardless of guilt or innocence. The police when interviewing you already believe you to be guilty or you wouldn't be there. You are very aware that the questioning is designed to trap you and this makes you cautious.
Even if innocent this applies. A police interview is not some cosy friendly chat with tea and biscuits that you've popped along to because of the kind invite.
If you are innocent,especially on such a serious charge, many would be even more guarded.
-
Sheila, once married to Colin, happened to have been Jeremy's sister who he thought a lot of.
So work that out-------to Caroline.
He told police, outside WHF, "She doesn't like me and I don't like her".
-
And I agree with Mat.
Naturally ::)
-
He told police, outside WHF, "She doesn't like me and I don't like her".
I didn't like my brother but that's not to say I would never have helped him if needed. It's a normal brother and sister thing.
Who was it who used to take Sheila home from parties ?
-
I didn't like my brother but that's not to say I would never have helped him if needed. It's a normal brother and sister thing.
Who was it who used to take Sheila home from parties ?
Ha! So you reckon Jeremy used to high tail it to London every time Sheila went to a party? Get real, Lookout. As for back in the day when she lived at WHF, Jeremy would have been too young to go to parties with her, let alone drive her home.
-
Ha! So you reckon Jeremy used to high tail it to London every time Sheila went to a party? Get real, Lookout. As for back in the day when she lived at WHF, Jeremy would have been too young to go to parties with her, let alone drive her home.
So he never drove her home from anywhere when Colin was too drunk to drive ? Your memory is duff.
-
I didn't like my brother but that's not to say I would never have helped him if needed. It's a normal brother and sister thing.
Who was it who used to take Sheila home from parties ?
I think you'll find that it was 'party' not 'parties' - subtle Lookout, subtle! ;D
-
So he never drove her home from anywhere when Colin was too drunk to drive ? Your memory is duff.
Yes, the Saturday before he shot her - I guess under the circumstances, he owed her at least that!
-
I think you'll find that it was 'party' not 'parties' - subtle Lookout, subtle! ;D
Not everything is reported, only that which those like you want to see.
-
So he never drove her home from anywhere when Colin was too drunk to drive ? Your memory is duff.
How does driving her home ONCE, from a party he was at, anyway, because her ex husband was drunk, constitute your suggestion that he got up at all hours, from the goodness of his heart, to transport her safely home?
-
Not everything is reported, only that which those like you want to see.
Or that others want to make up!
-
Not everything is reported, only that which those like you want to see.
So we've only YOUR word for it that there were other occasions. Funny how there seem not to have been any witnesses.
-
So we've only YOUR word for it that there were other occasions. Funny how there seem not to have been any witnesses.
There would have been other times as they all enjoyed the London scene. It's just that we don't hear of such things concerning Jeremy's kindness---------perish the thought.
-
There would have been other times as they all enjoyed the London scene. It's just that we don't hear of such things concerning Jeremy's kindness---------perish the thought.
Oh right. Lookout says there WOULD have been other times, ergo, there were.
-
There would have been other times as they all enjoyed the London scene. It's just that we don't hear of such things concerning Jeremy's kindness---------perish the thought.
But no evidence to prove it save for the ONE occasion just before the murders?
-
But no evidence to prove it save for the ONE occasion just before the murders?
Okay, just stick to your ONE, it obviously bodes better with you. Why not ask someone who REALLY knew him---AA when she next appears ?
-
Okay, just stick to your ONE, it obviously bodes better with you. Why not ask someone who REALLY knew him---AA when she next appears ?
What on earth has knowing him to do with anything? With all respect to AA, she wasn't there when all this occurred.
-
What on earth has knowing him to do with anything? With all respect to AA, she wasn't there when all this occurred.
I'm not talking about " when all this happened ". I'm talking about someone who KNEW Jeremy long before.
-
I'm not talking about " when all this happened ". I'm talking about someone who KNEW Jeremy long before.
I understood -and if I'm wrong I'm sure she'll correct me- that she didn't know him until after the crime was committed. I believe she has his wetsuit for safe keeping.
-
I understood -and if I'm wrong I'm sure she'll correct me- that she didn't know him until after the crime was committed. I believe she has his wetsuit for safe keeping.
I know AA has a deeper understanding of him than many over a span of years too. Yes she has his wetsuit among other things.
-
I know AA has a deeper understanding of him than many over a span of years too. Yes she has his wetsuit among other things.
It sounds like you're saying she hasn't known him all his life?
-
It sounds like you're saying she hasn't known him all his life?
The best part of his life I'd have said.
-
The best part of his life I'd have said.
Well, he's been in prison more than half his life so.....................
-
Well, he's been in prison more than half his life so.....................
As I said----the best part of his life,to date.
-
As I said----the best part of his life,to date.
I'm not certain he'd agree.
-
I'm not certain he'd agree.
Why not ? For someone who believes in his guilt you seem to know more about him than those who genuinely know him and his innocence too.
-
Why not ? For someone who believes in his guilt you seem to know more about him than those who genuinely know him and his innocence too.
No one seems to know him more than you Lookout.
-
No one seems to know him more than you Lookout.
And you SEEM to know he's happier in prison than he was when he was free. That's good.
-
No one seems to know him more than you Lookout.
By studying him it gives me a good idea of what he's like.
-
And you SEEM to know he's happier in prison than he was when he was free. That's good.
When have I said that ?
-
When have I said that ?
1636 & 1637
-
1636 & 1637
::) You took it out of context. Best meaning MOST-----which you probably knew but would rather turn it into your meaning.
-
::) You took it out of context. Best meaning MOST-----which you probably knew but would rather turn it into your meaning.
How the hell was I supposed to work that out? :)) :)) :)) :))
-
How the hell was I supposed to work that out? :)) :)) :)) :))
You should have worked it out by his years spent inside---which were his mid 20's, 30's and 40's which are/were the best parts of his life or spent the best part of his life------take your pick. Certainly not the best way to live your life.
-
You should have worked it out by his years spent inside---which were his mid 20's, 30's and 40's which are/were the best parts of his life or spent the best part of his life------take your pick. Certainly not the best way to live your life.
Ok. So as I'm of the opinion that AA has only known Jeremy since just prior to his conviction, and you say she's known him for the BEST part of his life, I think it's reasonable to assume you meant his prison life. It certainly didn't sound right but mine is not to reason why.
-
The question is whether these letters purported to be in the hands of AA contain any relevant information pertaining to his innocence and why they have not been disclosed to his legal representation hitherto.
-
The question is whether these letters purported to be in the hands of AA contain any relevant information pertaining to his innocence and why they have not been disclosed to his legal representation hitherto.
I've often wondered if numerous people that Jeremy has written to, got together and compared letters - how similair they would be in their consistency. I think they'd differ, and in some places quite drastically.
-
The question is whether these letters purported to be in the hands of AA contain any relevant information pertaining to his innocence and why they have not been disclosed to his legal representation hitherto.
They are just correspondence sent to her from Bamber, I think her idea is to see if Jeremy's story has changed over the years? She isn't saying they contain anything that prove he is innocent.
-
They are just correspondence sent to her from Bamber, I think her idea is to see if Jeremy's story has changed over the years? She isn't saying they contain anything that prove he is innocent.
Yes but only in areas where he is guessing and to suit his agenda. How can his story change anyway if he claims he woke up in the early hours of the morning with no pre-knowledge of anything?
-
Yes but only in areas where he is guessing and to suit his agenda. How can his story change anyway if he claims he woke up in the early hours of the morning with no pre-knowledge of anything?
I think AA is confident that they won't have changed because he was telling the truth. Problem is, if his story has changed, people will make excuses.
-
Yes but only in areas where he is guessing and to suit his agenda. How can his story change anyway if he claims he woke up in the early hours of the morning with no pre-knowledge of anything?
It would be informative to see how JB's early recollections fit into the picture as more evidence became known about and disclosed. Did JB's recollections have to change to accommodate new evidence or was it just the prosecution case that required "editing"?
-
It would be informative to see how JB's early recollections fit into the picture as more evidence became known about and disclosed. Did JB's recollections have to change to accommodate new evidence or was it just the prosecution case that required "editing"?
When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.
Here is my take
1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)
2. A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.
Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009 Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.
-
When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.
Here is my take
1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)
2. A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.
Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009 Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.
No he said he couldn't rule out the possibility that it was suicide. Jeremy has added nothing to the debate for 33 years as far as I can make out.
-
When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.
Here is my take
1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)
2. A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.
Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009 Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.
Nothing wrong with that analysis. There must be many more examples that would lend more credence to this. Reasonable inferences can be drawn from Jeremy's response to new evidence, as you have above.
-
When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.
Here is my take
1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)
2. A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.
Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009 Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.
Has he changed his mind since you posted this?
Herbert Leon McDonnell has recanted on his 1992 conclusions and now believes it could be suicide.
Herbert Leon McDonnell came to the conclusion of murder in 1992 based on incomplete information.
You cannot use his 1992 conclusions while simultaneously ignoring his revised 2009 conclusions.
Perhaps you can provide a source so we can read the actual wording? Make sure it isn't just hearsay though eh? ::)
-
Didn't Mcconnell say it could be suicide after being told by supporters the silencer may not have been used.
I agree. The problem is there is Sheila's blood & the aga paint in the silencer.
-
Bamber hired Mcconnell before he started focusing on the silencer blood.
-
When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.
Here is my take
1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)
2. A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.
Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009 Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.
Naughty naughty.
-
Naughty naughty.
I believe the key word COULD -in relation to POSSIBLE suicide- has been 'forgotten', Mat.
-
I believe the key word COULD -in relation to POSSIBLE suicide- has been 'forgotten', Mat.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg446131.html#msg446131
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg446131.html#msg446131
Aha! Thanks for the confirmation, Caroline.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg446131.html#msg446131
Go on. Who secretly messaged you David's old post? ???
-
Go on. Who secretly messaged you David's old post? ???
I know Mat, I know!!!! It was David doing penance for stalking her ;D ;D ;D
-
When Herbert Leon Mcdonnell got back to Jeremy in 1992 concluding that Sheila was murdered. Jeremy for a while began thinking it was Anthony Pargheter that murdered the family.
Here is my take
1. A guilty Jeremy would not seekout the help of Herbert Leon Mcdonnell. Who was then seen as the best bloodspatter analyst in the world. (For obvious reasons)
2. A guilty Jeremy would not deviate from what he so convincingly staged.
Jeremy was taken in by what was being told to him. Its worth noting that in 2009 Herbert Leon Mcdonnell recanted his 1992 conclusions and now believes it was a suicide.
But not as good as you?
Herbert Leon Mcdonnell concluded in 1992 that the large stain around Sheila's arm pit was a result of build up of blood as Sheila touched the wound on her neck. Creating a temporary build up of blood until Sheila's arm fell back.
Herbert was wrong for two reasons.
1. That wound with a smear was instantly fatal. Thus Sheila could not have touched it.
2. If you look closely it seems consistent with being caused by the rifle end.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7805.msg369805.html#msg369805 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7805.msg369805.html#msg369805)
Furthermore there are many variables involved. Was Sheila sitting up or standing up as this poor guy?
https://gfycat.com/GloriousHeavenlyBuck (https://gfycat.com/GloriousHeavenlyBuck) -NSFL
::)
-
Go on. Who secretly messaged you David's old post? ???
Well, I can't say but if anyone wants to PM me ....... ::) ;D
-
Aha! Thanks for the confirmation, Caroline.
It came from here found the link on the old thread https://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-will-set-me-free1
The word COULD makes all the difference!
-
It came from here found the link on the old thread https://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-bamber-new-evidence-will-set-me-free1
The word COULD makes all the difference!
Indeed! It changes the whole meaning of the sentence.