-
Someone Asked for this to be posted yesterday so here goes ....
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
The someone was me. Thank you :)
-
Do you have the rest of it Caroline?
-
Do you have the rest of it Caroline?
Only got 30 pages on this laptop
-
:(
Mike?
-
Found the rest I think :)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24596;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9556;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9557;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9558;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9559;image)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9560;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9561;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24612;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24614;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9564;image)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9565;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9566;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24615;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24617;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9569;image)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9570;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9571;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=9572;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1923.0;attach=24624;image)
-
Have I got this wrong. On Sunday the 11th August AE made a statement yet the silencer was supposedly not picked up till the Monday? Can I ask why?
Thanks for posting this Caroline and Bridget....Twill stop me from Bleating for a while. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ignore me I'm tired. ???
-
Why did June ask Ann to teach Sheila to cook and find her some chores? Why couldn't June teach Sheila to cook and find her some chores? This would have been around the time Sheila was 15 - 17 yoa.
According to JB June taught him to cook.
-
Also AE states that Sheila was taken into hospital before the twins were born. I had to re-read this, because it makes out that Sheila was having marital problems and was admitted to hospital. Does this mean that she was admitted 3 times? for this was 1979. Refer to bottom of sheet 5.
I'm astonished that because Sheila had had miscarriages it turned June to religion. I don't buy that.!
-
Why did June ask Ann to teach Sheila to cook and find her some chores? Why couldn't June teach Sheila to cook and find her some chores? This would have been around the time Sheila was 15 - 17 yoa.
According to JB June taught him to cook.
The same question crossed my mind too, NaNu. It certainly smacks of a less than comfortable relationship between mother and daughter, so perhaps it was around that time, when one of those "difficult" conversations would have been useful, that June backed off.
-
Also AE states that Sheila was taken into hospital before the twins were born. I had to re-read this, because it makes out that Sheila was having marital problems and was admitted to hospital. Does this mean that she was admitted 3 times? for this was 1979. Refer to bottom of sheet 5.
I'm astonished that because Sheila had had miscarriages it turned June to religion. I don't buy that.!
She had some gynacological problems and spent several weeks in hospital prior to giving birth to the twins.
Yes and that JB living with an older women, separated from her husband, with 2 or 3 children caused NB and June some consternation ::)
-
Also AE states that Sheila was taken into hospital before the twins were born. I had to re-read this, because it makes out that Sheila was having marital problems and was admitted to hospital. Does this mean that she was admitted 3 times? for this was 1979. Refer to bottom of sheet 5.
I'm astonished that because Sheila had had miscarriages it turned June to religion. I don't buy that.!
Patti, until Sheila carried a pregnancy to a successful conclusion, June may have felt guilty that because of the termination she had insisted on, Sheila would be unable to have children. Hence the turn to religion.
-
The same question crossed my mind too, NaNu. It certainly smacks of a less than comfortable relationship between mother and daughter, so perhaps it was around that time, when one of those "difficult" conversations would have been useful, that June backed off.
Yes April and it makes you wonder if June ever discussed sexual relationships/contraception with her adopted children?
-
Also AE states that Sheila was taken into hospital before the twins were born. I had to re-read this, because it makes out that Sheila was having marital problems and was admitted to hospital. Does this mean that she was admitted 3 times? for this was 1979. Refer to bottom of sheet 5.
I'm astonished that because Sheila had had miscarriages it turned June to religion. I don't buy that.!
If you read further up that same page it is explained that Sheila was to be hospitalised because of her previous miscarriages.
-
Yes April and it makes you wonder if June ever discussed sexual relationships/contraception with her adopted children?
NaNu, I don't think it takess a PHD in psychology to work out the answer to that.
-
That's some saga. If only June had been strong enough to have given Sheila more support. The girl must have reached the end of her tether. All the people there,yet not one of them understood her. How damn sad.
-
Patti, until Sheila carried a pregnancy to a successful conclusion, June may have felt guilty that because of the termination she had insisted on, Sheila would be unable to have children. Hence the turn to religion.
It's a possibility but I'm more inclined to think that it was all bound up with life cycle issues of burgeoning (love that word) sexuality and impending emancipation rekindling loss issues prevalent within an adoptive family. Plus June possibly believing that had she have had birth children they would have been pure and chaste instead of accepting that SC and JB were just typical teenagers/young people living in that era and had she have had birth children they are likely to have acted very similarly eg sex before marriage etc.
-
She had some gynacological problems and spent several weeks in hospital prior to giving birth to the twins.
Yes and that JB living with an older women, separated from her husband, with 2 or 3 children caused NB and June some consternation ::)
Did you read the bit about the panic button put in the office at the caravan park?
-
It's a possibility but I'm more inclined to think that it was all bound up with life cycle issues of burgeoning (love that word) sexuality and impending emancipation rekindling loss issues prevalent within an adoptive family. Plus June possibly believing that had she have had birth children they would have been pure and chaste instead of accepting that SC and JB were just typical teenagers/young people living in that era and had she have had birth children they are likely to have acted very similarly eg sex before marriage etc.
June, of course would have recognized none of that but life may have been easier if she's had some kind of yardstick against which she could measure them. From what Ann says they seem to have been kept very seperate from a peer group. Ann admits to having little to do with her cousins when they were children and I get the impression that they didn't have established friendships. Perhaps they weren't encouraged. Perhaps June thought other children would be a bad influence.
-
Did you read the bit about the panic button put in the office at the caravan park?
I noticed that when she went to WHF she switched off the alarm and turned off the lights which had been on all night.
-
Thanks Bridget!! Team work!! ;D I found the rest of it but you save me a job!!
-
June, of course would have recognized none of that but life may have been easier if she's had some kind of yardstick against which she could measure them. From what Ann says they seem to have been kept very seperate from a peer group. Ann admits to having little to do with her cousins when they were children and I get the impression that they didn't have established friendships. Perhaps they weren't encouraged. Perhaps June thought other children would be a bad influence.
Good points ol bean. Their lives appear to lack any sort of lifelong relationships as a result of growing up on an isolated farm, boarding schools miles from WHF, both doing their own thing at a young age eg JB travelling, SC London.
-
Did you read the bit about the panic button put in the office at the caravan park?
Yes - with GREAT interest!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks Bridget!! Team work!! ;D I found the rest of it but you save me a job!!
No problem, Mike had already posted it but I think it was a good idea to give it a shiny new thread.
-
No problem, Mike had already posted it but I think it was a good idea to give it a shiny new thread.
;D ;D
-
Why on earth did Ann Eaton take notes of what Jeremy was telling the police on the 7th of August 1985? Not even the police suspected him at that point. It is very strange!!
Love the bit about the wall-paper, OMG, TEMPER! It does underline that AE was VERY frustrated with the plans Jeremy had told her about, which blocked her and her husband´s plans for where they were going to live, their whole future. This went close to her core, so she and her hubby must have been exceptionally relieved with the final outcome of the case: Jeremy eliminated.
Also noticed that Julie was jealous when answering the door when Ann Eaton came to Jeremy´s place, post Osea burglary, pre murders, first time AE and JM met. JM had a hard time with another female ringing the bell at Jeremy´s. Sickly jealous I would say, if she was apprehensive merely by the sight of another woman...
-
Why on earth did Ann Eaton take notes of what Jeremy was telling the police on the 7th of August 1985? Not even the police suspected him at that point. It is very strange!!
Love the bit about the wall-paper, OMG, TEMPER! It does underline that AE was VERY frustrated with the plans Jeremy had told her about, which blocked her and her husband´s plans for where they were going to live, their whole future. This went close to her core, so she and her hubby must have been exceptionally relieved with the final outcome of the case: Jeremy eliminated.
Also noticed that Julie was jealous when answering the door when Ann Eaton came to Jeremy´s place, post Osea burglary, pre murders, first time AE and JM met. JM had a hard time with another female ringing the bell at Jeremy´s. Sickly jealous I would say, if she was apprehensive merely by the sight of another woman...
That's exactly how I read it, Alias. We frequently hear of information gained through police intelligence. There was very little evidence of it at work in 1984 and not a psychologist in sight.
-
Jeremy told the police on the 7th that he had a good relationship with his father - Ann quickly told the coppers that was not true.
How insensitive. Here is a young man who has just lost his family in a horrendous manner, and she is blurting out that he had a bad relationship with his father! No one suspected Jeremy at this point. First of all, how would she know, she didn´t see them that much together; but she reasons: life style issues and the fact that Jeremy (at 24!) didn´t live at WHF even if there was plenty of room=bad relationship.
Oh, gosh, I had two rooms at my disposal in my mother´s house, still I chose to move out at the age of, (GHASP) 20.
That is what people do.
P.S. Something else I noticed. Here Ann Eaton says she had a very good relationship with Sheila, and that they got on well. Sorry, don´t recall where, but I read in some other statement AE made that she and Sheila were not compatible at all. AE described herself as the "practical type", whereas Sheila was not at all. AE had a hard time with Sheila´s need to sit around and talk without "doing" anything.
-
Jeremy told the police on the 7th that he had a good relationship with his father - Ann quickly told the coppers that was not true.
How insensitive. Here is a young man who has just lost his family in a horrendous manner, and she is blurting out that he had a bad relationship with his father! No one suspected Jeremy at this point. First of all, how would she know, she didn´t see them that much together; but she reasons: life style issues and the fact that Jeremy (at 24!) didn´t live at WHF even if there was plenty of room=bad relationship.
Oh, gosh, I had two rooms at my disposal in my mother´s house, still I chose to move out at the age of, (GHASP) 20.
That is what people do.
P.S. Something else I noticed. Here Ann Eaton says she had a very good relationship with Sheila, and that they got on well. Sorry, don´t recall where, but I read in some other statement AE made that she and Sheila were not compatible at all. AE described herself as the "practical type", whereas Sheila was not at all. AE had a hard time with Sheila´s need to sit around and talk without "doing" anything.
Yes Alias. I too found strange the amount of intimate family knowledge Ann has, given that she admits to not knowing Jeremy and Sheila throughout their childhood and didn't get the chance as a young adult because they were rarely at the farm.
Perhaps she thought she and Sheila had a good relationship because they didn't actually communicate, so probably never became close enough to disagree about anything. My own feeling is that she had NOTHING in common with her and was probably vaguely disapproving of her lifestyle. In what she has written, quite lengthily, she seems to have made no effort whatsoever with her. I can't imagine what was the atmosphere between them when Sheila started cleaning for her.
-
Jeremy has a lot of friends in Essex to whom he thanked for their support.Just thought I'd mention that.
-
Funnily enough,far from condemning Jeremy, the statement actually tells us more about the kind of person AE was back then. I actually feel sorry for Jeremy,he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't!
I am amazed by her constant references to the fact that Jeremy could still eat a meal. I noticed that so too could she! And she had just lost five family members too! What a load of boll ox ::)
-
Yes Alias. I too found strange the amount of intimate family knowledge Ann has, given that she admits to not knowing Jeremy and Sheila throughout their childhood and didn't get the chance as a young adult because they were rarely at the farm.
Perhaps she thought she and Sheila had a good relationship because they didn't actually communicate, so probably never became close enough to disagree about anything. My own feeling is that she had NOTHING in common with her and was probably vaguely disapproving of her lifestyle. In what she has written, quite lengthily, she seems to have made no effort whatsoever with her. I can't imagine what was the atmosphere between them when Sheila started cleaning for her.
Probably OK - at first at least. I can imagine Sheila would have become bored with this arrangement eventually.
Sheila would have been happy enough to get away from her mother - and I don´t see anything strange in June asking Ann for this "favour". 1. June could get a break from Sheila. 2. Sheila could get a break from home (June). 3. Sheila could make friends (I think that could actuallybe the main reason June sent her to Ann) 4. Sheila could actually learn something about house chores. Teens tend not to listen to their parents.
Just my take on it - I could be wrong.
..............................
Just commenting on Ann´s statement as the things pop into my head, sorry for not being systematic.
Colin´s immediate reaction was to blame himself for leaving the twins with Sheila at WHF. He was devastated by it, especially after that drive down there where Sheila didn´t say one single word.
I have all the sympathy in the world for Colin for having lost both his precious sons, but here is another one immensely relieved that Jeremy was found guilty. It gave Colin peace of mind for the rest of his life. If Jeremy did it, Colin wouldn´t have to blame himself anymore. He would have been more than ready to convince himself of Jeremy´s guilt. (Jeremy might be guilty, I don´t know - I am probably 70% for innosence, 30% for guilty.)
-
Probably OK - at first at least. I can imagine Sheila would have become bored with this arrangement eventually.
Sheila would have been happy enough to get away from her mother - and I don´t see anything strange in June asking Ann for this "favour". 1. June could get a break from Sheila. 2. Sheila could get a break from home (June). 3. Sheila could make friends (I think that could actuallybe the main reason June sent her to Ann) 4. Sheila could actually learn something about house chores. Teens tend not to listen to their parents.
Just my take on it - I could be wrong.
..............................
Just commenting on Ann´s statement as the things pop into my head, sorry for not being systematic.
Colin´s immediate reaction was to blame himself for leaving the twins with Sheila at WHF. He was devastated by it, especially after that drive down there where Sheila didn´t say one single word.
I have all the sympathy in the world for Colin for having lost both his precious sons, but here is another one immensely relieved that Jeremy was found guilty. It gave Colin peace of mind for the rest of his life. If Jeremy did it, Colin wouldn´t have to blame himself anymore. He would have been more than ready to convince himself of Jeremy´s guilt. (Jeremy might be guilty, I don´t know - I am probably 70% for innosence, 30% for guilty.)
Yet in his book which i have he says she s finally done it.
-
Funnily enough,far from condemning Jeremy, the statement actually tells us more about the kind of person AE was back then. I actually feel sorry for Jeremy,he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't!
I am amazed by her constant references to the fact that Jeremy could still eat a meal. I noticed that so too could she! And she had just lost five family members too! What a load of boll ox ::)
That is total boll ox, as you put it. Ann seems to be very cool, calm and collected during the whole thing, much, much more than Jeremy (not her parents, sister and nephews, but still). Her priority when going to Jeremy´s place that day was in fact to bring milk, sugar, bisquits, tea or coffee with her. Well, if she didn´t expect Jeremy to ingest anything out of grief, it must have been for herself then..... 8)
-
Yet in his book which i have he says she s finally done it.
Yes, that was his immediate reaction when he was told, according to him. Then the self-blame set in. (I was talking about what Ann Eaton describes about Colin when he arrived at Jeremy´s in her statement.)
-
So when we examine closely everything which was said of Jeremy by the people who were supposed to know him better than anyone, but in fact, probably knew VERY little about him, not ONE of them has anything positive to say about him. EVERY one of them seems to be determined of his guilt, largely, I suspect, because he simply didn't fit in in the way it was thought he should.
-
That is total boll ox, as you put it. Ann seems to be very cool, calm and collected during the whole thing, much, much more than Jeremy (not her parents, sister and nephews, but still). Her priority when going to Jeremy´s place that day was in fact to bring milk, sugar, bisquits, tea or coffee with her. Well, if she didn´t expect Jeremy to ingest anything out of grief, it must have been for herself then..... 8)
[/quote its really quite simple, if you want something you dont ask you take, rather than open a new topic i can offer here, surely on moral grounds its most strange to take up residency in a house which has seen so much death, its not right.
-
OK, this here is what I find the strangest in the whole (half - have only read half so far :P) is this, as I wrote earlier, but here it is again, transscribed:
"I was keenly listened in (sic) what Jeremy was saying to the police. I made some notes about what Jeremy was saying to the police. When I arrived home later that day I wrote out on a card what Jeremy had been saying from the notes made earlier."
Now, WHO would do such a thing?!
Was she taking notes right undeer Jeremy´s nose, or was she lurking and eagerly scribbling outside whatever room Jeremy and police officers were in? Where did she get pen and paper, did she bring that too, or did she grab some at Jeremy´s place?
She sure is a woman who wastes NO time!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Another thing. She claims that it would take two or three minutes, maybe more, to get from Jeremy´s bedroom to his telephone down the stairs. I have one word: BS!
-
Was the 50 acres of land that AE believes Neville had purchased,but was actually purchased by June and given to Jeremy,the same piece of land that was purchased from John Eaton? The same piece of land that the Eaton's wanted to purchase from Neville when they had the funds to do so? And here was Jeremy telling Ann that he intended to sell it! And intended to purchase,possibly along with his parents - Vaulty Manor Farm - which Ann was hoping to occupy.
Why on earth did the defence not make more of this?
-
OK, this here is what I find the strangest in the whole (half - have only read half so far :P) is this, as I wrote earlier, but here it is again, transscribed:
"I was keenly listened in (sic) what Jeremy was saying to the police. I made some notes about what Jeremy was saying to the police. When I arrived home later that day I wrote out on a card what Jeremy had been saying from the notes made earlier."
Now, WHO would do such a thing?!
Was she taking notes right undeer Jeremy´s nose, or was she lurking and eagerly scribbling outside whatever room Jeremy and police officers were in? Where did she get pen and paper, did she bring that too, or did she grab some at Jeremy´s place?
She sure is a woman who wastes NO time!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Another thing. She claims that it would take two or three minutes, maybe more, to get from Jeremy´s bedroom to his telephone down the stairs. I have one word: BS!
I find it odd that she feels the necessity to go into such lengthy explanation about why she did what she did and how she did it.
-
Was the 50 acres of land that AE believes Neville had purchased,but was actually purchased by June and given to Jeremy,the same piece of land that was purchased from John Eaton? The same piece of land that the Eaton's wanted to purchase from Neville when they had the funds to do so? And here was Jeremy telling Ann that he intended to sell it! And intended to purchase,possibly along with his parents - Vaulty Manor Farm - which Ann was hoping to occupy.
Why on earth did the defence not make more of this?
After what seems to have been a lengthy financial struggle and at last seeing light at the end of the tunnel, that information must have gone down like a lead balloon.
-
Was the 50 acres of land that AE believes Neville had purchased,but was actually purchased by June and given to Jeremy,the same piece of land that was purchased from John Eaton? The same piece of land that the Eaton's wanted to purchase from Neville when they had the funds to do so? And here was Jeremy telling Ann that he intended to sell it! And intended to purchase,possibly along with his parents - Vaulty Manor Farm - which Ann was hoping to occupy.
Why on earth did the defence not make more of this?
Jeremy obviously had inadequate counsel - and no family to help him..... au contraire!
He was so right when he said to Ann Eaton over the phone: "I have no family." She was so wrong when she said: "Yes you do, I´m coming over..." - And over she came with milk and cookies - and took notes....
-
The desperation for him to be guilty and out of the way makes so much more sense now! Squabbling over farms and farmland appears to have started WAY before the murders !
-
OK, this here is what I find the strangest in the whole (half - have only read half so far :P) is this, as I wrote earlier, but here it is again, transscribed:
"I was keenly listened in (sic) what Jeremy was saying to the police. I made some notes about what Jeremy was saying to the police. When I arrived home later that day I wrote out on a card what Jeremy had been saying from the notes made earlier."
Now, WHO would do such a thing?!
Was she taking notes right undeer Jeremy´s nose, or was she lurking and eagerly scribbling outside whatever room Jeremy and police officers were in? Where did she get pen and paper, did she bring that too, or did she grab some at Jeremy´s place?
She sure is a woman who wastes NO time!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Another thing. She claims that it would take two or three minutes, maybe more, to get from Jeremy´s bedroom to his telephone down the stairs. I have one word: BS!
Yeah, this amazed me!! Unless he lived in Castle Howard, it;s not going to take more than say 30 seconds!!
-
Jeremy obviously had inadequate counsel - and no family to help him..... au contraire!
He was so right when he said to Ann Eaton over the phone: "I have no family." She was so wrong when she said: "Yes you do, I´m coming over..." - And over she came with milk and cookies - and took notes....
And used the notes to ....
-
The desperation for him to be guilty and out of the way makes so much more sense now! Squabbling over farms and farmland appears to have started WAY before the murders !
Strange take on things, given that it was implied they were a 'close' family. It doesn't read that way at all - the whole statement seems to me to be cold.
-
Strange take on things, given that it was implied they were a 'close' family. It doesn't read that way at all - the whole statement seems to me to be cold.
That's how I saw it too,Caroline. I wasn't fooled by it at all.
-
And used the notes to ....
I cannot get over this. Why the heck would she take notes of what Jeremy said on the morning/afternoon after the murders? Wasn´t she in shock and griefstricken, her relatives had been slaughtered? No, she was taking notes. WHY WOULD SHE DO THAT? I wish I could ask her what made her take those notes on that day.
-
The desperation for him to be guilty and out of the way makes so much more sense now! Squabbling over farms and farmland appears to have started WAY before the murders !
Quite common issues over land , many a neighbour has died with his rival going to battle over land not all acres but inches.in this case those issues could not be resolved so other means were needed.
-
Either she was told to,,or she was frightened of missing something.
-
I cannot get over this. Why the heck would she take notes of what Jeremy said on the morning/afternoon after the murders? Wasn´t she in shock and griefstricken, her relatives had been slaughtered? No, she was taking notes. WHY WOULD SHE DO THAT? I wish I could ask her what made her take those notes on that day.
[/quote
I agree Alias, it's an ODD thing to do!
-
I cannot get over this. Why the heck would she take notes of what Jeremy said on the morning/afternoon after the murders? Wasn´t she in shock and griefstricken, her relatives had been slaughtered? No, she was taking notes. WHY WOULD SHE DO THAT? I wish I could ask her what made her take those notes on that day.
Because her relatives had been slaughtered.
I don't know Ann, but I don't think it's possible to judge her character from police or witness statements. The contents of those statements tend to be limited to matters relevant to the crime and any suspects, and don't dwell on matters such as the witness's own emotions. For that reason such statements can of course seem cold.
It seems obvious to me that right from the off Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family (among other things) didn't tie in with what her perception of what it was. Of course to counter this argument supporters will say that the families weren't close, and cite the frequency of the caravan park meetings, the fact that it is said somewhere that Ann and Peter hadn't visited since Christmas, and the fact that Ann didn't see Sheila or Jeremy in their youth. Surely if they take the blinkers off supporters can see that this is not how families work? I see my sister a lot less often than the Eaton's and Boutflours saw the Bambers, but I defy any of you to tell me I don't know her. Relationships in families can be complex, and no amount of 27-years-after-the-fact analysis is ever going to get anywhere close.
-
Because her relatives had been slaughtered.
I don't know Ann, but I don't think it's possible to judge her character from police or witness statements. The contents of those statements tend to be limited to matters relevant to the crime and any suspects, and don't dwell on matters such as the witness's own emotions. For that reason such statements can of course seem cold.
It seems obvious to me that right from the off Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family (among other things) didn't tie in with what her perception of what it was. Of course to counter this argument supporters will say that the families weren't close, and cite the frequency of the caravan park meetings, the fact that it is said somewhere that Ann and Peter hadn't visited since Christmas, and the fact that Ann didn't see Sheila or Jeremy in their youth. Surely if they take the blinkers off supporters can see that this is not how families work? I see my sister a lot less often than the Eaton's and Boutflours saw the Bambers, but I defy any of you to tell me I don't know her. Relationships in families can be complex, and no amount of 27-years-after-the-fact analysis is ever going to get anywhere close.
I see what you're saying Bridget but I don't think the relationship between direct family members such as a sister can be compared to that of a cousin. Especially as Ann doesn't seem to have been close to either Jeremy or Sheila (or like either of them particularly). I have lots of cousins, that I'm quite close to but I really couldn't tell you anything in regard to their family dynamics. I'd be guessing. I don't wear blinkers, I like to see the wood so as not to hit the trees!! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Because her relatives had been slaughtered.
I don't know Ann, but I don't think it's possible to judge her character from police or witness statements. The contents of those statements tend to be limited to matters relevant to the crime and any suspects, and don't dwell on matters such as the witness's own emotions. For that reason such statements can of course seem cold.
It seems obvious to me that right from the off Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family (among other things) didn't tie in with what her perception of what it was. Of course to counter this argument supporters will say that the families weren't close, and cite the frequency of the caravan park meetings, the fact that it is said somewhere that Ann and Peter hadn't visited since Christmas, and the fact that Ann didn't see Sheila or Jeremy in their youth. Surely if they take the blinkers off supporters can see that this is not how families work? I see my sister a lot less often than the Eaton's and Boutflours saw the Bambers, but I defy any of you to tell me I don't know her. Relationships in families can be complex, and no amount of 27-years-after-the-fact analysis is ever going to get anywhere close.
Bridget, good morning. I'm not certain that a sisterly relationship can be used to demonstrate. In the normal course of events sisters are bought up together unless, of course, there is a difference in ages of 7 yrs or more, when they are deemed as being "onlies"
You say "Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family..........didn't tie in with her perception of what it was"!!!!!!!!! Her Perception!!!! I wonder when had been the last time she had witnessed an interaction between Jeremy and his family. Over how many occasions had Her Perception been formed. It seems to me that Her Perception went skin deep and no further mainly because Jeremy was not then/never had been considered to be one of "them".
You cite her reason for doing it as "her relatives had been slaughtered." Yet suddenly, there she is, acting with all the cool of a latter day Sherlock Holmes, and showing the same lack of understanding of human emotion. Jeremy's family had been slaughtered, too, but I've rarely seen his behaviour excused by the guilty side, because of it.
I really can't rid myself of the feeling that Ann had spent much of her life being jealous, from a far remove, of what she perceived the lives of Sheila and Jeremy to be. Perhaps she saw them as being feted and fawned over because they were adopted. Did she believe that they "got away" with things because of it? How jealous may she have been of Sheila going to boarding school, finishing school, modelling school whilst all she had was a co-ed followed by a secretarial course. How deep might her anger have been when Jeremy set off on his modern day version of the "Grand Tour"? When might it have crossed her mid that she, as a Family member, wasn't given these advantages, why should THEY have them............and she would have seen all of this from her life of almost permanent struggle. Was it the final straw when Jeremy revealed HIS plans for what she had come to believe was HER land and HER property?
There is, IMO, an important similarity between Ann Eaton and Julie Mugford, they were both disappointed women, both had their life plans thwarted courtesy of Jeremy.
-
Brilliant post April !
-
But you both miss the point, you are basing your opinions on what you read in witness statements, have you ever given one? It's not like writing a book - the police will talk to you for hours and then condense it down to a couple of pages of what they consider to be relevant to the investigation. All you have are these statements and JBs opinions expressed in his letters and blogs. Ann, to her credit, has maintained a dignified silence.
-
But you both miss the point, you are basing your opinions on what you read in witness statements, have you ever given one? It's not like writing a book - the police will talk to you for hours and then condense it down to a couple of pages of what they consider to be relevant to the investigation. All you have are these statements and JBs opinions expressed in his letters and blogs. Ann, to her credit, has maintained a dignified silence.
In the light of which, Bridget, are you saying I have totally misread it and have it completely wrong regarding Ann?
-
Ann has not exactly maintained a dignified silence. She has allowed tv cameras into her home and allowed herself to be interviewed by journos. This is rather at odds with her claim that the family just want to "forget" and "move on with their lives".And if Jeremy is innocent,who can blame him for wanting to shout it from the rooftops? I know damn well that I would be making a lot of noise about it!
-
Ann has not exactly maintained a dignified silence. She has allowed tv cameras into her home and allowed herself to be interviewed by journos. This is rather at odds with her claim that the family just want to "forget" and "move on with their lives".And if Jeremy is innocent,who can blame him for wanting to shout it from the rooftops? I know damn well that I would be making a lot of noise about it!
She's given one TV interview in last 20 years. She hasn't spoken at all about the case for 10.
-
In the light of which, Bridget, are you saying I have totally misread it and have it completely wrong regarding Ann?
Not at all, I'm saying that you cannot possibly know her well enough to make the kind of judgments I see here from the information available to you.
-
She allowed herself to be interviewed for Wilkes' book. Has she been approached for interview for the book that is due out later in the year?
-
Not at all, I'm saying that you cannot possibly know her well enough to make the kind of judgments I see here from the information available to you.
One of the most succesful aspects of bamber's campaign has been the vilification of Ann. I found Ann's statement quite powerful. The responses to it in some cases are simply reiteration of views, trying to make your preconceived views fit the statement. I do not recognise Ann in your answers.
-
One of the most succesful aspects of bamber's campaign has been the vilification of Ann. I found Ann's statement quite powerful. The responses to it in some cases are simply reiteration of views, trying to make your preconceived views fit the statement. I do not recognise Ann in your answers.
In my answers or other people's answers?
-
In my answers or other people's answers?
Sorry. Other people's. was like a pack of vultures picking at the statement.
-
With all due respect Vidvic,you did not know Ann 28 years ago. People can change.
-
One of the most succesful aspects of bamber's campaign has been the vilification of Ann. I found Ann's statement quite powerful. The responses to it in some cases are simply reiteration of views, trying to make your preconceived views fit the statement. I do not recognise Ann in your answers.
I'm certain that you don't know the person who was Ann back in the 80's Vic. I am also certain that there isn't a different psychology for her, than there is for the rest of us. All I have done is taken facts we KNOW to be facts and combined them with POSSIBLE facts to come up with some probabilities. I've done no more by way of vilification with Ann than I've done with Jeremy and Sheila. NO psych evaluation, IMO, can be 100% accurate but it can come close enough, indeed, close enough today for an assessment of all major players to be taken into consideration.
-
It would be interesting to see how someone who has no prior knowledge/interest in the case would interpret them :-\
AE seems to make a point of highlighting how NB and June provided financial support to SC and JB which in any event is fairly common in middle class families: SC's modelling course, wedding, purchase ? of London flat, offer of buying antique shop in Tolleshunt. Colin's driving lessons. JB travelling. I note AE and Jacky Wood appear to have had a chin wag about NB lending JB money for travelling and then making comments that it went unpaid. The pair of them didn't do badly out of Uncle Nevill did they? NB purchasing the land for AE and PE to buy back at a later date. And NB gifting a larger share of his late mother's property to JW and AP than he legally had to, plus lending them 25k each for renovations.
Anyway as far as I'm concerned they're all really moot points. The one thing that sticks out for me with the relatives is that according to Colin Caffell none of them had any idea about the severity of Sheila's mental illness:
Excerpt from Colin's book:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
-
The year--------------2013. My very close friend and myself have tried getting help from all directions from various services,GP's etc,,but to no avail. The help is for a paranoid schizophrenic,,,and we've both been told by different " professionals " that no help is available unless that person self harms,or harms others. ?
In the 1980's it was just as bad,,except that nursing staff,GP's etc,,were already aware that Sheila was capable of harming either herself or her children. For her it was too late.
The moral is-------------that when such a person either commits suicide,,or kills others,,then something will be done,,but until then,,you take pot luck.
The illness is not taken as seriously as it should be,,if only for the person suffering,regardless of the harm/damage they could do to others.
I've always been of the opinion that nobody but June and Neville knew of the severity of Sheilas' illness,,and they would certainly have known what the girl could have been capable of,,while nobody else would. How can outsiders know.? They're not living with it.!
-
It would be interesting to see how someone who has no prior knowledge/interest in the case would interpret them :-\
AE seems to make a point of highlighting how NB and June provided financial support to SC and JB which in any event is fairly common in middle class families: SC's modelling course, wedding, purchase ? of London flat, offer of buying antique shop in Tolleshunt. Colin's driving lessons. JB travelling. I note AE and Jacky Wood appear to have had a chin wag about NB lending JB money for travelling and then making comments that it went unpaid. The pair of them didn't do badly out of Uncle Nevill did they? NB purchasing the land for AE and PE to buy back at a later date. And NB gifting a larger share of his late mother's property to JW and AP than he legally had to, plus lending them 25k each for renovations.
Anyway as far as I'm concerned they're all really moot points. The one thing that sticks out for me with the relatives is that according to Colin Caffell none of them had any idea about the severity of Sheila's mental illness:
Excerpt from Colin's book:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
NaNu Hi. I think the family's knowledge/lack of can be seen indifferent ways. The obvious being that they weren't told, followed by, they weren't told because they weren't close enough emotionally/supportive enough to be told. The second goes a little deeper. Ann has laboured the point about beans hitting any point but toast because of her lack of coordination. I suspect that whilst they never knew just HOW ill was Sheila, they would most certainly have had conversations about the fact that she WAS ill. It may have been that such an illness came under the heading of "social embarrassment" and best ignored.
I have indeed assessed Ann as being financially focused and possibly given to feelings of intense envy. Why? She tells me so by what she writes and I can't erase the feeling that she's saying it wasn't fair that they were given so much and she wasn't. Had she have written about her memories of wonderful times they shared when they were children and what close friends they had become as adults, my assessment would have been totally different.
-
I have indeed assessed Ann as being financially focused and possibly given to feelings of intense envy. Why? She tells me so by what she writes and I can't erase the feeling that she's saying it wasn't fair that they were given so much and she wasn't. Had she have written about her memories of wonderful times they shared when they were children and what close friends they had become as adults, my assessment would have been totally different.
This is a witness statement, not her memoirs!!! Good grief...
-
NaNu Hi. I think the family's knowledge/lack of can be seen indifferent ways. The obvious being that they weren't told, followed by, they weren't told because they weren't close enough emotionally/supportive enough to be told. The second goes a little deeper. Ann has laboured the point about beans hitting any point but toast because of her lack of coordination. I suspect that whilst they never knew just HOW ill was Sheila, they would most certainly have had conversations about the fact that she WAS ill. It may have been that such an illness came under the heading of "social embarrassment" and best ignored.
I have indeed assessed Ann as being financially focused and possibly given to feelings of intense envy. Why? She tells me so by what she writes and I can't erase the feeling that she's saying it wasn't fair that they were given so much and she wasn't. Had she have written about her memories of wonderful times they shared when they were children and what close friends they had become as adults, my assessment would have been totally different.
AE was no doubt a highly practical 'hands on' type and to her mind perhaps SC appeared impractical due to SC perhaps being more inclined towards the arts/intellectual pursuits. After all AE and SC are both from a different gene pool! There's no concrete evidence whatsoever to suggest Sheila was "uncoordinated" to the extent that she was diagnosed with dyspraxia. In fact there's much evidence to suggest SC's levels of coordination were no worse or better than the average person. Unless you want to base it in on AE's theory that SC missing the toast with the beans = uncoordinated = unable to load and use a firearm.
-
This is a witness statement, not her memoirs!!! Good grief...
Yes, and it's slanted to what she considers to be important.
-
I don't remember seeing how many times Jeremy visited the bathroom. Unless that was crossed out of course.
-
Because her relatives had been slaughtered.
I don't know Ann, but I don't think it's possible to judge her character from police or witness statements. The contents of those statements tend to be limited to matters relevant to the crime and any suspects, and don't dwell on matters such as the witness's own emotions. For that reason such statements can of course seem cold.
It seems obvious to me that right from the off Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family (among other things) didn't tie in with what her perception of what it was. Of course to counter this argument supporters will say that the families weren't close, and cite the frequency of the caravan park meetings, the fact that it is said somewhere that Ann and Peter hadn't visited since Christmas, and the fact that Ann didn't see Sheila or Jeremy in their youth. Surely if they take the blinkers off supporters can see that this is not how families work? I see my sister a lot less often than the Eaton's and Boutflours saw the Bambers, but I defy any of you to tell me I don't know her. Relationships in families can be complex, and no amount of 27-years-after-the-fact analysis is ever going to get anywhere close.
I still find it strange she took notes on that very day. Extremely so, and as I said, I wish I could ask her what prompted her to do that.
-
I still find it strange she took notes on that very day. Extremely so, and as I said, I wish I could ask her what prompted her to do that.
Very strange, the only people i would expect to do so would be the police, it may be to compare against what she would say later there is a lot more here as with many areas on this case not sounding right , right and fine for guilty members but not me.
-
Very strange, the only people i would expect to do so would be the police, it may be to compare against what she would say later there is a lot more here as with many areas on this case not sounding right , right and fine for guilty members but not me.
Yes Mertol, you're right. I could have understood it if she had just told the police that she was uncertain about what Jeremy had said but to go at it like a bull in a china shop and write down almost everything he'd done throughout his life as a means of showing him as guilty, tells me THAT, as opposed to showing that Sheila was innocent, was her objective.
-
Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?
-
Yes Mertol, you're right. I could have understood it if she had just told the police that she was uncertain about what Jeremy had said but to go at it like a bull in a china shop and write down almost everything he'd done throughout his life as a means of showing him as guilty, tells me THAT, as opposed to showing that Sheila was innocent, was her objective.
Yes and again it was for the police , courts and a jury to find Sheila innocent not a family member, this has all the hallmarks of wanting to speed up the investication to put the odds more in your favour .
-
Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?
As I've already stated on more than one occasion,Steve,,,that Neville would have walloped Jeremy,no problem,,and it would have been a man to man struggle,,,except that it wasn't Jeremy and neither did he show any signs of having been in any kind of a fracas.
Jeremy couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding,I'm afraid. Even now,I bet he hasn't got it in him to give anyone a fourpenny one.
-
As I've already stated on more than one occasion,Steve,,,that Neville would have walloped Jeremy,no problem,,and it would have been a man to man struggle,,,except that it wasn't Jeremy and neither did he show any signs of having been in any kind of a fracas.
Jeremy couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding,I'm afraid. Even now,I bet he hasn't got it in him to give anyone a fourpenny one.
Not normally no,but he was heavily under the influence of cannabis and cocaine that last year which I blame for the killings. All crimes were non-contact in nature anyhow committed under the darkness of night,which is how Jeremy reasoned with himself he could proceed with the crimes yet refused in the cold light of day to identify the bodies.
-
Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?
Because they obviously didn't expect her to shoot everyone. Ann Eaton's remarks point to Sheila as being clumsy and NOT the shaking wreck you try to portray. You conveniently neglect to take into account that she had only recently helped prepare the party food for the twins on the previous weekend before her death!! As for the letter - are you saying that Sheila was in full control of her thoughts when she wrote that letter to Ann? Finally, no one can say that there was a struggle for the rifle - that is a complete assumption!!
-
Not normally no,but he was heavily under the influence of cannabis and cocaine that last year which I blame for the killings. All crimes were non-contact in nature anyhow committed under the darkness of night,which is how Jeremy reasoned with himself he could proceed with the crimes yet refused in the cold light of day to identify the bodies.
Only according to you Steve dear. I do believe that you're the only one to suggest it. Oh! there was something else, what was it? I know!!! Good to see you back, Steve. Have missed you :-*
-
Why would June and Nevill retire to bed leaving guns around the house if they believed Sheila to be unstable,why did Sheila choose to write to Ann Eaton in hospital if they didn't get on,and why did Freddi Emani state that Sheila needed two hands to pour liquid into a glass,an observation which tallies with Ann Eaton's "Sheila-couldn't-put beans on toast and if she poured tea into a cup she would miss" remark,making it unlikely that Sheila would win any struggle with her father that morning in the kitchen as they both wrestled for control of the gun?
Hi Steve :)
Once you grasp the concept of what a psychotic delusion/episode is then maybe you will finally understand. :( ;)
-
Not normally no,but he was heavily under the influence of cannabis and cocaine that last year which I blame for the killings. All crimes were non-contact in nature anyhow committed under the darkness of night,which is how Jeremy reasoned with himself he could proceed with the crimes yet refused in the cold light of day to identify the bodies.
He had worked from early morning until late in the evening!! If he had been under the 'heavy influence' of drugs, he wouldn't have been able to function never mind kill 5 people and bicycle across country!! Your knowledge of recreational drugs is pretty lacking if that's what you're implying?
-
Not normally no,but he was heavily under the influence of cannabis and cocaine that last year which I blame for the killings. All crimes were non-contact in nature anyhow committed under the darkness of night,which is how Jeremy reasoned with himself he could proceed with the crimes yet refused in the cold light of day to identify the bodies.
Sorry Steve,,but I could bet that Jeremy was frightened of his own shadow,,a wimp,,and his drug-taking wouldn't have altered his nature,,on the contrary,they would have made him more laid-back.
Because he'd refused to identify the bodies doesn't make him a killer either. Imagine having to identify your own family.You'd have to have nerves of steel to enable you to do that.Even the most " macho " of men would struggle,,so it came as no surprise that he didn't exactly volunteer.
-
He had worked from early morning until late in the evening!! If he had been under the 'heavy influence' of drugs, he wouldn't have been able to function never mind kill 5 people and bicycle across country!! Your knowledge of recreational drugs is pretty lacking if that's what you're implying?
He was a heavy user of cannabis anyway that last year which may or may not have impaired his ability to use a tractor,but he coupled this habit with a large dose of cocaine after work to give himself Dutch courage. The side-effects were evident to Ann Eaton with dilated pupils on the Wednesday morning,and of course another symptom of heavy drug use is his urge to converse which he did when he telephoned Julie three times within the space of a few hours and asked to be alone with her at Goldhanger on more than one occasion.
-
He was a heavy user of cannabis anyway that last year which may or may not have impaired his ability to use a tractor,but he coupled this habit with a large dose of cocaine after work to give himself Dutch courage. The side-effects were evident to Ann Eaton with dilated pupils on the Wednesday morning,and of course another symptom of heavy drug use is his urge to converse which he did when he telephoned Julie three times within the space of a few hours and asked to be alone with her at Goldhanger on more than one occasion.
More speculation without substance Steve!!
-
Sorry Steve,,but I could bet that Jeremy was frightened of his own shadow,,a wimp,,and his drug-taking wouldn't have altered his nature,,on the contrary,they would have made him more laid-back.
Because he'd refused to identify the bodies doesn't make him a killer either. Imagine having to identify your own family.You'd have to have nerves of steel to enable you to do that.Even the most " macho " of men would struggle,,so it came as no surprise that he didn't exactly volunteer.
Keeping posts relevant to the subject of this thread Jeremy was disposed to keep Ann Eaton onside after the murders which is evident from the birthday card he sent her and his enforced politeness at board meetings and offer of use of sunbed. It's also why he accepted her offer to tour the house after the murders,yet he couldn't keep out of character for long as he was soon pointing out to her which pile of antiques was worth the most as they looked into the master bedroom.
-
He was a heavy user of cannabis anyway that last year which may or may not have impaired his ability to use a tractor,but he coupled this habit with a large dose of cocaine after work to give himself Dutch courage. The side-effects were evident to Ann Eaton with dilated pupils on the Wednesday morning,and of course another symptom of heavy drug use is his urge to converse which he did when he telephoned Julie three times within the space of a few hours and asked to be alone with her at Goldhanger on more than one occasion.
Blimey,,Ann Eaton noticed everything. I'm surprised she wasn't listening out for the bed-springs going when Jeremy and Julie went upstairs. She seemed mighty put out about that.
As for the dilated pupils,,what does it matter.?
-
Oh dear,,I'm beginning to sound coarse. :(
-
He was a heavy user of cannabis anyway that last year which may or may not have impaired his ability to use a tractor,but he coupled this habit with a large dose of cocaine after work to give himself Dutch courage. The side-effects were evident to Ann Eaton with dilated pupils on the Wednesday morning,and of course another symptom of heavy drug use is his urge to converse which he did when he telephoned Julie three times within the space of a few hours and asked to be alone with her at Goldhanger on more than one occasion.
Which novel did you learn that from. As for AE, I don't think she would have known the difference between dilated pupils and diluted papals.
-
Which novel did you learn that from. As for AE, I don't think she would have known the difference between dilated pupils and diluted papals.
Oh,,I don't know April.The woman could see round corners.
-
Blimey,,Ann Eaton noticed everything. I'm surprised she wasn't listening out for the bed-springs going when Jeremy and Julie went upstairs. She seemed mighty put out about that.
As for the dilated pupils,,what does it matter.?
It gives an explanation as to how and why the murders were committed by someone whom Mr. Justice Drake commented at trial had an outwardly believable appearance.
-
Which novel did you learn that from. As for AE, I don't think she would have known the difference between dilated pupils and diluted papals.
It's in Roger Wilkes' book. Ann also noticed the bicycle splattered with brown yellowish mud which is symptomatic of the sulphorous soil in the Maldon area I believe.
-
Keeping posts relevant to the subject of this thread Jeremy was disposed to keep Ann Eaton onside after the murders which is evident from the birthday card he sent her and his enforced politeness at board meetings and offer of use of sunbed. It's also why he accepted her offer to tour the house after the murders,yet he couldn't keep out of character for long as he was soon pointing out to her which pile of antiques was worth the most as they looked into the master bedroom.
Jeremy's so called 'politeness' reads more to me as sarcasm. He didn't JUST accept an offer to tour the house - 'the house' had been HIS 'home' and it is quite understandable why he would have found it difficult to return after HIS family were killed there. He wasn't the only person interested in removing valuables from the house but as they were HIS, he had every right to do so!!
-
He was a heavy user of cannabis anyway that last year which may or may not have impaired his ability to use a tractor,but he coupled this habit with a large dose of cocaine after work to give himself Dutch courage. The side-effects were evident to Ann Eaton with dilated pupils on the Wednesday morning,and of course another symptom of heavy drug use is his urge to converse which he did when he telephoned Julie three times within the space of a few hours and asked to be alone with her at Goldhanger on more than one occasion.
One has to wonder what Nevill's reaction would have been on seeing an entire field depicted as modern art because of jeremy's drug taking.
-
It gives an explanation as to how and why the murders were committed by someone whom Mr. Justice Drake commented at trial had an outwardly believable appearance.
Goodness me Steve,,if appearances send men to prison,then there'd be few men walking the streets. You can't go by appearances dear Steve,,because they're friendly with the same sex,,take drugs,or have dilated pupils.
-
It's in Roger Wilkes' book. Ann also noticed the bicycle splattered with brown yellowish mud which is symptomatic of the sulphorous soil in the Maldon area I believe.
But Roger Wilkes wasn't there, Steve so we only have what Ann thought would serve as proof of his guilt. As for the bike, nobody seemed overconcerned about brown yellowish mud.
-
Jeremy's so called 'politeness' reads more to me as sarcasm. He didn't JUST accept an offer to tour the house - 'the house' had been HIS 'home' and it is quite understandable why he would have found it difficult to return after HIS family were killed there. He wasn't the only person interested in removing valuables from the house but as they were HIS, he had every right to do so!!
But why was there an onus on Jeremy seeing everything in monetary terms,which was an indication of how his mind was working and the real reason behind the killings? He'd inherited some ability with numbers from his natural father,an auditor at Buckingham Palace,who having served in the Army would also have been handy with firearms..
-
But why was there an onus on Jeremy seeing everything in monetary terms,which was an indication of how his mind was working and the real reason behind the killings? He'd inherited some ability with numbers from his natural father,an auditor at Buckingham Palace,who having served in the Army would also have been handy with firearms..
He'd been chucked in that the deep end! A business to run with people employed who needed paying. He had funerals to arrange which needed paying for!! He was only 25 years old and in charge of a business he was only just getting to grips with - of course money was a consideration but he certainly wasn't the only one considering the financial implications!! I'm not sure what point you're making in respect to his natural father so I won't comment.
-
It's in Roger Wilkes' book. Ann also noticed the bicycle splattered with brown yellowish mud which is symptomatic of the sulphorous soil in the Maldon area I believe.
Steve,,were you aware that the bicycle had only one gear and no lights.? Can you imagine going the distance from Goldhanger to WHF on a bike of that nature,,whether it be by road or the sea wall.? In 10/15 minutes.? A doddle in daylight perhaps.
Covered in mud or not,,Jeremy made no effort to conceal it,did he.? And you can't miss " evidence " like a bicycle.
There was no evidence that the bike had been used for any other purpose other than locally,,certainly not to commit murders. So the bike is a no no,much to the dismay of the relatives who'd pushed for that to have been involved.
-
If you get very little sleep as was the case with Jeremy that night, it would cause the cornea of your eyes to become stressed or overworked. When this happens your eyes become much more sensitive to light. Light in general causes your pupils to dilate and retract. Due to the added stress on the cornea from lack of sleep, your eyes dilate more in order to try and relieve some of that stress.
Always happy to help. 8)
-
Steve,,were you aware that the bicycle had only one gear and no lights.? Can you imagine going the distance from Goldhanger to WHF on a bike of that nature,,whether it be by road or the sea wall.? In 10/15 minutes.? A doddle in daylight perhaps.
Covered in mud or not,,Jeremy made no effort to conceal it,did he.? And you can't miss " evidence " like a bicycle.
There was no evidence that the bike had been used for any other purpose other than locally,,certainly not to commit murders. So the bike is a no no,much to the dismay of the relatives who'd pushed for that to have been involved.
Robert Boutflor made the observation that the road was moonlit with only a field of rape to cross where Jeremy could have carried the bike. Of course it's circumstantial,but it's not generally a woman's thing to enjoy riding through mud,just as using a gun is not primarily associated with a woman's crime.
Jeremy couldn't see through any of this,and thought he had done enough with the sleeping pills and the telephone calls to tie Julie in as an accessory and thereby safeguarding her silence.
-
If you get very little sleep as was the case with Jeremy that night, it would cause the cornea of your eyes to become stressed or overworked. When this happens your eyes become much more sensitive to light. Light in general causes your pupils to dilate and retract. Due to the added stress on the cornea from lack of sleep, your eyes dilate more in order to try and relieve some of that stress.
Always happy to help. 8)
Of course he got no sleep,another symptom of drug abuse. We have to accept that Jeremy watched some television so as to provide himself with an alibi,then went upstairs to sleep yet managed to answer a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night,though we don't know how long Nevill was kept holding at the White House Farm end. We have to swallow that Nevill knew the Bourtree Cottage number by heart,and also accept that Jeremy in his stupor flicks through a telephone directory when he could just have dialled 999,which is what Nevill would have done in the first place from the Farm had he managed to reach a telephone that morning.
-
Of course he got no sleep,another symptom of drug abuse. We have to accept that Jeremy watched some television so as to provide himself with an alibi,then went upstairs to sleep yet managed to answer a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night,though we don't know how long Nevill was kept holding at the White House Farm end. We have to swallow that Nevill knew the Bourtree Cottage number by heart,and also accept that Jeremy in his stupor flicks through a telephone directory when he could just have dialled 999,which is what Nevill would have done in the first place from the Farm had he managed to reach a telephone that morning.
Jeremys' alibi was the figure at the window at WHF. You don't run for your life and then duck out of the way of a " trick of the light ". Three grown men did just that.
-
Jeremys' alibi was the figure at the window at WHF. You don't run for your life and then duck out of the way of a " trick of the light ". Three grown men did just that.
I'm sure there are many tricks of the light emanating from old Georgian houses in the middle of the night. We still don't know who first spotted it,and with the pretext of Jeremy's story about Sheila being a nutter who had recently been on shooting practice the Police present took the easier option of waiting and collecting their overtime payments,which I can't blame them one bit for doing.
-
I'm sure there are many tricks of the light emanating from old Georgian houses in the middle of the night. We still don't know who first spotted it,and with the pretext of Jeremy's story about Sheila being a nutter who had recently been on shooting practice the Police present took the easier option of waiting and collecting their overtime payments,which I can't blame them one bit for doing.
If they hadn't have hidden like big jessies,,they may have seen that it wasn't a trick of the light.
-
Robert Boutflor made the observation that the road was moonlit with only a field of rape to cross where Jeremy could have carried the bike. Of course it's circumstantial,but it's not generally a woman's thing to enjoy riding through mud,just as using a gun is not primarily associated with a woman's crime.
Jeremy couldn't see through any of this,and thought he had done enough with the sleeping pills and the telephone calls to tie Julie in as an accessory and thereby safeguarding her silence.
Of course you realise that the field of rape would not be there in august? It's in fact just coming into bloom now in April. You are right. It is all circumstancial and came straight out of RWB's diary.
-
Of course he got no sleep,another symptom of drug abuse. We have to accept that Jeremy watched some television so as to provide himself with an alibi,then went upstairs to sleep yet managed to answer a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night,though we don't know how long Nevill was kept holding at the White House Farm end. We have to swallow that Nevill knew the Bourtree Cottage number by heart,and also accept that Jeremy in his stupor flicks through a telephone directory when he could just have dialled 999,which is what Nevill would have done in the first place from the Farm had he managed to reach a telephone that morning.
If you work it out if Jeremy had dialed 999 this would have given him a better alibi, but would in fact have little difference at all. This action of Jeremy's speaks more of confusion in his mind rather than a calculating killer.
-
It may not have been oil seed rape and I may have misquoted him. However I'm beginning to think the Jeremy supporters would be happy with the outcome of "Time Served" of twenty-five years,irrespective of whether he is in fact guilty or not. It's redolent of the Scottish system with the alternative third verdict of "Not Proven",which in layman's terms equates to "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again"..
-
It may not have been oil seed rape and I may have misquoted him. However I'm beginning to think the Jeremy supporters would be happy with the outcome of "Time Served" of twenty-five years,irrespective of whether he is in fact guilty or not. It's redolent of the Scottish system with the alternative third verdict of "Not Proven",which in layman's terms equates to "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again"..
Then you would be wrong - again!
-
It may not have been oil seed rape and I may have misquoted him. However I'm beginning to think the Jeremy supporters would be happy with the outcome of "Time Served" of twenty-five years,irrespective of whether he is in fact guilty or not. It's redolent of the Scottish system with the alternative third verdict of "Not Proven",which in layman's terms equates to "Not Guilty but Don't Do It Again"..
Steve,I'm sure that many like yourself would have looked upon Jeremy as " lazy " and only put his shoulder to the wheel when he had to do,,meaning,,he had to pull his finger out at the farm when it came to harvest time. I think the same myself,,,as some young people couldn't work in convulsions,,with hard work " killing them ".
Now how,,and where would Jeremy have mustered up the energy to have helped his father that day,,gone home from WHF after supper,,then hurtled back to WHF to kill 5 people.? No can do.
Because Jeremy was fond of socialising,,and like most young men,,preferred that way of life to doing a hard days work,,it must have felt like a real chore back on the farm,,,and I imagine that should his father have rang for any other reason than the tragedy that happened,,,it would have taken Jeremy all his time to get himself out of bed.
Young men aren't the easiest to jump to attention in the morning at the best of times.Women are much better at that,,,as they appear more alert.
I'm sure that you'll be reading between the lines to gather what I'm getting at.
-
Steve,I'm sure that many like yourself would have looked upon Jeremy as " lazy " and only put his shoulder to the wheel when he had to do,,meaning,,he had to pull his finger out at the farm when it came to harvest time. I think the same myself,,,as some young people couldn't work in convulsions,,with hard work " killing them ".
Now how,,and where would Jeremy have mustered up the energy to have helped his father that day,,gone home from WHF after supper,,then hurtled back to WHF to kill 5 people.? No can do.
Because Jeremy was fond of socialising,,and like most young men,,preferred that way of life to doing a hard days work,,it must have felt like a real chore back on the farm,,,and I imagine that should his father have rang for any other reason than the tragedy that happened,,,it would have taken Jeremy all his time to get himself out of bed.
Young men aren't the easiest to jump to attention in the morning at the best of times.Women are much better at that,,,as they appear more alert.
I'm sure that you'll be reading between the lines to gather what I'm getting at.
Hi Lookout
Really? ;)
-
Of course he got no sleep,another symptom of drug abuse. We have to accept that Jeremy watched some television so as to provide himself with an alibi,then went upstairs to sleep yet managed to answer a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night,though we don't know how long Nevill was kept holding at the White House Farm end. We have to swallow that Nevill knew the Bourtree Cottage number by heart,and also accept that Jeremy in his stupor flicks through a telephone directory when he could just have dialled 999,which is what Nevill would have done in the first place from the Farm had he managed to reach a telephone that morning.
The 999 call is irrelevant. Because when JB received a call during the night telling him that his sister had got hold of one of my guns (not rifle) Jeremy did not perceive what was happening at the farm house. He was totally unaware at this point and for anyone to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
We have heard from family and friends that the Bamber family were private people and were very reluctant at involving others into their personal affairs. If Nevill at that point thought that Sheila was about to pull the trigger, he himself would have dialled 999 but he chose to get Jeremy over to help resolve the matter. why? However it does beg the question as to why Jeremy didn't get dressed and just go over there....Maybe Jeremy was going to go over, but when he couldn't reach his father back on the telephone...he thought what the heck, why should I go and sort Sheila out...I'll phone the coppers....this is more likely to happened, because of Jeremy's arrogance rather than someone who had plotted murders. Jeremy was a Tommy opposite! If Jeremy had plotted the murders then he would have plotted the phone calls and he would have made sure he got his timing correct.
The other important thing is that he would have made sure a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger existed because he would have been in the frame of mind that that call would have been traceable. When Jeremy was interviewed, he told Jones to trace the call....He was not aware that the call could not be traced at that point...If you believe that Jeremy killed his family then you have to believe that he himself made the call from WHF to Goldhanger. Then Jeremy would have had to have nipped back to Goldhanger, called back to WHF and called the police etc.....Only one fault with this scenario and, that puts Julie and her friends in a position that they lied in court....because they said he called Julie at 3am and this could not be correct. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Hi Lookout
Really? ;)
Hi NN. Really what.? :-\
-
Hi NN. Really what.? :-\
I see now,,but I don't speak the same language.
-
But why was there an onus on Jeremy seeing everything in monetary terms,which was an indication of how his mind was working and the real reason behind the killings? He'd inherited some ability with numbers from his natural father,an auditor at Buckingham Palace,who having served in the Army would also have been handy with firearms..
Morning Steve_uk
Its a little thing called inheritance tax and capital gains tax. The gross value of the estate was £435,000. Anything over £67,000 was liable to inheritance tax at 40%. There may have been some exemptions in terms of agricultural land and business relief but a considerable amount would have been due. How was JB to meet this liability? Farmers tend to be asset rich and cash poor. All of this seems to get conveniently lost. I've not read anywhere about the substantial inheritance tax liability that JB was liable for.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/iht-thresholds.htm
As Caroline has pointed the payroll needed paying. Also I understand WHF had an overdraft and borrowings for farm plant and machinery and renovations at Guildford.
I'm not sure what exactly JB inherited from his birth father in terms of character, aptitude etc as I'm not a geneticist but his birth parents and full birth siblings appear to be upstanding citizens so since you believe JB to be guilty what caused him to deviate from nature?
-
I see now,,but I don't speak the same language.
Awww that's a shame :'( never too late to learn ;)
-
The 999 call is irrelevant. Because when JB received a call during the night telling him that his sister had got hold of one of my guns (not rifle) Jeremy did not perceive what was happening at the farm house. He was totally unaware at this point and for anyone to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
We have heard from family and friends that the Bamber family were private people and were very reluctant at involving others into their personal affairs. If Nevill at that point thought that Sheila was about to pull the trigger, he himself would have dialled 999 but he chose to get Jeremy over to help resolve the matter. why? However it does beg the question as to why
Jeremy didn't get dressed and just go over there....Maybe Jeremy was going to go over, but
when he couldn't reach his father back on the telephone...he thought what the heck, why
should I go and sort Sheila out...I'll phone the coppers....this is more likely to happened,
because of Jeremy's arrogance rather than someone who had plotted murders. Jeremy was a
Tommy opposite! If Jeremy had plotted the murders then he would have plotted the phone calls
and he would have made sure he got his timing correct.
The other important thing is that he would have made sure a call was made from WHF to
Goldhanger existed because he would have been in the frame of mind that that call would have
been traceable. When Jeremy was interviewed, he told Jones to trace the call....He was not
aware that the call could not be traced at that point...If you believe that Jeremy killed his family
then you have to believe that he himself made the call from WHF to Goldhanger. Then Jeremy
would have had to have nipped back to Goldhanger, called back to WHF and called the police
etc.....Only one fault with this scenario and, that puts Julie and her friends in a position that
they lied in court....because they said he called Julie at 3am and this could not be correct. :-\ :-
\ :-\ :-\
Hi Patti, i cannot believe that JM and her flat mates could have had any clear idea of what time the phone rang that night. The first suggestion was 3.30 before after debate a consensus time was reached. They admitted having smoked cannabis that evening and their memories must have been hazy to say the least. I cannot believe they could be accepted as reliable witnesses. Imo
-
Hi Patti, i cannot believe that JM and her flat mates could have had any clear idea of what time the phone rang that night. The first suggestion was 3.30 before after debate a consensus time was reached. They admitted having smoked cannabis that evening and their memories must have been hazy to say the least. I cannot believe they could be accepted as reliable witnesses. Imo
Hi maggie :)
I think your opinion is quite right and that is what a jury of today would probably think too. ;) :D :D :D
If you look at it...we have a timeline of those that believe Jeremy guilty:
3:00 Jeremy rang Julie from Goldhanger
3:15 Jeremy phones calls Goldhanger from WHF
3:26 Jeremy phones the police.
3:35 CA5 is called out
Impossible Maggie!
What I believe:
3:15 Jeremy receives a call from his father.
3:16 Jeremy tries to ring his father back
3:17 Jeremy tries again to ring his father, but gets the engaged tone.
3:20 Jeremy phones Witham police, gets no answer
3:24 Jeremy calls Julie
3:26 Jeremy then calls Maldon
3:35 CA5 is called out
3:48 Police arrived at scene
3:50 Jeremy arrives at the scene.
-
Hi maggie :)
I think your opinion is quite right and that is what a jury of today would probably think too. ;) :D :D :D
If you look at it...we have a timeline of those that believe Jeremy guilty:
3:00 Jeremy rang Julie from Goldhanger
3:15 Jeremy phones calls Goldhanger from WHF
3:26 Jeremy phones the police.
3:35 CA5 is called out
Impossible Maggie!
What I believe:
3:15 Jeremy receives a call from his father.
3:16 Jeremy tries to ring his father back
3:17 Jeremy tries again to ring his father, but gets the engaged tone.
3:20 Jeremy phones Witham police, gets no answer
3:24 Jeremy calls Julie
3:26 Jeremy then calls Maldon
3:35 CA5 is called out
3:48 Police arrived at scene
3:50 Jeremy arrives at the scene.
Morning Patti
In the absence of digital recordings and satellite technology, which today we are able to rely on as being accurate, the phone calls/timings etc are imo utter speculation.
-
Morning Patti
In the absence of digital recordings and satellite technology, which today we are able to rely on as being accurate, the phone calls/timings etc are imo utter speculation.
Exactly! No proof whatsoever! All guess work! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No one believes JB called Goldhanger from WHF at 3.15am. If he did it all (which I doubt) it was prior to 3am.
-
Because her relatives had been slaughtered.
I don't know Ann, but I don't think it's possible to judge her character from police or witness statements. The contents of those statements tend to be limited to matters relevant to the crime and any suspects, and don't dwell on matters such as the witness's own emotions. For that reason such statements can of course seem cold.
It seems obvious to me that right from the off Ann was suspicious of Jeremy, mainly because his account of his relationship with his family (among other things) didn't tie in with what her perception of what it was. Of course to counter this argument supporters will say that the families weren't close, and cite the frequency of the caravan park meetings, the fact that it is said somewhere that Ann and Peter hadn't visited since Christmas, and the fact that Ann didn't see Sheila or Jeremy in their youth. Surely if they take the blinkers off supporters can see that this is not how families work? I see my sister a lot less often than the Eaton's and Boutflours saw the Bambers, but I defy any of you to tell me I don't know her. Relationships in families can be complex, and no amount of 27-years-after-the-fact analysis is ever going to get anywhere close.
Morning Ms Bridget
I don't really understand your post above.
JB may have had a crap relationship with every member of his adoptive family - immediate and extended - doesn't mean he would have dreamt of killing them for any reason.
People believe what they want to believe. Last night I saw on the news that the parents of the suspected Boston bombers are in complete denial that their sons were involved albeit the law enforcement agencies seem to have considerable evidence although I accept that the survivor has yet to be tried.
Same happened with the lead suicide bomber in 9/11 attacks in that his father refused to believe that his son was involved.
Imo the same is true of the Boutflours/Eatons ie they refuse to believe Sheila was responsible despite, according to Colin Caffell, having no idea about the severity of her mental illness.
Excerpt from Colin's book:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
-
No one believes JB called Goldhanger from WHF at 3.15am. If he did it all (which I doubt) it was prior to 3am.
True! Hello by the way! 5-5 :-* :D :D :D :D
-
But Sheila hadn't been dead since 3am or before,Bridget,,,,whichever way you look at it. Again,,,,no thanks that any time of death was ever recorded/logged which has created all this from the start.
-
Morning Ms Bridget
I don't really understand your post above.
JB may have had a crap relationship with every member of his adoptive family - immediate and extended - doesn't mean he would have dreamt of killing them for any reason.
People believe what they want to believe. Last night I saw on the news that the parents of the suspected Boston bombers are in complete denial that their sons were involved albeit the law enforcement agencies seem to have considerable evidence although I accept that the survivor has yet to be tried.
Same happened with the lead suicide bomber in 9/11 attacks in that his father refused to believe that his son was involved.
Imo the same is true of the Boutflours/Eatons ie they refuse to believe Sheila was responsible despite, according to Colin Caffell, having no idea about the severity of her mental illness.
Excerpt from Colin's book:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
Try as I might, I cannot work out what your post has to do with the point I was making.
-
But Sheila hadn't been dead since 3am or before,Bridget,,,,whichever way you look at it. Again,,,,no thanks that any time of death was ever recorded/logged which has created all this from the start.
In your opinion, which I don't share.
-
Try as I might, I cannot work out what your post has to do with the point I was making.
Are you able to explain your post:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173130.html#msg173130
I don't understand the connection with your sister?
-
The case is made more difficult because of the absence of forensic evidence. It's all supposition,,which isn't right as a basis for such a crime.
-
The case is made more difficult because of the absence of forensic evidence. It's all supposition,,which isn't right as a basis for such a crime.
Yes and lessons are never learned. Bridget has pointed out that the same thing happened in the Simon Hall case ie no pathologist at soc to ascertain time of death.
-
Are you able to explain your post:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173130.html#msg173130
I don't understand the connection with your sister?
I think the post is self explanatory. You cannot base an 'assessment' or a 'psych evaluation' as April variously describes it on a few facts gleaned from witness statements taken for an entirely different purpose. I see my sister maybe 4 or 5 times a year and it's been that way for the best part of 30 years, this does not mean I don't know her.
-
Morning Ms Bridget
I don't really understand your post above.
JB may have had a crap relationship with every member of his adoptive family - immediate and extended - doesn't mean he would have dreamt of killing them for any reason.
People believe what they want to believe. Last night I saw on the news that the parents of the suspected Boston bombers are in complete denial that their sons were involved albeit the law enforcement agencies seem to have considerable evidence although I accept that the survivor has yet to be tried.
Same happened with the lead suicide bomber in 9/11 attacks in that his father refused to believe that his son was involved.
Imo the same is true of the Boutflours/Eatons ie they refuse to believe Sheila was responsible despite, according to Colin Caffell, having no idea about the severity of her mental illness.
Excerpt from Colin's book:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
Excellent post NN ;)
-
I refer to Steve uk's post #105, and NN,s post #123, regarding the alleged 'birth father' of Jeremy Bamber. Have comparative DNA TESTS been carried out in pursuance of this, and if not, can they, and should they not be arranged?
We can be sure it will be a weight off Major Leslie Marsham's mind to ascertain that he is not actually (or actually not) the natural father of an alleged murderer.
-
I think the post is self explanatory. You cannot base an 'assessment' or a 'psych evaluation' as April variously describes it on a few facts gleaned from witness statements taken for an entirely different purpose. I see my sister maybe 4 or 5 times a year and it's been that way for the best part of 30 years, this does not mean I don't know her.
Of course you know your sister Bridget, inside out, you have lived with her and you are blood relatives.
I think what NN is trying to point out is that although some people will say that the extended family knew the Bambers well, this might not be the case. The difference is, that AE had never lived with the Bamber's and did not know Sheila or Jeremy during their school days, therefore did know them fully. On saying that I think June and Pam had a lovely relationship and did know each other well....But, what NN is pointing out is that Colin said in his book that the AE and Pam were not fully aware of Sheila's illness and had they been, they would have helped. This tells us that they were might have been close, but did not reveal everything to each other, for it was personal to them as a family and June might not have wanted her sister to know....for many reasons known only to them.... :-\ :) :) :) :)
-
I think the post is self explanatory. You cannot base an 'assessment' or a 'psych evaluation' as April variously describes it on a few facts gleaned from witness statements taken for an entirely different purpose. I see my sister maybe 4 or 5 times a year and it's been that way for the best part of 30 years, this does not mean I don't know her.
The difference between the Boutflours/Eaton/JB relationship and that between you and your sister in terms of depth of understanding is (a couple of assumptions here) firstly your sister was immediate family, secondly you were genetically related, thirdly you grew up in the same home and therefore spent most of your waking hours together.
Plus Dr F is on record as saying that SC never discussed with him any issues with JB. Also June never discussed JB with Dr F apart from revealing that she dropped him on his head, or similar, whilst a baby.
I've not read anything the relatives have put forward that leads me to think JB could be capable of killing his entire immediate adoptive family. Imo they are all benign actions eg not being committed to the farm when leaving college, travelling, having a friend that wore a feather behind his ear, accidentally spraying weed killer on a neighbouring farm, etc, etc. These benign actions are imo put forward to paint JB in a bad light. The extreme end of the spectrum is breaking into the family business and stealing a few hundred quid and supplying and using pot. Not condoning this but not exactly crimes of the century. I would have expected to have seen firm evidence of serious anti-social/deviant/violent/aggressive behaviour.
You believe JB to be guilty. I believe him to be innocent. There's no concrete proof either way albeit he has been found guilty in a court of law due imo to fatal errors being made by his defence. But then I would say that wouldn't I? :)
-
I refer to Steve uk's post #105, and NN,s post #123, regarding the alleged 'birth father' of Jeremy Bamber. Have comparative DNA TESTS been carried out in pursuance of this, and if not, can they, and should they not be arranged?
We can be sure it will be a weight off Major Leslie Marsham's mind to ascertain that he is not actually (or actually not) the natural father of an alleged murderer.
I saw a photo of his sister and she does look a lot like JB !!
-
The difference between the Boutflours/Eaton/JB relationship and that between you and your sister in terms of depth of understanding is (a couple of assumptions here) firstly your sister was immediate family, secondly you were genetically related, thirdly you grew up in the same home and therefore spent most of your waking hours together.
Plus Dr F is on record as saying that SC never discussed with him any issues with JB. Also June never discussed JB with Dr F apart from revealing that she dropped him on his head, or similar, whilst a baby.
I've not read anything the relatives have put forward that leads me to think JB could be capable of killing his entire immediate adoptive family. Imo they are all benign actions eg not being committed to the farm when leaving college, travelling, having a friend that wore a feather behind his ear, accidentally spraying weed killer on a neighbouring farm, etc, etc. These benign actions are imo put forward to paint JB in a bad light. The extreme end of the spectrum is breaking into the family business and stealing a few hundred quid and supplying and using pot. Not condoning this but not exactly crimes of the century. I would have expected to have seen firm evidence of serious anti-social/deviant/violent/aggressive behaviour.
You believe JB to be guilty. I believe him to be innocent. There's no concrete proof either way albeit he has been found guilty in a court of law due imo to fatal errors being made by his defence. But then I would say that wouldn't I? :)
Hi NN, this is an important question. What feather behind the ear? Who?:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I saw a photo of his sister and she does look a lot like JB !!
That's interesting,boheme. It would be more interesting to find out if either blood brother and sister have developed any similarities as regards behavioural qualities and " quirks " as brothers and sisters do,such as the way they sit,stand,eat,etc etc. Or even their minds.
-
Hi NN, this is an important question. What feather behind the ear? Who?:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Hi Patti
It's contained in RB's diary that JB was seen accompanying a young man with a feather in his ear!!!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=246.0;attach=635
-
Hi Patti
It's contained in RB's diary that JB was seen accompanying a young man with a feather in his ear!!!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=246.0;attach=635
Thank you NN...Now I am wondering about the significance of a feather....Come on all of you must have seen it.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I know one thing. Jeremy didn't even have the bottle to punch anyones' lights out for calling him a b'stard. I'm trying my best to fathom out why he didn't have a backbone then to ever stand up to anyone. I could have understood if he'd have shown aggression as a teenager,,because they usually continue in that mode into their adult life,,and had this been the case,then I'd have said yes,,without doubt he could murder,,but under such circumstances,I find it very very difficult to believe that he even had a brainstorm.
He seems to have taken everything on the chin by everyone concerned.
-
The difference between the Boutflours/Eaton/JB relationship and that between you and your sister in terms of depth of understanding is (a couple of assumptions here) firstly your sister was immediate family, secondly you were genetically related, thirdly you grew up in the same home and therefore spent most of your waking hours together.
Plus Dr F is on record as saying that SC never discussed with him any issues with JB. Also June never discussed JB with Dr F apart from revealing that she dropped him on his head, or similar, whilst a baby.
I've not read anything the relatives have put forward that leads me to think JB could be capable of killing his entire immediate adoptive family. Imo they are all benign actions eg not being committed to the farm when leaving college, travelling, having a friend that wore a feather behind his ear, accidentally spraying weed killer on a neighbouring farm, etc, etc. These benign actions are imo put forward to paint JB in a bad light. The extreme end of the spectrum is breaking into the family business and stealing a few hundred quid and supplying and using pot. Not condoning this but not exactly crimes of the century. I would have expected to have seen firm evidence of serious anti-social/deviant/violent/aggressive behaviour.
You believe JB to be guilty. I believe him to be innocent. There's no concrete proof either way albeit he has been found guilty in a court of law due imo to fatal errors being made by his defence. But then I would say that wouldn't I? :)
Of course you know your sister Bridget, inside out, you have lived with her and you are blood relatives.
I think what NN is trying to point out is that although some people will say that the extended family knew the Bambers well, this might not be the case. The difference is, that AE had never lived with the Bamber's and did not know Sheila or Jeremy during their school days, therefore did know them fully. On saying that I think June and Pam had a lovely relationship and did know each other well....But, what NN is pointing out is that Colin said in his book that the AE and Pam were not fully aware of Sheila's illness and had they been, they would have helped. This tells us that they were might have been close, but did not reveal everything to each other, for it was personal to them as a family and June might not have wanted her sister to know....for many reasons known only to them.... :-\ :) :) :) :)
NaNu/Patti, thankyou for clarifying for Bridget the point I was TRYING to make re her relationship with her sister :)
:)As to my ability, or not, to give an assessment of part of someone's character by reading a piece of paper in which it was made obvious what their concerns were, isn't that just what Ann had done about Jeremy, when by her own admission, she knew little about him.
-
NaNu/Patti, thankyou for clarifying for Bridget the point I was TRYING to make re her relationship with her sister :)
:)As to my ability, or not, to give an assessment of part of someone's character by reading a piece of paper in which it was made obvious what their concerns were, isn't that just what Ann had done about Jeremy, when by her own admission, she knew little about him.
Hi April
The thing I find most interesting about the forum is that most posters seem intelligent and decent and as far as I'm aware all have access to the same info and yet the guilty and innocent posters interpret info in completely different ways which obviously leads to a different conclusion :)
-
Thank you NN...Now I am wondering about the significance of a feather....Come on all of you must have seen it.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Patti
Pleeeeze...tell all...
-
Patti
Pleeeeze...tell all...
Have you never noticed it? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ You must have seen it dozens of times. I have never mentioned it before, because no one else had? But, you mentioning feather made me think.... ??? eh! :) :) :) :)
-
Look in the far corner on top of the table and there lays a feather. Where did it come from and why is it on the table as June had set the table for morning breakfast. Not a very good photo, maybe someone has got a better one...this one I have tampered with...:(
-
Look in the far corner on top of the table and there lays a feather. Where did it come from and why is it on the table as June had set the table for morning breakfast. Not a very good photo, maybe someone has got a better one...this one I have tampered with...:(
Perhaps it was an important treasure belonging to one of the twins.
-
Perhaps it was an important treasure belonging to one of the twins.
It could have been, kids like to pick feathers up. I know I did when I was young. But there is something on the end of the feather like it was attached to something...I can't seem to get a good view of it...It could be that June left the feather on the table. Or Ken Dodd dropped it from his fiddling stick lol :) :) :) :)
-
Just a thought. I've heard of feathers in caps and fleas in ears but I've never heard of feathers behind ears. What COULD he have meant by it ;)?
-
Look in the far corner on top of the table and there lays a feather. Where did it come from and why is it on the table as June had set the table for morning breakfast. Not a very good photo, maybe someone has got a better one...this one I have tampered with...:(
When compared with the spoon head it appears very small. Is it def a loose feather and not part of a motif on a placemat or a napkin holder or the like?
-
When compared with the spoon head it appears very small. Is it def a loose feather and not part of a motif on a placemat or a napkin holder or the like?
Definitely a loose feather, I think there is something on the nib end of it....Like I say I can't get a good view of it on this picture I posted above....someone must have a clearer one somewhere....I will see if I can find one, there might be one in the archives... :) :) :) :)
-
Interesting that you all attempt to deflect the main points being made by focussing on the differences as you see it (presumably based on your own experiences because you know little of mine) between a relationship between sisters and wider family. So for anyone still in any doubt as to what I think:
I find the notion that you can assess a person's true personality and motives, and the complexities of their familial relationships, via witness statements taken by police for a murder trial incredibly misguided especially in light of the fact that you have never met the person.
I find it surprising that apparently intelligent people think it acceptable to publish their ill-conceived and ill-informed opinions on a public website where the subject of their vilification is likely to at least become aware of them if they don't see them themselves.
I'm sorry if that seems blunt but I feel quite strongly about it.
That said, I completely agree with the excellent post that Vic made on another thread in which he pointed out the fact that whilst all this is good forum fodder it will never make it past first base in a court, and so I will go back to ignoring it as I usually do.
-
Just a thought. I've heard of feathers in caps and fleas in ears but I've never heard of feathers behind ears. What COULD he have meant by it ;)?
I seem to recall that it was part of the New Romantic look around that time. I think it was more earrings that had a feather dangling from them ;D ;D ;D I can't recall guys wearing them but they may have done. They certainly wore a lot of a make-up as in Spandu Ballet, Gary Numan, Duran Duran. I recall making my brother's eyes up for him a couple of times ;D ;D ;D
May have been Sheila's feather earring?
-
Just a thought. I've heard of feathers in caps and fleas in ears but I've never heard of feathers behind ears. What COULD he have meant by it ;)?
It might have been a sign in those days that they bat for the other side. ;D ;D ;D
-
As long it wasn't a calling card,,we're alright.
-
Interesting that you all attempt to deflect the main points being made by focussing on the differences as you see it (presumably based on your own experiences because you know little of mine) between a relationship between sisters and wider family. So for anyone still in any doubt as to what I think:
I find the notion that you can assess a person's true personality and motives, and the complexities of their familial relationships, via witness statements taken by police for a murder trial incredibly misguided especially in light of the fact that you have never met the person.
I find it surprising that apparently intelligent people think it acceptable to publish their ill-conceived and ill-informed opinions on a public website where the subject of their vilification is likely to at least become aware of them if they don't see them themselves.
I'm sorry if that seems blunt but I feel quite strongly about it.
That said, I completely agree with the excellent post that Vic made on another thread in which he pointed out the fact that whilst all this is good forum fodder it will never make it past first base in a court, and so I will go back to ignoring it as I usually do.
Hi Bridget, sorry if I have said anything out of turn to offend you in any way. :(
-
I seem to recall that it was part of the New Romantic look around that time. I think it was more earrings that had a feather dangling from them ;D ;D ;D I can't recall guys wearing them but they may have done. They certainly wore a lot of a make-up as in Spandu Ballet, Gary Numan, Duran Duran. I recall making my brother's eyes up for him a couple of times ;D ;D ;D
May have been Sheila's feather earring?
Or it may have come of in a struggle from the killer? :-\ :-\ :-\ :o
-
Or it may have come of in a struggle from the killer? :-\ :-\ :-\ :o
I think the pathologist's report states that SC had stud earrings in?
It shld be poss to get the photo blown up to see exactly what it is.
As Lookout said hopefully not a calling card :o :o :o
-
I think the pathologist's report states that SC had stud earrings in?
It shld be poss to get the photo blown up to see exactly what it is.
As Lookout said hopefully not a calling card :o :o :o
It was probably one of the childrens....that they had picked up during the day. It is a feather I can assure you...I thought it was odd that's all seeing it there and when you mentioned a man with the feather...it struck me that there was one on the table.... :) :) :) :)
-
This is a better photo.
-
Interesting that you all attempt to deflect the main points being made by focussing on the differences as you see it (presumably based on your own experiences because you know little of mine) between a relationship between sisters and wider family. So for anyone still in any doubt as to what I think:
I find the notion that you can assess a person's true personality and motives, and the complexities of their familial relationships, via witness statements taken by police for a murder trial incredibly misguided especially in light of the fact that you have never met the person.
I find it surprising that apparently intelligent people think it acceptable to publish their ill-conceived and ill-informed opinions on a public website where the subject of their vilification is likely to at least become aware of them if they don't see them themselves.
I'm sorry if that seems blunt but I feel quite strongly about it.
That said, I completely agree with the excellent post that Vic made on another thread in which he pointed out the fact that whilst all this is good forum fodder it will never make it past first base in a court, and so I will go back to ignoring it as I usually do.
Bridget, thank you for your comments. Despite being on opposite sides we both clearly feel very strongly. However, you have a point in your favour that I don't. Jeremy is in prison where you feel he belongs. If I felt his sentence was just I'd be happy for him to stay there but I really do NOT believe he received a fair trial for the following reasons. Things were omitted from it that, had they been included, MAY have painted a totally different picture. Experts did get some things VERY badly wrong and there ARE discrepancies in what relatives have said, all of which MAY add up to an innocent man being in prison. I'm not certain that there is anything worse being done, by way of showing this, than was done to put him in prison in the first place, but whilst I'm taken to task for it, Steve is allowed to get away with saying THE most horrendous things about Jeremy and that seems not to matter. Could this be because he supports Jeremy's guilt.
-
Bridget, thank you for your comments. Despite being on opposite sides we both clearly feel very strongly. However, you have a point in your favour that I don't. Jeremy is in prison where you feel he belongs. If I felt his sentence was just I'd be happy for him to stay there but I really do NOT believe he received a fair trial for the following reasons. Things were omitted from it that, had they been included, MAY have painted a totally different picture. Experts did get some things VERY badly wrong and there ARE discrepancies in what relatives have said, all of which MAY add up to an innocent man being in prison. I'm not certain that there is anything worse being done, by way of showing this, than was done to put him in prison in the first place, but whilst I'm taken to task for it, Steve is allowed to get away with saying THE most horrendous things about Jeremy and that seems not to matter. Could this be because he supports Jeremy's guilt.
I agree April - it depends on which side of the fence you're looking over.
-
I wonder if the feather is connected to any witch craft? I'm thinking out loud. ???
-
I wonder if the feather is connected to any witch craft? I'm thinking out loud. ???
Hi Patti,,I've been looking at the significance of a feather,,and there are spiritual connections depending what you read. To find a white feather signifies an angel nearby,,but a feather can mean a pathway to glory.Flying away I suppose.
-
Bridget, thank you for your comments. Despite being on opposite sides we both clearly feel very strongly. However, you have a point in your favour that I don't. Jeremy is in prison where you feel he belongs. If I felt his sentence was just I'd be happy for him to stay there but I really do NOT believe he received a fair trial for the following reasons. Things were omitted from it that, had they been included, MAY have painted a totally different picture. Experts did get some things VERY badly wrong and there ARE discrepancies in what relatives have said, all of which MAY add up to an innocent man being in prison. I'm not certain that there is anything worse being done, by way of showing this, than was done to put him in prison in the first place, but whilst I'm taken to task for it, Steve is allowed to get away with saying THE most horrendous things about Jeremy and that seems not to matter. Could this be because he supports Jeremy's guilt.
I have absolutely no problem at all with discussions about discrepancies in statements, in fact I think it's only right that such things should be scrutinised. As to Steve, I agree, he's absolutely the worse one on here for ascribing thoughts and motives to Jeremy which he cannot possibly back up with anything other than his own opinion. If I ask myself why I don't challenge him as I have you I come up with several answers:
1) because of the crimes which I believe JB committed it doesn't raise my moral hackles.
2) you all jump all over him anyway so I don't have to.
3) I am too lazy to read Steve's flowery prose and as a consequence tend to miss much of what he says anyway.
4) sometimes I read his posts knowing how much he is going to irritate you all and smirk at the thought of you getting a taste of your own medicine (sorry!)
I'll leave you with a further thought...if you look at the final pages of Ann's statement you will see that the police spent over 34 hours taking this statement. How long did it take you to read it? Who is to know how many heartwarming memories of her relatives were left out of her statements for want of being relevant to the matter at hand.
-
I wonder if the feather is connected to any witch craft? I'm thinking out loud. ???
I'm just thanking my lucky stars there weren't 3 of them....;)
-
I'm just thanking my lucky stars there weren't 3 of them....;)
Bridget you've been drinking lol :P :o ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm just thanking my lucky stars there weren't 3 of them....;)
There just might have been originally,Bridget,,as it looks as though it's detached from something.
A bit motheaten too.
-
Hi Patti,,I've been looking at the significance of a feather,,and there are spiritual connections depending what you read. To find a white feather signifies an angel nearby,,but a feather can mean a pathway to glory.Flying away I suppose.
Hi Lookout, I can't believe I have been intrigued by a bleeding feather....Its a very small feather and there is something attached to it...it looks like a plastic cup of some sort...like of a dream catcher...hat or ear lug....but then again it could be a lump of play dough....
Ha! I've just found a witchcraft shop online that sells feathers.... :-\
I think April might be right, one of the children may have picked it up....It sounds a bit far fetched to be witch related....or coming from someones ear....dontcha think? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Bridget you've been drinking lol :P :o ;D ;D ;D ;D
Not yet, but I will be later so you all may want to fetch your crash hats!
-
Not yet, but I will be later so you all may want to fetch your crash hats!
I don't need a drink for that to happen.
-
Hi Lookout, I can't believe I have been intrigued by a bleeding feather....Its a very small feather and there is something attached to it...it looks like a plastic cup of some sort...like of a dream catcher...hat or ear lug....but then again it could be a lump of play dough....
Ha! I've just found a witchcraft shop online that sells feathers.... :-\
I think April might be right, one of the children may have picked it up....It sounds a bit far fetched to be witch related....or coming from someones ear....dontcha think? ;D ;D ;D ;D
There may have been a clump of feathers originally,Patti,,,off an old hat.
I remember an old aunt of mine who loved her hats,especially one that had a clump of waxy cherries on it,,which exploded one by one when we were out walking in the heat of the day.She swore that someone was following us when she heard the noises.I was about 8,,giggling furiously.
-
I reckon it's a pheasant feather stuck through a marshmallow.
-
Hi Lookout, I can't believe I have been intrigued by a bleeding feather....Its a very small feather and there is something attached to it...it looks like a plastic cup of some sort...like of a dream catcher...hat or ear lug....but then again it could be a lump of play dough....
Ha! I've just found a witchcraft shop online that sells feathers.... :-\
I think April might be right, one of the children may have picked it up....It sounds a bit far fetched to be witch related....or coming from someones ear....dontcha think? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Patti, would imagine it's typical of boys the twins age to pick up feathers etc that they no doubt would find lying around the farm.
-
There may have been a clump of feathers originally,Patti,,,off an old hat.
I remember an old aunt of mine who loved her hats,especially one that had a clump of waxy cherries on it,,which exploded one by one when we were out walking in the heat of the day.She swore that someone was following us when she heard the noises.I was about 8,,giggling furiously.
Lol...................That has made me laugh Lookout. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have absolutely no problem at all with discussions about discrepancies in statements, in fact I think it's only right that such things should be scrutinised. As to Steve, I agree, he's absolutely the worse one on here for ascribing thoughts and motives to Jeremy which he cannot possibly back up with anything other than his own opinion. If I ask myself why I don't challenge him as I have you I come up with several answers:
1) because of the crimes which I believe JB committed it doesn't raise my moral hackles.
2) you all jump all over him anyway so I don't have to.
3) I am too lazy to read Steve's flowery prose and as a consequence tend to miss much of what he says anyway.
4) sometimes I read his posts knowing how much he is going to irritate you all and smirk at the thought of you getting a taste of your own medicine (sorry!)
I'll leave you with a further thought...if you look at the final pages of Ann's statement you will see that the police spent over 34 hours taking this statement. How long did it take you to read it? Who is to know how many heartwarming memories of her relatives were left out of her statements for want of being relevant to the matter at hand.
Well, perhaps, but that is just speculation and we can't have an opinion on what 'might' have been said (although I admit, some often do).
-
Hi Lookout, I can't believe I have been intrigued by a bleeding feather....Its a very small feather and there is something attached to it...it looks like a plastic cup of some sort...like of a dream catcher...hat or ear lug....but then again it could be a lump of play dough....
Ha! I've just found a witchcraft shop online that sells feathers.... :-\
I think April might be right, one of the children may have picked it up....It sounds a bit far fetched to be witch related....or coming from someones ear....dontcha think? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps we're all wrong and there was indeed a third party - Big Bird!! Or maybe if it wasn't a pheasant plucker, it might have been his son!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not yet, but I will be later so you all may want to fetch your crash hats!
I'll be safe under the table thank you. Might be having company round, but might be on later using the slurring words; so you will be shut of me for a while...I can be a pain, but hey ho! I like to hang onto things till its done to smithers... ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I reckon it's a pheasant feather stuck through a marshmallow.
Arrh, Is there not a bag of marshmallows on the side????????????
-
Perhaps we're all wrong and there was indeed a third party - Big Bird!! Or maybe if it wasn't a pheasant plucker, it might have been his son!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Lol................... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Patti, would imagine it's typical of boys the twins age to pick up feathers etc that they no doubt would find lying around the farm.
maggie I think you are right. Sometime my imagination runs wild.....I think April was right! Bottoms up! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, perhaps, but that is just speculation and we can't have an opinion on what 'might' have been said (although I admit, some often do).
Of course, and the opposite is also true. You can't (well you shouldn't) base an opinion on what you think hasn't been said just because you haven't read it in a statement.
Anyway...feathers and big birds..
-
Of course, and the opposite is also true. You can't (well you shouldn't) base an opinion on what you think hasn't been said just because you haven't read it in a statement.
Anyway...feathers and big birds..
Or a robin. ::)
-
Or a robin. ::)
Ha, ha!! ;)
-
Or a robin. ::)
That came later ;D
-
That came later ;D
Schhhhhhhh! There is a Batman around....hahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Schhhhhhhh! There is a Batman around....hahahahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
DUCK
-
Ha, ha!! ;)
How about PC Bird ?? ;D
-
DUCK
WHERE
-
I dare Maggie to say cuckoo..
-
WHERE
Under your table???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hiya,feather was discussed a long long time ago on the forum,and I believe it turned out to be the remainder of what was once a brooch.
-
Under your table???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's where Lookout is....She's always under there...god knows what she does...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hiya,feather was discussed a long long time ago on the forum,and I believe it turned out to be the remainder of what was once a brooch.
I think that was just one of many theories.
-
Hiya,feather was discussed a long long time ago on the forum,and I believe it turned out to be the remainder of what was once a brooch.
Oh Tyler! Don't tell me that...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
WHERE
There!!
-
There!!
Thats a Canada Goose...lol I know me birds...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
--------------------anyone got a tissue.?-------------roight in me oy. Thank God cows don't fly.
-
I dare Maggie to say cuckoo..
I shall stick with PC Bird, Bridget ;D ;D ;D
-
--------------------anyone got a tissue.?-------------roight in me oy. Thank God cows don't fly.
Caroline Lookout wants a flying cow.....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I shall stick with PC Bird, Bridget ;D ;D ;D
Awww just me in trouble again then ;)
-
Awww just me in trouble again then ;)
Sorree Bridget ;D ;D
-
Caroline Lookout wants a flying cow.....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just for you Lookout!! ;D X
-
Just for you Lookout!! ;D X
Ooooooooh,,jet-propelled too. Pull the udder one. ;D
-
Ooooooooh,,jet-propelled too. Pull the udder one. ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D!!
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D!!
So glad there's life out there still ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi April
The thing I find most interesting about the forum is that most posters seem intelligent and decent and as far as I'm aware all have access to the same info and yet the guilty and innocent posters interpret info in completely different ways which obviously leads to a different conclusion :)
The pros are more intelligent than the nons, no doubt, but the fence sitters are WAYYYY more intelligent than all the rest! ;) ;) ;) :P
Just kidding, but it felt good to say that! ;D
-
Just for you Lookout!! ;D X
Amazing! xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
Hi Lookout, I can't believe I have been intrigued by a bleeding feather....Its a very small feather and there is something attached to it...it looks like a plastic cup of some sort...like of a dream catcher...hat or ear lug....but then again it could be a lump of play dough....
Ha! I've just found a witchcraft shop online that sells feathers.... :-\
I think April might be right, one of the children may have picked it up....It sounds a bit far fetched to be witch related....or coming from someones ear....dontcha think? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti as I said feather earrings were a big fashion accessory in the 80's for men and women. I personally hated the damn things.
http://www.featherearrings.com/Feather-Earrings-for-Men-_b_9.html
I'm not sure it explains the feather on the table but it may well explain what RB was referring to.
Do posters not remember 80's fashion/New Romantics or are you all too young? ;)
-
The pros are more intelligent than the nons, no doubt, but the fence sitters are WAYYYY more intelligent than all the rest! ;) ;) ;) :P
Just kidding, but it felt good to say that! ;D
Oh yeah I forgot about the fence sitters Alias. Well spotted. Perhaps they're not really fence sitters they just don't like conflict or rather see it as pointless on a forum like this :) Who out of the regular posters are fence sitters anyway: You, Petey, Buddy?
-
Patti as I said feather earrings were a big fashion accessory in the 80's for men and women. I personally hated the damn things.
http://www.featherearrings.com/Feather-Earrings-for-Men-_b_9.html
I'm not sure it explains the feather on the table but it may well explain what RB was referring to.
Do posters not remember 80's fashion/New Romantics or are you all too young? ;)
NaNu, I seem to recall mourning the passing of flowing skirts and soft sensuous fabrics when they were replaced by business suits with peplums and big shoulders. I think that Sheila, like myself, would have favoured the former.
-
Awww just me in trouble again then ;)
Miss Bridget
Are you ever going to stop crowing over this?
As far as I'm personally concerned it's water off a ducks back.
Talking of birds...are you aware that many are now too fat to fly?
I don't like reference to cuckoos in connection with the case at all due to the fact that SC and JB suffered terrible fates by being adopted as new born babies into an unsuitable adoptive family. You're fond of saying to posters "Dont forget..." but perhaps you should remember Roch asked for any ref to cuckoo to be dropped. Yet despite all the female mods being on the forum when you attempted to draw Maggie into the above to goad it was ignored.
You get all schoolmarmish over me referring to certain posters as old/ancient and then see fit to crow about cuckoos done imo deliberately to goad. Plse spare me a lecture on context.
Many like to 'court' you, perhaps they feel intimidated by your style of posting but I'm not and personally I'm getting a little tired of what I see as your condescending manner.
-
Go on laugh...you know you want to..
-
Miss Bridget
Are you ever going to stop crowing over this?
As far as I'm personally concerned it's water off a ducks back.
Talking of birds...are you aware that many are now too fat to fly?
I don't like reference to cuckoos in connection with the case at all due to the fact that SC and JB suffered terrible fates by being adopted as new born babies into an unsuitable adoptive family. You're fond of saying to posters "Dont forget..." but perhaps you should remember Roch asked for any ref to cuckoo to be dropped. Yet despite all the female mods being on the forum when you attempted to draw Maggie into the above to goad it was ignored.
You get all schoolmarmish over me referring to certain posters as old/ancient and then see fit to crow about cuckoos done imo deliberately to goad. Plse spare me a lecture on context.
Many like to 'court' you, perhaps they feel intimidated by your style of posting but I'm not and personally I'm getting a little tired of what I see as your condescending manner.
NaNu, whilst I'm certain Bridget can speak in her own defence, may I just say a word in my own, as a mod. I did see Bridget's post, I saw it as no more than tease, was about to post to her the words "Naughty, naughty" and then thought that "least said, soonest mended". I wasn't entirely certain that anything had been broken.
-
Hi maggie :)
I think your opinion is quite right and that is what a jury of today would probably think too. ;) :D :D :D
If you look at it...we have a timeline of those that believe Jeremy guilty:
3:00 Jeremy rang Julie from Goldhanger
3:15 Jeremy phones calls Goldhanger from WHF
3:26 Jeremy phones the police.
3:35 CA5 is called out
Impossible Maggie!
What I believe:
3:15 Jeremy receives a call from his father.
3:16 Jeremy tries to ring his father back
3:17 Jeremy tries again to ring his father, but gets the engaged tone.
3:20 Jeremy phones Witham police, gets no answer
3:24 Jeremy calls Julie
3:26 Jeremy then calls Maldon
3:35 CA5 is called out
3:48 Police arrived at scene
3:50 Jeremy arrives at the scene.
They were all dead by the time of Jeremy's second telephone call to Julie. The timing of that telephone call is irrelevant unless he was stupid enough to telephone Julie at Goldhanger before he purportedly knew that there was "something wrong at the Farm". All Jeremy needed to do was to make a telephone call from the kitchen at the Farm to his answerphone at Goldhanger,cycle back(which took DI Wilkinson 6 minutes) and replace the tape with a new one.
This has been discussed so many times..
-
NaNu, whilst I'm certain Bridget can speak in her own defence, may I just say a word in my own, as a mod. I did see Bridget's post, I saw it as no more than tease, was about to post to her the words "Naughty, naughty" and then thought that "least said, soonest mended". I wasn't entirely certain that anything had been broken.
Yes but that's it isn't it if I 'tease' I'm accused of bullying, attacking, goading and the like. I've made considerable efforts over the last couple of weeks to refrain from 'teasing' but now I'm thinking why should I bother? What's good for the goose is good for the gander :)
-
Patti as I said feather earrings were a big fashion accessory in the 80's for men and women. I personally hated the damn things.
http://www.featherearrings.com/Feather-Earrings-for-Men-_b_9.html
I'm not sure it explains the feather on the table but it may well explain what RB was referring to.
Do posters not remember 80's fashion/New Romantics or are you all too young? ;)
I'm not entirely convinced that the feather belonged to one of the children and I'm not convinced that June would put such a thing on the kitchen table. Until I find out what is on the end of that feather I will keep an open mind about it. I thought Bridget might be right about the feather being stuck through a marshmallow , because I thought there was a bag of marshmallows on the kitchen side. Anyway, it turns out to be chopped nuts.
If its a feather from a piece of jewelry then I would be interested to find out who it belonged. At the end of the day, its pictured in a crime scene and, RB made reference to Jeremy being seen with a man who had got a feather behind his ear...this could of course could mean that the feather was in fact an earring and it was not behind his ear at all and that who had seen this had misunderstood that it could have been a earring.....
Of course the police never questioned the feather, maybe they thought it irrelevant and maybe it is.....but, on the other hand it might be very significant in the fact that it could have come from an earring that someone was wearing and could have easily come off during murders inside the kitchen. The feather has various possibilities, but we will never know the true significance will we.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I'm not entirely convinced that the feather belonged to one of the children and I'm not convinced that June would put such a thing on the kitchen table. Until I find out what is on the end of that feather I will keep an open mind about it. I thought Bridget might be right about the feather being stuck through a marshmallow , because I thought there was a bag of marshmallows on the kitchen side. Anyway, it turns out to be chopped nuts.
If its a feather from a piece of jewelry then I would be interested to find out who it belonged. At the end of the day, its pictured in a crime scene and, RB made reference to Jeremy being seen with a man who had got a feather behind his ear...this could of course could mean that the feather was in fact an earring and it was not behind his ear at all and that who had seen this had misunderstood that it could have been a earring.....
Of course the police never questioned the feather, maybe they thought it irrelevant and maybe it is.....but, on the other hand it might be very significant in the fact that it could have come from an earring that someone was wearing and could have easily come off during murders inside the kitchen. The feather has various possibilities, but we will never know the true significance will we.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Perhaps it took the 5th? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
They were all dead by the time of Jeremy's second telephone call to Julie. The timing of that telephone call is irrelevant unless he was stupid enough to telephone Julie at Goldhanger before he purportedly knew that there was "something wrong at the Farm". All Jeremy needed to do was to make a telephone call from the kitchen at the Farm to his answerphone at Goldhanger,cycle back(which took DI Wilkinson 6 minutes) and replace the tape with a new one.
This has been discussed so many times..
Hi Steve :)
It wasn't irrelevant in 1986 the calls were a bone of contention projected by Stan the man.....to the point that he went over to Julies flat on several occasions to look at one of her friends clocks and came up with the fact that one of them was 10 minutes fast and then only 7 minutes fast the 2nd time....One had never considered that twice before the clocks had been put back in the winter of 1985 and then forward in the spring of 1986. This evidence was very relevant in court, to the point it established that Jeremy had lied....But, no one disputed the fact that the clock had already been tampered with. :) :) :) :)
-
They were all dead by the time of Jeremy's second telephone call to Julie. The timing of that telephone call is irrelevant unless he was stupid enough to telephone Julie at Goldhanger before he purportedly knew that there was "something wrong at the Farm". All Jeremy needed to do was to make a telephone call from the kitchen at the Farm to his answerphone at Goldhanger,cycle back(which took DI Wilkinson 6 minutes) and replace the tape with a new one.
This has been discussed so many times..
Mr Arlidge,QC,,invented the bicycle theory,,like he must have invented a few things in his personal life too.! That bit of made-up fantasy was fed to the court/jury who then all went on to believe every other word that was said in that courtroom by him,,,and unfortunately not challenged,except by two of the jury,don't forget,,so Jeremy only " lost out " by a whisker.
-
Hi Steve :)
It wasn't irrelevant in 1986 the calls were a bone of contention projected by Stan the man.....to the point that he went over to Julies flat on several occasions to look at one of her friends clocks and came up with the fact that one of them was 10 minutes fast and then only 7 minutes fast the 2nd time....One had never considered that twice before the clocks had been put back in the winter of 1985 and then forward in the spring of 1986. This evidence was very relevant in court, to the point it established that Jeremy had lied....But, no one disputed the fact that the clock had already been tampered with. :) :) :) :)
On what date did Stan check the clock?
-
On what date did Stan check the clock?
Not sure, but I know I have read on here somewhere.....might have been 1986 me thinks. :) :) :) :)
-
Not sure, but I know I have read on here somewhere.....might have been 1986 me thinks. :) :) :) :)
25th of November 1985, so you're right, that was after the clocks had changed once. And since it was reading the correct hour (but not minutes) we can assume she had changed it. He checked again in September 1986 by which time it had been changed twice.
-
25th of November 1985, so you're right, that was after the clocks had changed once. And since it was reading the correct hour (but not minutes) we can assume she had changed it. He checked again in September 1986 by which time it had been changed twice.
Thank you for that Bridget, your head must be feeling a bit better than mine today. ;)
Any idea what type of clock it was? Nonetheless, this evidence was collected to long after the date of crime and in my opinion might not be correct. :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Steve :)
It wasn't irrelevant in 1986 the calls were a bone of contention projected by Stan the man.....to the point that he went over to Julies flat on several occasions to look at one of her friends clocks and came up with the fact that one of them was 10 minutes fast and then only 7 minutes fast the 2nd time....One had never considered that twice before the clocks had been put back in the winter of 1985 and then forward in the spring of 1986. This evidence was very relevant in court, to the point it established that Jeremy had lied....But, no one disputed the fact that the clock had already been tampered with. :) :) :) :)
The timing of the second telephone call to Julie was irrelevant insofar as one would expect even Jeremy to make sure he did not drop a clue that his family were dead before he himself knew through the purported call from his father that "there's something wrong at the Farm". As it was Julie went back to bed knowing full well for those few ghastly intervening hours that all occupants of the Farm were dead,though she was not at this stage cognizant of whether Jeremy himself or a proxy was the culprit. One of the questions Jeremy lamely answered during interrogation was why did he telephone Julie at all in the middle of the night,when he seldom took Julie's advice on any other matter. The only explanation I can see which fits is that he wanted to tie Julie in as an accessory,along with the excuse for having the ladies' bicycle at Goldhanger which no lady had used covering herself in mud,and of course the sleeping pills which he had taken from Julie to attempt to drug his parents on a previous occasion.
Of course when Julie went to the Police Jeremy had only two courses of action open to him:either admit the murders and rope Julie in on the scheme or to bluff his way out of everything and claim innocence. One post I read today was that Jeremy's Defence team made mistakes. Of course the did:they were all public school types with their noses in the air most of the time thinking they could bluster their way out of everything. Unfortunately they were up against another public school type in Mr. Justice Drake who being himself an ex RAF Officer must have felt an affinity with Nevill Bamber and did his utmost to secure a conviction.
-
Thank you for that Bridget, your head must be feeling a bit better than mine today. ;)
Any idea what type of clock it was? Nonetheless, this evidence was collected to long after the date of crime and in my opinion might not be correct. :) :) :) :)
It was a white Philips digital clock radio alarm. I agree, it was a pretty naff way to check the truthfulness of Susan Battersby's evidence, but I suppose if she was going to lie about it she could have altered the clock at any time, even before she made her statement. I'm a little surprised that Rivlin didn't make more of the naffness.
-
It was a white Philips digital clock radio alarm. I agree, it was a pretty naff way to check the truthfulness of Susan Battersby's evidence, but I suppose if she was going to lie about it she could have altered the clock at any time, even before she made her statement. I'm a little surprised that Rivlin didn't make more of the naffness.
More like to have been assisted by the one and only......SJ :-\ :D :D :D :D
-
The timing of the second telephone call to Julie was irrelevant insofar as one would expect even Jeremy to make sure he did not drop a clue that his family were dead before he himself knew through the purported call from his father that "there's something wrong at the Farm". As it was Julie went back to bed knowing full well for those few ghastly intervening hours that all occupants of the Farm were dead,though she was not at this stage cognizant of whether Jeremy himself or a proxy was the culprit. One of the questions Jeremy lamely answered during interrogation was why did he telephone Julie at all in the middle of the night,when he seldom took Julie's advice on any other matter. The only explanation I can see which fits is that he wanted to tie Julie in as an accessory,along with the excuse for having the ladies' bicycle at Goldhanger which no lady had used covering herself in mud,and of course the sleeping pills which he had taken from Julie to attempt to drug his parents on a previous occasion.
Of course when Julie went to the Police Jeremy had only two courses of action open to him:either admit the murders and rope Julie in on the scheme or to bluff his way out of everything and claim innocence. One post I read today was that Jeremy's Defence team made mistakes. Of course the did:they were all public school types with their noses in the air most of the time thinking they could bluster their way out of everything. Unfortunately they were up against another public school type in Mr. Justice Drake who being himself an ex RAF Officer must have felt an affinity with Nevill Bamber and did his utmost to secure a conviction.
Julie got the pills from her doctor herself and brought them to Jeremy's cottage! She has never said that he asked her to get the pills. But it does beggar the question - if Jeremy had told her of plans to drug and kill his family, why she would be dumb enough to make him aware that she had them??
-
More like to have been assisted by the one and only......SJ :-\ :D :D :D :D
In your opinion lol.
I think the extract from the CoA decision is a little misleading on this aspect in that it seems to infer that police checked whether or not the the clock was in fact 10 minutes fast at the time of the murders, however from the line of questioning at trial it seems that they were actually only checking whether or not it was her habit to set the clock 10 minutes fast by spot checking it unannounced on the two dates given.
-
Julie got the pills from her doctor herself and brought them to Jeremy's cottage! She has never said that he asked her to get the pills. But it does beggar the question - if Jeremy had told her of plans to drug and kill his family, why she would be dumb enough to make him aware that she had them??
Interesting point, Caroline. If you told me you would stab someone if you had a knife and I gave you a knife, surely I would be colluding with you which would make me almost as culpable.
-
The pills plan had passed off without incident and Julie must have been praying that the "now or never" remark in the first telephone call would also prove to be a false alarm. But she knew on the occasion of the second telephone call that Jeremy had been deadly serious,and the charade which followed in the next few hours only Julie and Jeremy knew. Of course to bring this back to the subject of this thread the relatives had their suspicions and let's face it,it didn't take a genius to work out Macavity had been and gone.
-
In your opinion lol.
I think the extract from the CoA decision is a little misleading on this aspect in that it seems to infer that police checked whether or not the the clock was in fact 10 minutes fast at the time of the murders, however from the line of questioning at trial it seems that they were actually only checking whether or not it was her habit to set the clock 10 minutes fast by spot checking it unannounced on the two dates given.
In all fairness though the clock had been put back an hour upon S. Jones checking the clock at the flat of SB's
Plus when Julie gave her first statement regarding the time, she told police it was 3:30 but then had it verified by Sue B it was 3:15. Then come November after Jones made his visit it became 3:00
If SB stated the time was 3:15 why did Stan J. go to the flat to prove her wrong? What was his purpose of that? Was he persuasive to a point where she suddenly recalled that she set her clock 10 minutes fast.....The truth of the matter is, is that she said it was 3:15 at the onset....now did she remove 10 minutes from that time already which means that the call was 3:25 lolol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In all fairness though the clock had been put back an hour upon S. Jones checking the clock at the flat of SB's
Plus when Julie gave her first statement regarding the time, she told police it was 3:30 but then had it verified by Sue B it was 3:15. Then come November after Jones made his visit it became 3:00
If SB stated the time was 3:15 why did Stan J. go to the flat to prove her wrong? What was his purpose of that? Was he persuasive to a point where she suddenly recalled that she set her clock 10 minutes fast.....The truth of the matter is, is that she said it was 3:15 at the onset....now did she remove 10 minutes from that time already which means that the call was 3:20 lolol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Good question!
I do think that if the purpose of the police checks was to establish whether or not SB was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast (as opposed to establishing the fact that she had actually done so) then it doesn't matter that the clocks had been changed twice in the interim period. In fact it strengthens their case in that she had set it fast a further two times, just as she said she was in the habit of doing. But then she would, wouldn't she.
-
Good question!
I do think that if the purpose of the police checks was to establish whether or not SB was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast (as opposed to establishing the fact that she had actually done so) then it doesn't matter that the clocks had been changed twice in the interim period. In fact it strengthens their case in that she had set it fast a further two times, just as she said she was in the habit of doing. But then she would, wouldn't she.
So what have we got, re timings if calls? Jeremy, EPHQ, Julie, SB, and Stanly. I would be HIGHLY surprised if Jeremy got the timing accurate. Having been in a similar situation, I know I didn't. The same could be said for Julie & co, woken from drug hazed sleep. Which leaves us with EP suggesting/encouraging/tweaking/coercing. Is it any wonder that we cannot agree on timings?
-
Good question!
I do think that if the purpose of the police checks was to establish whether or not SB was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast (as opposed to establishing the fact that she had actually done so) then it doesn't matter that the clocks had been changed twice in the interim period. In fact it strengthens their case in that she had set it fast a further two times, just as she said she was in the habit of doing. But then she would, wouldn't she.
You mean they suddenly thought...she would set her clock 10 minutes fast after 4 months? I don't think SB could remember anything much. She could not even remember if she informed her bank about the cheque book and card. She could not remember if Julie had gone to the police or not after she gave her initial statement....yet she remembers the time of Jeremy's call....4 months later.... Maybe she forgot to say that when she gave the time of 3:15 she had already deducted 10 minutes from the call then deducted a further 10 minutes giving the time of 3:05.... :D :D :D :D :D
For if she had a habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast, then surely she would have the habit of deducting 10 minutes when she noted the time.... :-\ :-\ :-\
-
You mean they suddenly thought...she would set her clock 10 minutes fast after 4 months? I don't think SB could remember anything much. She could not even remember if she informed her bank about the cheque book and card. She could not remember if Julie had gone to the police or not after she gave her initial statement....yet she remembers the time of Jeremy's call....4 months later.... Maybe she forgot to say that when she gave the time of 3:15 she had already deducted 10 minutes from the call then deducted a further 10 minutes giving the time of 3:05.... :D :D :D :D :D
For if she had a habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast, then surely she would have the habit of deducting 10 minutes when she noted the time.... :-\ :-\ :-\
Well if her memory is that terrible it supports the assertion that she was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast, as opposed to remembering that she had said that in her statement and continuing to do it for that reason. Maybe she forgot she was in the habit of doing it ;)
Where does the 4 months bit come in, when did she give her statement re the time of the call?
-
Well if her memory is that terrible it supports the assertion that she was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast, as opposed to remembering that she had said that in her statement and continuing to do it for that reason. Maybe she forgot she was in the habit of doing it ;)
Where does the 4 months bit come in, when did she give her statement re the time of the call?
I REST MY CASE!!!!!
-
I REST MY CASE!!!!!
Ahem....what was your case again?
-
My case isn't resting - I'm confused! ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
My case isn't resting - I'm confused! ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
By the sounds of it Caroline, so were they :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
By the sounds of it Caroline, so were they :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Except that we're not in court having to fathom out the confusion surrounding certain " evidence ".
How can anyone work round that and come up with a fair verdict.?
-
The pills plan had passed off without incident and Julie must have been praying that the "now or never" remark in the first telephone call would also prove to be a false alarm. But she knew on the occasion of the second telephone call that Jeremy had been deadly serious,and the charade which followed in the next few hours only Julie and Jeremy knew. Of course to bring this back to the subject of this thread the relatives had their suspicions and let's face it,it didn't take a genius to work out Macavity had been and gone.
Was he ever interviewed? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Except that we're not in court having to fathom out the confusion surrounding certain " evidence ".
How can anyone work round that and come up with a fair verdict.?
Well, by the sounds of it, we're certainly doing a job AS intelligent, if not more so, than was done at the time.
-
Well if her memory is that terrible it supports the assertion that she was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast, as opposed to remembering that she had said that in her statement and continuing to do it for that reason. Maybe she forgot she was in the habit of doing it ;)
Where does the 4 months bit come in, when did she give her statement re the time of the call?
Or maybe she forgot that she had already deducted 10 minutes from the time when Julie asked her to confirm the time she received the call from Jeremy which could have been 3:25 thus causing her to say 3:15....it is possible that she could have consciously done this if she is in the habit of putting her clock 10 minutes fast....
But, when re-questioned about this time, she tells the police she was in the habit of putting her clock 10 minutes forward so therefore it now becomes 3:05.....but in fact she has deducted a further 5 minutes because in court it suddenly became 3:00.... ;) :) :) :) :)
-
Or maybe she forgot that she had already deducted 10 minutes from the time when Julie asked her to confirm the time she received the call from Jeremy which could have been 3:25 thus causing her to say 3:15....it is possible that she could have consciously done this if she is in the habit of putting her clock 10 minutes fast....
But, when re-questioned about this time, she tells the police she was in the habit of putting her clock 10 minutes forward so therefore it now becomes 3:05.....but in fact she has deducted a further 5 minutes because in court it suddenly became 3:00.... ;) :) :) :) :)
And maybe the reason she didn't know for certain in the first place was because her brain was fugged up with marijuana.
-
I haven't learned very much so far this afternoon except that there was a feather at White House Farm,somebody set their clock ten minutes fast and lookout is a half-caste..
-
And maybe the reason she didn't know for certain in the first place was because her brain was fugged up with marijuana.
She couldn't remember if she informed her bank about the cheque book and card, she could not remember if Julie had been to the police about Jeremy. Yet, we are expected to believe she could remember the exact time Jeremy had called Julie...when she was half asleep. She had already confirmed the time at being 3:15 yet waits till being re-questioned by the police weeks later and tells them she puts her clock amazingly 10 minutes fast...Bu joves I bet Jones was jumping for joy......but, what they did not realise is that the time was indeed incorrect and no matter how you look at it, the time had to fit in at 3:00.....and it clearly does not....plus the clock itself had been put back an hour in October 85 then put forward again in spring 86... To say that you only change the hours is ludicrous because the 2nd time Jones makes his visite the clock was only some 7 minutes fast and not 10......
April....does taking that stuff distort the mind? :) :) :) :) :)
-
I haven't learned very much so far this afternoon except that there was a feather at White House Farm,somebody set their clock ten minutes fast and lookout is a half-caste..
Lol...You have to know about the evidence in order to understand, I guess.... ;) :D :D :D :D
-
She couldn't remember if she informed her bank about the cheque book and card, she could not remember if Julie had been to the police about Jeremy. Yet, we are expected to believe she could remember the exact time Jeremy had called Julie...when she was half asleep. She had already confirmed the time at being 3:15 yet waits till being re-questioned by the police weeks later and tells them she puts her clock amazingly 10 minutes fast...Bu joves I bet Jones was jumping for joy......but, what they did not realise is that the time was indeed incorrect and no matter how you look at it, the time had to fit in at 3:00.....and it clearly does not....plus the clock itself had been put back an hour in October 85 then put forward again in spring 86... To say that you only change the hours is ludicrous because the 2nd time Jones makes his visite the clock was only some 7 minutes fast and not 10......
April....does taking that stuff distort the mind? :) :) :) :) :)
Actually on the second visit it was 12 minutes fast.
-
Actually on the second visit it was 12 minutes fast.
Thank you Bridget......I knew this is what you would say and this is exactly what I was getting at...see how the time 3:00 now conveniently slots into place. Having now changed her statement further by saying it was 3:12....in order to make the call look like it was 3:00. I rest my case! :) :) :) :) :)
-
I haven't learned very much so far this afternoon except that there was a feather at White House Farm,somebody set their clock ten minutes fast and lookout is a half-caste..
Steve,,,what makes you say that I'm a half caste.?
-
Thank you Bridget......I knew this is what you would say and this is exactly what I was getting at...see how the time 3:00 now conveniently slots into place. Having now changed her statement further by saying it was 3:12....in order to make the call look like it was 3:00. I rest my case! :) :) :) :) :)
No lol, it was 12 minutes fast in September 1986, it was 9.5 minutes fast in November 1985, her evidence in court was that the clock said 3.12, making it 3.02.
-
She couldn't remember if she informed her bank about the cheque book and card, she could not remember if Julie had been to the police about Jeremy. Yet, we are expected to believe she could remember the exact time Jeremy had called Julie...when she was half asleep. She had already confirmed the time at being 3:15 yet waits till being re-questioned by the police weeks later and tells them she puts her clock amazingly 10 minutes fast...Bu joves I bet Jones was jumping for joy......but, what they did not realise is that the time was indeed incorrect and no matter how you look at it, the time had to fit in at 3:00.....and it clearly does not....plus the clock itself had been put back an hour in October 85 then put forward again in spring 86... To say that you only change the hours is ludicrous because the 2nd time Jones makes his visite the clock was only some 7 minutes fast and not 10......
April....does taking that stuff distort the mind? :) :) :) :) :)
I believe Steve thinks that may be the case, Patti.
-
No lol, it was 12 minutes fast in September 1986, it was 9.5 minutes fast in November 1985, her evidence in court was that the clock said 3.12, making it 3.02.
So the minutes of that clock had been changed on two separate occasions as documented. Once 4 months after the murders took place and the other 13 months later. Not on any of those occasions was it fast by 10 minutes was it? :-\ :) :) :) :)
-
Steve,,,what makes you say that I'm a half caste.?
One of your threads in which you described yourself as a black and white person-just a joke..has it been removed? How terribly poignant that the twins brought in a feather for Grandma and Grandad. The clock times are irrelevant as the fact that Jeremy made a call at all is the most telling point.
-
So the minutes of that clock had been changed on two separate occasions as documented. Once 4 months after the murders took place and the other 13 months later. Not on any of those occasions was it fast by 10 minutes was it? :-\ :) :) :) :)
I think 9 1/2 minutes is probably close enough to 10 given that those clocks don't display seconds. The clock could have been reset twice or 100 times, what difference does it make?
-
One of your threads in which you described yourself as a black and white person-just a joke..has it been removed? How terribly poignant that the twins brought in a feather for Grandma and Grandad. The clock times are irrelevant as the fact that Jeremy made a call at all is the most telling point.
;D ;D ;D Oh,,I see Steve. I wasn't very quick on the uptake there,was I.?
Of course Jeremy made a call. After his fathers' was logged.
-
LOL...
So not only did she say that she sets her clock 10 minutes fast, but after checks done by police this practise was incorrect for neither at any stage was it confirmed that the clock was set 10 minutes fast. In fact on one occasion it was set below 10 minutes lol
Then she gives two false times to the police, well 3 in fact. She confirms to Julie at the onset via telephone that it was 3:15. She tells police it was 3:20 then remarkably changes that to 3:12.
Her room mate Woad says she remembers the clock being 2 something, it appears her clock must have been set rather slow....
Helen E....states she thought the call was about 3:30....the same time Julie had stated until that was changed to 3:15 after SB confirmed this too her.....
The only outcome of all of this is that no bugger can tell the time....if there was an overall consistency with the time the call was made then I would be happy to believe the call was made closer to 3am rather than later....but because this time can't be fully proved in its entirety, then I am inclined to believe that it does not give credence. Shall I shut up now? lol :) :) :) :)
-
Hello lookout steve was having a joke with you as he often does. I knew what he meant ;D ;D ;D Keep up girl ;D refuse to comment on the feather or the time. ;D
-
Hello lookout steve was having a joke with you as he often does. I knew what he meant ;D ;D ;D Keep up girl ;D refuse to comment on the feather or the time. ;D
Yes,Susan,,he's got a brilliant,though dry,sense of humour. I like that in a man.( now he'll run for the trees ) Forty fasand feavers on a frushes froat. ( my take on cockney lingo )
-
I think 9 1/2 minutes is probably close enough to 10 given that those clocks don't display seconds. The clock could have been reset twice or 100 times, what difference does it make?
It makes a massive difference, because the prosecution tried to make out that Jeremy called Julie prior to having received a telephone call from his father and also calling her prior to calling the police....Whether the clock was fast or not it cannot be confirmed to how fast it was just after the murders, because as we know the clock was fast by 9 minutes on one occasion and 12 on another...so who is to say how fast it was just after the murders and prior to moving the clock back an hour in October...the only seconds that come into this is given by Jones.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
LOL...
So not only did she say that she sets her clock 10 minutes fast, but after checks done by police this practise was incorrect for neither at any stage was it confirmed that the clock was set 10 minutes fast. In fact on one occasion it was set below 10 minutes lol
Tell me, on a clock that only displays hours and minutes, how do you tell the difference between 10 minutes and 9 1/2 minutes?
Then she gives two false times to the police, well 3 in fact. She confirms to Julie at the onset via telephone that it was 3:15. She tells police it was 3:20 then remarkably changes that to 3:12.
No, she said 3.15 in one statement and 3.12 in another. I don't think she ever said 3.20.
Her room mate Woad says she remembers the clock being 2 something, it appears her clock must have been set rather slow....
2.59 is 2 something.
Helen E....states she thought the call was about 3:30....the same time Julie had stated until that was changed to 3:15 after SB confirmed this too her.....
Both Helen and Julie admitted that they hadn't looked at clocks.
The only outcome of all of this is that no bugger can tell the time....if there was an overall consistency with the time the call was made then I would be happy to believe the call was made closer to 3am rather than later....but because this time can't be fully proved in its entirety, then I am inclined to believe that it does not give credence. Shall I shut up now? lol :) :) :) :)
No, you carry on, it's helping me avoid cleaning the bathroom.
-
Hello lookout steve was having a joke with you as he often does. I knew what he meant ;D ;D ;D Keep up girl ;D refuse to comment on the feather or the time. ;D
Why? :D :D :D :D
-
It makes a massive difference, because the prosecution tried to make out that Jeremy called Julie prior to having received a telephone call from his father and also calling her prior to calling the police....Whether the clock was fast or not it cannot be confirmed to how fast it was just after the murders, because as we know the clock was fast by 9 minutes on one occasion and 12 on another...so who is to say how fast it was just after the murders and prior to moving the clock back an hour in October...the only seconds that come into this is given by Jones.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The purpose of Stan Jones checks was only to show that SB was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast, not to prove that it was 10 minutes fast at the time of the murders. The fact that it was only 9 1/2 minutes fast in November 1985 and 12 minutes fast in September 1986 hardly makes her a liar. My cooker says it's 6.42 and my microwave says its 6.45, yet my iPad reckons it's 6.44, which one of them is lying to me?
-
Patti if I comment on the feather and the time I maybe banned and we don't want that do we ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The timing of the second telephone call to Julie was irrelevant insofar as one would expect even Jeremy to make sure he did not drop a clue that his family were dead before he himself knew through the purported call from his father that "there's something wrong at the Farm". As it was Julie went back to bed knowing full well for those few ghastly intervening hours that all occupants of the Farm were dead,though she was not at this stage cognizant of whether Jeremy himself or a proxy was the culprit. One of the questions Jeremy lamely answered during interrogation was why did he telephone Julie at all in the middle of the night,when he seldom took Julie's advice on any other matter. The only explanation I can see which fits is that he wanted to tie Julie in as an accessory,along with the excuse for having the ladies' bicycle at Goldhanger which no lady had used covering herself in mud,and of course the sleeping pills which he had taken from Julie to attempt to drug his parents on a previous occasion.
Of course when Julie went to the Police Jeremy had only two courses of action open to him:either admit the murders and rope Julie in on the scheme or to bluff his way out of everything and claim innocence. One post I read today was that Jeremy's Defence team made mistakes. Of course the did:they were all public school types with their noses in the air most of the time thinking they could bluster their way out of everything. Unfortunately they were up against another public school type in Mr. Justice Drake who being himself an ex RAF Officer must have felt an affinity with Nevill Bamber and did his utmost to secure a conviction.
The late Edmund Lawson went to a comp. Perhaps if he hadn't have done he might not have got lost en route from court to the shooting range ;D ;D ;D By getting lost he missed a vital opportunity to observe jurors witnessing the event of shots being fired with and without a silencer fitted. Come to think of it couldn't it have been reenacted inside a building? Surely the army/police must possess such buildings for training? Oh I forgot wasn't that what WHF was used for?
I have no idea about Geoffrey Rivlin's schooling. I know he usually practised on the Northern circuit and normally acted as a prosecutor.
At '02 CoA it was Michael Turner's first case as a newly appointed Queen's Counsel. As we know we all have to start somewhere. But there appears to have been a real mismatch in terms of experience etc between prosecution and defence.
I might start a thread on the above to compare backgrounds, experience at time of acting for JB, notable cases etc.
-
That's where the murder weapon stuck,I believe at Fingringhoe Ranges,making it almost impossible for Sheila to have manhandled..
-
The purpose of Stan Jones checks was only to show that SB was in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast, not to prove that it was 10 minutes fast at the time of the murders. The fact that it was only 9 1/2 minutes fast in November 1985 and 12 minutes fast in September 1986 hardly makes her a liar. My cooker says it's 6.42 and my microwave says its 6.45, yet my iPad reckons it's 6.44, which one of them is lying to me?
What a load of bollocks, who are you trying to convince...
-
That's where the murder weapon stuck,I believe at Fingringhoe Ranges,making it almost impossible for Sheila to have manhandled..
You've just made that up,haven't you,Steve.? Is it a place.?
-
That's where the murder weapon stuck,I believe at Fingringhoe Ranges,making it almost impossible for Sheila to have manhandled..
I thought that was at FSS? Can you point me in the direction where the weapons expert confirms the above?
-
Hi lookout think he means Rangers Football Ground ;D ;D ;D
-
You've just made that up,haven't you,Steve.? Is it a place.?
Ha ha! Yes it is, and I think he's right. Can't locate the source of the info though, probably Wilkes book.
-
I thought that was at FSS? Can you point me in the direction where the weapons expert confirms the above?
It's in Chapter 35 of Blood Relations.
-
It's in Chapter 35 of Blood Relations.
Ok thanks. I don't have the book to hand at the mo but I'll check it out.
-
In all fairness though the clock had been put back an hour upon S. Jones checking the clock at the flat of SB's
Plus when Julie gave her first statement regarding the time, she told police it was 3:30 but then had it verified by Sue B it was 3:15. Then come November after Jones made his visit it became 3:00
If SB stated the time was 3:15 why did Stan J. go to the flat to prove her wrong? What was his purpose of that? Was he persuasive to a point where she suddenly recalled that she set her clock 10 minutes fast.....The truth of the matter is, is that she said it was 3:15 at the onset....now did she remove 10 minutes from that time already which means that the call was 3:25 lolol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Too much in this case hinges on clocks either being ten minutes fast or ten minutes slow. Seems like the times were bent and twisted to fit the case. DODGY!
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>just a minute while I peruse it.
-
So it is-----------on the Essex marshes. Here was I thinking it was Southern Spain.
-
So it is-----------on the Essex marshes. Here was I thinking it was Southern Spain.
That's Fuengirola, it's a bit like Essex if you squint.
-
That's Fuengirola, it's a bit like Essex if you squint.
I knew it sounded familiar in a strange sort of way.
-
So it is-----------on the Essex marshes. Here was I thinking it was Southern Spain.
Well, which ever country it's in, I live about 10 miles from it ;D
-
What is important to me are the words Jeremy supposedly used in that conversation, whatever time it was. "Something is wrong at the farm."
If he had killed his family, I see no logic in those words being used. If he didn´t, I do see some logic: his father had just phoned him saying "She/Sheila´s gone mad, she´s got the gun, come quickly." (not verbatim, sorry). It is a confusing message to get in the middle of the night. Jeremy must have thought: Why didn´t he call the police - or did he call the police? Does he want me to call the police - wouldn´t he have told me to call the police? I wonder if I should call the police, maybe he will get mad if I do - he told ME to come over. I am scared to go there if Sheila has gone mad with a gun. What shall I do??? I´ll call Julie, perhaps she can tell me what I should do. RINGRINGRING, Jeremy: "Something is wrong at the farm (he probably said a few more sentences, including maybe, what do you think I should do?)" Julie: "It´s probably nothing, Sheila has fits all the time, go back to bed."
Jeremy alone again, nah, I can´t just go back to bed, dad sounded very upset. I´ll call the local coppers, maybe that will upset dad less than if I call 911.
Makes sense to me.
-
What is important to me are the words Jeremy supposedly used in that conversation, whatever time it was. "Something is wrong at the farm."
If he had killed his family, I see no logic in those words being used. If he didn´t, I do see some logic: his father had just phoned him saying "She/Sheila´s gone mad, she´s got the gun, come quickly." (not verbatim, sorry). It is a confusing message to get in the middle of the night. Jeremy must have thought: Why didn´t he call the police - or did he call the police? Does he want me to call the police - wouldn´t he have told me to call the police? I wonder if I should call the police, maybe he will get mad if I do - he told ME to come over. I am scared to go there if Sheila has gone mad with a gun. What shall I do??? I´ll call Julie, perhaps she can tell me what I should do. RINGRINGRING, Jeremy: "Something is wrong at the farm (he probably said a few more sentences, including maybe, what do you think I should do?)" Julie: "It´s probably nothing, Sheila has fits all the time, go back to bed."
Jeremy alone again, nah, I can´t just go back to bed, dad sounded very upset. I´ll call the local coppers, maybe that will upset dad less than if I call 911.
Makes sense to me.
It makes perfect sense to me too Alias...I love logic! :) :) :) :)
-
What is important to me are the words Jeremy supposedly used in that conversation, whatever time it was. "Something is wrong at the farm."
If he had killed his family, I see no logic in those words being used. If he didn´t, I do see some logic: his father had just phoned him saying "She/Sheila´s gone mad, she´s got the gun, come quickly." (not verbatim, sorry). It is a confusing message to get in the middle of the night. Jeremy must have thought: Why didn´t he call the police - or did he call the police? Does he want me to call the police - wouldn´t he have told me to call the police? I wonder if I should call the police, maybe he will get mad if I do - he told ME to come over. I am scared to go there if Sheila has gone mad with a gun. What shall I do??? I´ll call Julie, perhaps she can tell me what I should do. RINGRINGRING, Jeremy: "Something is wrong at the farm (he probably said a few more sentences, including maybe, what do you think I should do?)" Julie: "It´s probably nothing, Sheila has fits all the time, go back to bed."
Jeremy alone again, nah, I can´t just go back to bed, dad sounded very upset. I´ll call the local coppers, maybe that will upset dad less than if I call 911.
Makes sense to me.
I'll accept that 100% It makes sense, good sense and nothing but good sense :D :D
-
What is important to me are the words Jeremy supposedly used in that conversation, whatever time it was. "Something is wrong at the farm."
If he had killed his family, I see no logic in those words being used. If he didn´t, I do see some logic: his father had just phoned him saying "She/Sheila´s gone mad, she´s got the gun, come quickly." (not verbatim, sorry). It is a confusing message to get in the middle of the night. Jeremy must have thought: Why didn´t he call the police - or did he call the police? Does he want me to call the police - wouldn´t he have told me to call the police? I wonder if I should call the police, maybe he will get mad if I do - he told ME to come over. I am scared to go there if Sheila has gone mad with a gun. What shall I do??? I´ll call Julie, perhaps she can tell me what I should do. RINGRINGRING, Jeremy: "Something is wrong at the farm (he probably said a few more sentences, including maybe, what do you think I should do?)" Julie: "It´s probably nothing, Sheila has fits all the time, go back to bed."
Jeremy alone again, nah, I can´t just go back to bed, dad sounded very upset. I´ll call the local coppers, maybe that will upset dad less than if I call 911.
Makes sense to me.
But it wasn't just "something's wrong at the Farm" was it? Before Jeremy realized that Julie was on a shared line and might be overheard he'd told her "all is going well.." Julie must have known then that all were dead,that she either kept quiet,was charged as an accessory,would see the man she still loved go to prison,or that her past concealed criminal history would emerge. As things began to unfurl that first morning at Goldhanger Julie was almost relieved with the four murders and a suicide theory which kept the heat off her temporarily,until her conscience took over and she became aware that the authorities had by necessity to get involved..
-
That's Fuengirola, it's a bit like Essex if you squint.
And you have to squint if the sun's out. :)
-
But it wasn't just "something's wrong at the Farm" was it? Before Jeremy realized that Julie was on a shared line and might be overheard he'd told her "all is going well.." Julie must have known then that all were dead,that she either kept quiet,was charged as an accessory,would see the man she still loved go to prison,or that her past concealed criminal history would emerge. As things began to unfurl that first morning at Goldhanger Julie was almost relieved with the four murders and a suicide theory which kept the heat off her temporarily,until her conscience took over and she became aware that the authorities had by necessity to get involved..
Obviously I'm not reading enough books. This is the first time I've read that Jeremy used those words to Julie.
-
But it wasn't just "something's wrong at the Farm" was it? Before Jeremy realized that Julie was on a shared line and might be overheard he'd told her "all is going well.." Julie must have known then that all were dead,that she either kept quiet,was charged as an accessory,would see the man she still loved go to prison,or that her past concealed criminal history would emerge. As things began to unfurl that first morning at Goldhanger Julie was almost relieved with the four murders and a suicide theory which kept the heat off her temporarily,until her conscience took over and she became aware that the authorities had by necessity to get involved..
Steve do you not realise that either all that you have said has been made up you you yourself and is in fact a lie? Or it is all true. If that is so then JM can still be charged, not only for perverting the course of justice. But also for being an accessory after the fact. Which is it to be, Is it a lie, or is it true?
-
Obviously I'm not reading enough books. This is the first time I've read that Jeremy used those words to Julie.
In JMs statement she says that he said "everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm".
-
Tell me, on a clock that only displays hours and minutes, how do you tell the difference between 10 minutes and 9 1/2 minutes?
No, she said 3.15 in one statement and 3.12 in another. I don't think she ever said 3.20.
2.59 is 2 something.
Both Helen and Julie admitted that they hadn't looked at clocks.
No, you carry on, it's helping me avoid cleaning the bathroom.
If Julie hadn't looked at a clock then how on earth did she arrive at the idea it was 3:30 in her statement on the 08/08/95 because at this point she had not consulted with anyone at her flat; yet she later states and admits at not looking at the time... In court when cross examined she later agreed that this is what she said.....Have you cleaned that bathroom? lol :) :) :) :)
-
If Julie hadn't looked at a clock then how on earth did she arrive at the idea it was 3:30 in her statement on the 08/08/95 because at this point she had not consulted with anyone at her flat; yet she later states and admits at not looking at the time... In court when cross examined she later agreed that this is what she said.....Have you cleaned that bathroom? lol :) :) :) :)
If I recall correctly, she called the flat whilst she was making that statement and spoke to Helen. When Helen later made a statement she said it was 3am, and in cross examination said that she'd told Julie 3am. She also said that she hadn't checked her watch however, and that it could have been as late as 3.30.
Yes I have!
-
If I recall correctly, she called the flat whilst she was making that statement and spoke to Helen. When Helen later made a statement she said it was 3am, and in cross examination said that she'd told Julie 3am. She also said that she hadn't checked her watch however, and that it could have been as late as 3.30.
Yes I have!
I think it was in her 2nd statement she amends it to 3:15 see 304 COA.
I think I will retire on this, twill please our Susan..lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What is important to me are the words Jeremy supposedly used in that conversation, whatever time it was. "Something is wrong at the farm."
If he had killed his family, I see no logic in those words being used. If he didn´t, I do see some logic: his father had just phoned him saying "She/Sheila´s gone mad, she´s got the gun, come quickly." (not verbatim, sorry). It is a confusing message to get in the middle of the night. Jeremy must have thought: Why didn´t he call the police - or did he call the police? Does he want me to call the police - wouldn´t he have told me to call the police? I wonder if I should call the police, maybe he will get mad if I do - he told ME to come over. I am scared to go there if Sheila has gone mad with a gun. What shall I do??? I´ll call Julie, perhaps she can tell me what I should do. RINGRINGRING, Jeremy: "Something is wrong at the farm (he probably said a few more sentences, including maybe, what do you think I should do?)" Julie: "It´s probably nothing, Sheila has fits all the time, go back to bed."
Jeremy alone again, nah, I can´t just go back to bed, dad sounded very upset. I´ll call the local coppers, maybe that will upset dad less than if I call 911.
Makes sense to me.
That's excellent,Alias,,,and makes more sense given the type of character Jeremy was. Hesitant if he had to think and decide for himself.
-
I think it was in her 2nd statement she amends it to 3:15 see 304 COA.
I think I will retire on this, twill please our Susan..lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, she changes the time after speaking to Susan Battersby.
We've probably done it to death!
-
What is important to me are the words Jeremy supposedly used in that conversation, whatever time it was. "Something is wrong at the farm."
If he had killed his family, I see no logic in those words being used. If he didn´t, I do see some logic: his father had just phoned him saying "She/Sheila´s gone mad, she´s got the gun, come quickly." (not verbatim, sorry). It is a confusing message to get in the middle of the night. Jeremy must have thought: Why didn´t he call the police - or did he call the police? Does he want me to call the police - wouldn´t he have told me to call the police? I wonder if I should call the police, maybe he will get mad if I do - he told ME to come over. I am scared to go there if Sheila has gone mad with a gun. What shall I do??? I´ll call Julie, perhaps she can tell me what I should do. RINGRINGRING, Jeremy: "Something is wrong at the farm (he probably said a few more sentences, including maybe, what do you think I should do?)" Julie: "It´s probably nothing, Sheila has fits all the time, go back to bed."
Jeremy alone again, nah, I can´t just go back to bed, dad sounded very upset. I´ll call the local coppers, maybe that will upset dad less than if I call 911.
Makes sense to me.
That's a REALLY good point Alias, the very fact that he father hadn't called the police himself - or had already made the call himself - is an indication to Jeremy that he doesn't want them involved or that they're on their way already? And if not, maybe the situation doesn't warrant them being called. However, being unsure, calls a local station but gets no response and so he calls Julie for reassurance (fat lot of use she was!!). Having had a few minutes to think about it, he starts to get worried and is beginning to get a little panicked by the time he talks to West who, actually recalls hearing the urgency grow in his voice as the call dragged out!! PERFECT SENSE!! ;)
-
Steve do you not realise that either all that you have said has been made up you you yourself and is in fact a lie? Or it is all true. If that is so then JM can still be charged, not only for perverting the course of justice. But also for being an accessory after the fact. Which is it to be, Is it a lie, or is it true?
The dilemma the Jeremy supporters have is if Julie is to be charged as an accessory then Jeremy is as guilty as hell,and the number of days of innocent incarceration of your main culprit quoted vividly on the frontispiece of this site which acts subliminally and insidiously is a complete charade..
-
In JMs statement she says that he said "everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm".
Bridget, you're correct. That's exactly what she did say he's said. followed by, when she'd thought about it she "realized he was telling me they were all dead" but other than tell SB before going back to bed, she did nothing. So if we accept that he did say it, coupled with having talked about doing it for the past year and on one occasion using sleeping pills she had given him, there could have been absolutely NO ambiguity, she must have known EXACTLY what he was talking about but she went to bed and did nothing for another month.
-
The dilemma the Jeremy supporters have is if Julie is to be charged as an accessory then Jeremy is as guilty as hell,and the number of days of innocent incarceration of your main culprit quoted vividly on the frontispiece of this site which acts subliminally and insidiously is a complete charade..
Not a dilemma for me, I don't think he's guilty!! It's your dilemma because you think he's guilty and she would only be an accessory in that instance!! ;)
-
Bridget, you're correct. That's exactly what she did say he's said. followed by, when she'd thought about it she "realized he was telling me they were all dead" but other than tell SB before going back to bed, she did nothing. So if we accept that he did say it, coupled with having talked about doing it for the past year and on one occasion using sleeping pills she had given him, there could have been absolutely NO ambiguity, she must have known EXACTLY what he was talking about but she went to bed and did nothing for another month.
I don't think she's ever denied that that was what she did.
-
Bridget, you're correct. That's exactly what she did say he's said. followed by, when she'd thought about it she "realized he was telling me they were all dead" but other than tell SB before going back to bed, she did nothing. So if we accept that he did say it, coupled with having talked about doing it for the past year and on one occasion using sleeping pills she had given him, there could have been absolutely NO ambiguity, she must have known EXACTLY what he was talking about but she went to bed and did nothing for another month.
Of course she did,because she was a frightened young woman of 20 years whose physical side had been awakened by a charming cad who saw the possibility of using Julie as a cover for his wicked crimes. He had already roped Julie into the role of lookout during the Osea Road robbery which showed his avarice as well as his real attitude towards his family,whilst today professing to have loved them all as he paces up and down his prison cell.
Julie was a confused young woman at this stage who might well have been intimidated by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones as many more hardened male colleagues were at the outset,and who was she but a student teacher to be taken seriously with such a momentous tale that she had to tell. Fortunately stalwart Julie worked out the correct course of action with her friends who to this day have not deserted her,unlike many of Jeremy's fly-by-night acquaintances,particularly the women who have used him for their own ends whilst professing to love him the same unconditional way Julie did until such heinous occurrences unfolded that a relationship no longer became possible.
-
Of course she did,because she was a frightened young woman of 20 years whose physical side had been awakened by a charming cad who saw the possibility of using Julie as a cover for his wicked crimes. He had already roped Julie into the role of lookout during the Osea Road robbery which showed his avarice as well as his real attitude towards his family,whilst today professing to have loved them all as he paces up and down his prison cell.
Julie was a confused young woman at this stage who might well have been intimidated by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones as many more hardened male colleagues were at the outset,and who was she but a student teacher to be taken seriously with such a momentous tale that she had to tell. Fortunately stalwart Julie worked out the correct course of action with her friends who to this day have not deserted her,unlike many of Jeremy's fly-by-night acquaintances,particularly the women who have used him for their own ends whilst professing to love him the same unconditional way Julie did until such heinous occurrences unfolded that a relationship no longer became possible.
You sound totally besotted with a character who exists only in your head and as such appears unrecognizable and unreal.
-
You sound totally besotted with a character who exists only in your head and as such appears unrecognizable and unreal.
No it's you amongst others who won't recognize the truth about this despicable man and the woman who against all odds refused to let her life be ruined and has subsequently made a considerable success of it overseas.
-
No it's you amongst others who won't recognize the truth about this despicable man and the woman who against all odds refused to let her life be ruined and has subsequently made a considerable success of it overseas.
I certainly don't recognise 'your truth' I imagine even those who support guilt find it hard to do that!!
-
Of course she did,because she was a frightened young woman of 20 years whose physical side had been awakened by a charming cad who saw the possibility of using Julie as a cover for his wicked crimes. He had already roped Julie into the role of lookout during the Osea Road robbery which showed his avarice as well as his real attitude towards his family,whilst today professing to have loved them all as he paces up and down his prison cell.
Julie was a confused young woman at this stage who might well have been intimidated by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones as many more hardened male colleagues were at the outset,and who was she but a student teacher to be taken seriously with such a momentous tale that she had to tell. Fortunately stalwart Julie worked out the correct course of action with her friends who to this day have not deserted her,unlike many of Jeremy's fly-by-night acquaintances,particularly the women who have used him for their own ends whilst professing to love him the same unconditional way Julie did until such heinous occurrences unfolded that a relationship no longer became possible.
Blimey Steve,,you make her sound like some Demi-God.
-
So,Mugford realised Jeremy had carried out his alleged threat of murdering all of his family and tells him to go back to bed,and then SHE herself goes back to bed? Rubbish!
-
No it's you amongst others who won't recognize the truth about this despicable man and the woman who against all odds refused to let her life be ruined and has subsequently made a considerable success of it overseas.
Or, if we look at it from a different angle, she ballsed up an innocent man's life, accepted a generous pay off from the scummiest publication in the country, allowed them to print a picture of her dressed and made up to look like more of a dominatrix than a junior school teacher, further yet, she poses for the same paper, not in any demure way but hitching her skirt suggestively. Strange, isn't it Steve, that we're talking about the same person.
-
I bet she was one of those niff of a maniacs too.
-
So,Mugford realised Jeremy had carried out his alleged threat of murdering all of his family and tells him to go back to bed,and then SHE herself goes back to bed? Rubbish!
I think she mulled it over in bed and realized that Jeremy had finally gone ahead with his scheme and was no longer crying wolf. You have to remember the incessant practical joker which was Jeremy Bamber which led his Headmaster Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart,92, to describe him as "a relentless tease". An unsophisticated Julie,the product of one of the best all girl grammar schools in the North of England was unaccustomed to such deviant and infantile male behaviour. The crimes were a combination of circumstances;double adoptees,some parental failings and the avaricious Zeitgeist of the times which meant any unproductive members of society faced the axe,and the temptation harboured in Jeremy's mind finally became too much as he saw a way out from the perceived serfdom which circumstances had engendered,justifying the deaths to himself as people unworthy of life,and the possibility of Colin making a new start no longer having the millstone of children to look after. An imprisoned Jeremy can no longer confess to such wicked crimes without the ultimate retribution which oh so nearly killed him several years ago and which is completely unacceptable,a possible way out through turning to Christianity is closed to him as he reminisces on the perceived damage that religion inflicted on sister and mother,and Jeremy is now stuck as a pathetic figure with a handful of correspondents for succour as he becomes older and greyer,with not even an apology to Colin which might be a start as he contemplates the rest of his life behind bars.
-
" relentless tease ". " infantile male ". Not the qualities of a murderer really. More like the over-grown schoolboy that was Jeremy.
-
I think she mulled it over in bed and realized that Jeremy had finally gone ahead with his scheme and was no longer crying wolf. You have to remember the incessant practical joker which was Jeremy Bamber which led his Headmaster Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart,92, to describe him as "a relentless tease". An unsophisticated Julie,the product of one of the best all girl grammar schools in the North of England was unaccustomed to such deviant and infantile male behaviour. The crimes were a combination of circumstances;double adoptees,some parental failings and the avaricious Zeitgeist of the times which meant any unproductive members of society faced the axe,and the temptation harboured in Jeremy's mind finally became too much as he saw a way out from the perceived serfdom which circumstances had engendered,justifying the deaths to himself as people unworthy of life,and the possibility of Colin making a new start no longer having the millstone of children to look after. An imprisoned Jeremy can no longer confess to such wicked crimes without the ultimate retribution which oh so nearly killed him several years ago and which is completely unacceptable,a possible way out through turning to Christianity is closed to him as he reminisces on the perceived damage that religion inflicted on sister and mother,and Jeremy is now stuck as a pathetic figure with a handful of correspondents for succour as he becomes older and greyer,with not even an apology to Colin which might be a start as he contemplates the rest of his life behind bars.
And never, for one moment, would the unsophisticated product of an all girls school have any thoughts of a life of ease cushioned by old money when she got her talons into the son and heir. She more than demonstrated her own desire for the material in a way that Jeremy had no need to.
-
The dilemma the Jeremy supporters have is if Julie is to be charged as an accessory then Jeremy is as guilty as hell,and the number of days of innocent incarceration of your main culprit quoted vividly on the frontispiece of this site which acts subliminally and insidiously is a complete charade..
You didn't answer my question Steve. Is it true what you said or is it a lie? The dilemma you face now is that if you admit it to be true then JM will face charges. If it is not true then Jeremy must be innocent.
-
Of course she did,because she was a frightened young woman of 20 years whose physical side had been awakened by a charming cad who saw the possibility of using Julie as a cover for his wicked crimes. He had already roped Julie into the role of lookout during the Osea Road robbery which showed his avarice as well as his real attitude towards his family,whilst today professing to have loved them all as he paces up and down his prison cell.
Julie was a confused young woman at this stage who might well have been intimidated by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones as many more hardened male colleagues were at the outset,and who was she but a student teacher to be taken seriously with such a momentous tale that she had to tell. Fortunately stalwart Julie worked out the correct course of action with her friends who to this day have not deserted her,unlike many of Jeremy's fly-by-night acquaintances,particularly the women who have used him for their own ends whilst professing to love him the same unconditional way Julie did until such heinous occurrences unfolded that a relationship no longer became possible.
A frightened young woman of 20 ?? clearly not frightened to accept £25,000 a small fortune back then what would she not do for money steve .
-
Apart from the Summertime alterations to the digital clock /radio, it might have been re-adjusted on account of some electrical failing at the premises. Was the said clock in the vicinity of the communal telephone, being in the hallway, and initially answered by Duggie? This piece of evidence will surely go down in legal history, as being the barminess of any in deciding the fate of a man's life! BTW I thought the feather may have been from a Wyandotte chicken (from Henley), or young turkey if indeed they were being reared on the farm. We will just have to wait for Mike to post the hitherto, withheld docs.
-
On the day Jeremy and AE went to the caravan show,Jeremy said to Ann "I shouldn't really be telling you this,but...." He goes on to talk about his plans for Vaulty. I have read many times,that Jeremy was supposed to have said "This time next year Ann,this will all be ours"(regarding caravan park) and Ann responds by telling him that her mother isn't about to retire yet. It doesn't say that in the statement.Where did it come from?
-
Apart from the Summertime alterations to the digital clock /radio, it might have been re-adjusted on account of some electrical failing at the premises. Was the said clock in the vicinity of the communal telephone, being in the hallway, and initially answered by Duggie? This piece of evidence will surely go down in legal history, as being the barminess of any in deciding the fate of a man's life! BTW I thought the feather may have been from a Wyandotte chicken (from Henley), or young turkey if indeed they were being reared on the farm. We will just have to wait for Mike to post the hitherto, withheld docs.
Hi Campion :)
I shall only say this once more because this was done to death yesterday.
Julie stated in her first statement on the 8th August 1985 that she thought the time was 3:30 in her second statement after talking wit Susan.B she says it was 3:15. Then later in another statement she claims she did not check the time and never consulted a watch. Well, if she never consulted her watch, then where did she get the time 3:30 from....How on earth did she know it was that time on the 8th August....she had to have got that time from somewhere. When Julie was cross examined in court this was brought up and she agreed that she had said 3:30.
Susan B. confirmed to Julie that it was 3:15 and knowing that she normally puts her clock fast by 10 minutes could have deducted that time already in her mind and it is possible that the clock at the time was 12 minutes fast therefore her clock would have said 3:27 Then she changed her story after Jones had visited her in the November 85 he timed her clock and it was 12 minuted fast, but no one had accounted for the clock being changed by one hour in the October. Jones visited her again in September of 1986 and the clock was 9 minutes and 30 seconds fast. Though again, the clock had been put forward in the spring....
Various times had been reported and not one of the flat mates gave an exact time 3 out of the 5 gave 3:30 but later admitted to not consulting a clock and said they were probably told the time from other flat mates....well, if they had been told it was 3:30 then that surely must have come from those who had looked at the time and that was SB and another...
Yes SB might have set her clock fast, but this is not proof enough that Jeremy's call was closer to 3am and before the call from his father. Its unbelieveable that SB could not remember things about her cheque book fraud and other things yet she claims to remember the most vital evidence of all...the timing of the phone call from Jeremy....poppycock! imo..... :) :) :) :)
-
Morning Patti, did you murder a few brain cells last night? ;)
Hi Campion :)
I shall only say this once more because this was done to death yesterday.
Julie stated in her first statement on the 8th August 1985 that she thought the time was 3:30 in her second statement after talking wit Susan.B she says it was 3:15. Then later in another statement she claims she did not check the time and never consulted a watch. Well, if she never consulted her watch, then where did she get the time 3:30 from....How on earth did she know it was that time on the 8th August....she had to have got that time from somewhere. When Julie was cross examined in court this was brought up and she agreed that she had said 3:30.
She called Helen Eaton whilst making the statement and she told her the time, although Helen says she told her 3am.
Susan B. confirmed to Julie that it was 3:15 and knowing that she normally puts her clock fast by 10 minutes could have deducted that time already in her mind and it is possible that the clock at the time was 12 minutes fast therefore her clock would have said 3:27 Then she changed her story after Jones had visited her in the November 85 he timed her clock and it was 12 minuted fast, but no one had accounted for the clock being changed by one hour in the October. Jones visited her again in September of 1986 and the clock was 9 minutes and 30 seconds fast. Though again, the clock had been put forward in the spring....
Wrong way around. SBs clock was 9 1/2 minutes fast in November 1985, 12 minutes fast in September 1986. He couldn't have called her at 3.27 because at that time he was on the phone to police, unless of course you believe that his call to police was 3.36, but then since the whole point if this exercise was to establish the fact that he called Julie before the police that hardly helps!
Various times had been reported and not one of the flat mates gave an exact time 3 out of the 5 gave 3:30 but later admitted to not consulting a clock and said they were probably told the time from other flat mates....well, if they had been told it was 3:30 then that surely must have come from those who had looked at the time and that was SB and another...
No, only two said 3.30, Julie and possibly Helen. Susan said about 3.15 and then 3.12 (subject to clock adjustments), Joanne said 2 something and Doug said about 3.
Yes SB might have set her clock fast, but this is not proof enough that Jeremy's call was closer to 3am and before the call from his father. Its unbelieveable that SB could not remember things about her cheque book fraud and other things yet she claims to remember the most vital evidence of all...the timing of the phone call from Jeremy....poppycock! imo..... :) :) :) :)
Helen told Susan the very next day that Julie had called asking about the time so the memory would still have been fresh.
-
Morning Patti, did you murder a few brain cells last night? ;)
NO....but you have been on bird seed this morning haven't you? You savage! lol
She called Helen Eaton whilst making the statement and she told her the time, although Helen says she told her 3am.
Her initial statement is documented at her giving 3:30 see COA. This was indeed changed on the next statement after she had consulted a flatmate. My question is how did she arrive at the time of 3:30 before she had consulted on the time having not even looked at a clock.
Wrong way around. SBs clock was 9 1/2 minutes fast in November 1985, 12 minutes fast in September 1986. He couldn't have called her at 3.27 because at that time he was on the phone to police, unless of course you believe that his call to police was 3.36, but then since the whole point if this exercise was to establish the fact that he called Julie before the police that hardly helps!
Wrong way round or not...there is no way it can proven what that clock actually said.
No, only two said 3.30, Julie and possibly Helen. Susan said about 3.15 and then 3.12 (subject to clock adjustments), Joanne said 2 something and Doug said about 3.
But, you have just stated that Helen said 3:00 now you say she said 3:30....me thinks it was Woad and that you might be getting confused lol
Helen told Susan the very next day that Julie had called asking about the time so the memory would still have been fresh.
Right off to have a shower...... :D :D ;D ;D ;D
-
Her initial statement is documented at her giving 3:30 see COA. This was indeed changed on the next statement after she had consulted a flatmate. My question is how did she arrive at the time of 3:30 before she had consulted on the time having not even looked at a clock.
For the third time, she consulted Helen Eaton on the phone whilst making her first statement. Julie says Helen told her 3.30.
Wrong way round or not...there is no way it can proven what that clock actually said.
No one claims there is.
But, you have just stated that Helen said 3:00 now you say she said 3:30....me thinks it was Woad and that you might be getting confused lol
I was being generous to you by allowing you to have Helen in amongst your 3.30 witnesses based on what Julie said she said. If Helen actually said 3am (as she claims) then that's 4 witnesses who give the time at around 3am and only one (Julie) who says 3.30.
Right off to have a shower.....
I hope that you return suitably refreshed ;)
-
For the third time, she consulted Helen Eaton on the phone whilst making her first statement. Julie says Helen told her 3.30.
No one claims there is.
I was being generous to you by allowing you to have Helen in amongst your 3.30 witnesses based on what Julie said she said. If Helen actually said 3am (as she claims) then that's 4 witnesses who give the time at around 3am and only one (Julie) who says 3.30.
I hope that you return suitably refreshed ;)
Right lady! :)
Julie said in evidence that the call could have been anywhere between 3:00 to 3:30
Helen told Julie that she thought the time was 3:00 but later agreed under cross examination that it might have been as late as 3:30.
Susan B said she was positive when she looked at her clock that it was 3:12 after also saying she was positive the time was 3:15. She also pointed out that she is in the habit of setting her clock 10 minutes fast...my question to her is clear. Was she also in the habit of deducting 10 minutes from the time when giving someone a time....
Joanna W said her digital clock said 2 something, thus meant that it could have been any time between 2:00 to 2:59
Helen later revealed that when she spoke to Julie about the time, she was indeed uncertain about the time of the call, although for some reason she thought it was about 3:00, She later told the jury that she had not consulted her watch or looked at the time, therefore she could not be accurate with the time.
Dale said in evidence that the time was 3:00 He also told the jury that he had not consulted his watch and during cross examination he later declared that he went with that time because he had been told that time by others.
So three of them never looked at their watch and yet gave evidence that the call was made at 3:00
So the only person that was close to the time Jones wanted was Susan B....Yet she failed to remember other things yet remembered the time is said on her clock....well I don't buy it...
Which leaves us with a time that the call had to have been made between 3:00 and 3:30 and not one scrap of concrete evidence tells us any different....
Yes I am refreshed, can you tell...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I see you have been reading the appeal decision, so you will have read this:
This evidence did not in any way reveal any defect in the evidence of the only two witnesses upon whom the jury would have had to have relied in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. Neither Joanne Woad nor Susan Battersby was a party to the discussion on the telephone whilst Julie Mugford was making her statement. The evidence was clear on the point that each of them was out of the flat at that time. The most the evidence revealed was that Helen Eaton had thought the time was about 3.30 a.m. and that Julie Mugford having consulted her was prepared to adopt that time. However, crucially both Julie Mugford and Helen Eaton had said consistently that they themselves had never looked at the time when the telephone call was received during the night. Each accepted that the time could have been as late as 3.30 a.m. in evidence and the jury knew that. We fail to see how the jury could have attached any further weight to their estimate of the time made on the 8 August when it was not said to be based upon them actually looking at a clock. In any event the jury knew that Julie Mugford gave that estimate in her statement made on that very day.
Thus we are satisfied that even if the jury were able to know of the existence of this document [one of Ann's notes], it could not in any reasoned way have enabled them to have resolved the conflict between Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby on the one hand and the appellant on the other hand in a way different from any conclusion that they may have reached on the evidence which they heard. Accordingly this fresh evidence can form no basis for doubting the safeness of the conviction.
And this is what Susan actually said in her statement re the times:
"I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton."
Now you can of course call her liar, but it is evidence even if you don't accept it as "concrete". Of course we have no way of knowing whether or not the jury accepted it, or how much weight they gave to what was always a minor point anyway.
I have chickens to clean!
-
You didn't answer my question Steve. Is it true what you said or is it a lie? The dilemma you face now is that if you admit it to be true then JM will face charges. If it is not true then Jeremy must be innocent.
I don't follow-Julie knew that Jeremy's family were all dead upon the occasion of the second telephone call:that was the import of the call and not the timing. If Jeremy wished to impart to Julie that he knew his family were dead before the alleged telephone call he received from his father then he's even dimmer than I made him out to be. Julie knowing that the family were all dead does not make her an accessory:why should it?
-
I don't follow-Julie knew that Jeremy's family were all dead upon the occasion of the second telephone call:that was the import of the call and not the timing. If Jeremy wished to impart to Julie that he knew his family were dead before the alleged telephone call he received from his father then he's even dimmer than I made him out to be. Julie knowing that the family were all dead does not make her an accessory:why should it?
That's not what he is talking about - Yesterday you said that the innocent side have a dilemma - if they think that Julie is an accessory, then they must believe JB guilty. By the same token, if you think JB is guilty, Julie must be an accessory!! They were your words and as you think he is indeed guilty - it's YOUR dilemma!
-
Because she knew prior to what happened,,,what WAS going to happen. Therefore why didn't she warn the police as soon as she heard the threat.? In all probability,it was her,,,and only her that could have prevented the massacre------------------------accessory,,and as good as helped it happen.
-
On the day Jeremy and AE went to the caravan show,Jeremy said to Ann "I shouldn't really be telling you this,but...." He goes on to talk about his plans for Vaulty. I have read many times,that Jeremy was supposed to have said "This time next year Ann,this will all be ours"(regarding caravan park) and Ann responds by telling him that her mother isn't about to retire yet. It doesn't say that in the statement.Where did it come from?
It's on page 6 of her statement here:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=497.0
-
That's not what he is talking about - Yesterday you said that the innocent side have a dilemma - if they think that Julie is an accessory, then they must believe JB guilty. By the same token, if you think JB is guilty, Julie must be an accessory!! They were your words and as you think he is indeed guilty - it's YOUR dilemma!
Must she though?? I'm not sure we actually have an offence of accessory after the fact anymore in this country and the nearest I can find (assisting an offender) requires a positive act rather than just a failure to say anything, as does perverting the course of justice. There is also an offence of concealing an offence, but that requires payment of some sort. I suppose the money he gave her for a holiday could amount to that, but it would be difficult to prove that that was the purpose. Was there anything in her early statements that was identified at trial or appeal as a deliberate lie?
Maybe NGB could help us out here, it'd be interesting to find out what the actual position would be.
-
Or, by association,as opposed to an accessory.?
-
In JMs statement she says that he said "everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm".
That sentence does not make sense. Did she ask: "How are you?" or something along those lines, and he replied, "Everything is going well (with me), not to worry, BUT there is something wrong at the farm."
Otherwise it is nonsense.
Oh, and we are in Julie-praise mode again. :o
-
That sentence does not make sense. Did she ask: "How are you?" or something along those lines, and he replied, "Everything is going well (with me), not to worry, BUT there is something wrong at the farm."
Otherwise it is nonsense.
Oh, and we are in Julie-praise mode again. :o
Alias Hi. You're right. Thosen words don't ring true. If I had to drag myself out of bed in the middle of the night to hear the person on the other end say that everything was going well, I think the VERY least I would ask was what the hell they were talking about.
Oh, and my opinion of Julie doesn't extend to praise mode :D :D :D
-
Alias Hi. You're right. Thosen words don't ring true. If I had to drag myself out of bed in the middle of the night to hear the person on the other end say that everything was going well, I think the VERY least I would ask was what the hell they were talking about.
Oh, and my opinion of Julie doesn't extend to praise mode :D :D :D
I have a remidy against the Julie-Pulie-praise. Here it is!
-
Who was it that " taught her sex as never before ".? Not Jeremy,,,surely.!
-
I have a remidy against the Julie-Pulie-praise. Here it is!
And there we have it. Unsophisticated Julie, product of an all girls grammer school, a frightened young girl of 20. I wouldn't mind betting she had tricks up her sleeve that Jeremy had only fantasized about before he knew her.
-
Who was it that " taught her sex as never before ".? Not Jeremy,,,surely.!
Sexy posing and sex-talk for money on the back of horrendous murders, including little kids. Talk about dragging the poor deceased through the mud, what a way to treat their memory! It is plainly despicable, and I have a hard time stomacking the praise showered on her by some people. She was a sick, sick girl.
-
Sexy posing and sex-talk for money on the back of horrendous murders, including little kids. Talk about dragging the poor deceased through the mud, what a way to treat their memory! It is plainly despicable, and I have a hard time stomacking the praise showered on her by some people. She was a sick, sick girl.
Hi Alias, I agree with you, that photograph and article is a total disgrace and how on earth could she agree to any of it? ....I suppose she 'did it for the money'.....heard that phrase before somewhere!!
-
Maggie she must be a woman without a soul. That should not have been a happy day for her at all and proved she did not give a fig for Jeremy Bamber :'(
-
That's not what he is talking about - Yesterday you said that the innocent side have a dilemma - if they think that Julie is an accessory, then they must believe JB guilty. By the same token, if you think JB is guilty, Julie must be an accessory!! They were your words and as you think he is indeed guilty - it's YOUR dilemma!
That doesn't follow at all. Julie might be an accessory if she knowlingly allowed Jeremy to kill his family without lifting a finger to stop it,in which case Jeremy would have been foolish to telephone Julie in the middle of the night with witnesses to hand on Julie's side. The telephone calls are a continuum in any case from the earlier call in the evening in which Jeremy said "tonight's the night..it's now or never",to which Julie prayed that it was "never". You have no evidence that Julie actively encouraged Jeremy to kill his parents,sister and nephews,no evidence that she gave him an alibi for the murders and no evidence that she knew he himself was the perpetrator,which is why he told her that Matthew McDonald had been the hitman.
-
Sexy posing and sex-talk for money on the back of horrendous murders, including little kids. Talk about dragging the poor deceased through the mud, what a way to treat their memory! It is plainly despicable, and I have a hard time stomacking the praise showered on her by some people. She was a sick, sick girl.
Yet it seem, she is worshipped.
-
And there we have it. Unsophisticated Julie, product of an all girls grammer school, a frightened young girl of 20. I wouldn't mind betting she had tricks up her sleeve that Jeremy had only fantasized about before he knew her.
There appear to be distinct differences between Suzette Ford, Julie Mugford and Anji Greaves? Suzette and Anji were imo far more attractive looking than Julie. Both were slim and blonde whereas Julie looks a bit chubby and is dark. They also appear more mature and emotionally stable. Well in fact they were both older than JB so this might account for the maturity plus Suzette had 2/3 children by her ex-husband. I'm not sure what Suzette did for a living? Anji was a beautician. JM may have been the odd one out in that she was uni educated? Interestingly the mothers of JM and Anji both appear to have liked JB.
-
I have a remidy against the Julie-Pulie-praise. Here it is!
The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.
-
That doesn't follow at all. Julie might be an accessory if she knowlingly allowed Jeremy to kill his family without lifting a finger to stop it,in which case Jeremy would have been foolish to telephone Julie in the middle of the night with witnesses to hand on Julie's side. The telephone calls are a continuum in any case from the earlier call in the evening in which Jeremy said "tonight's the night..it's now or never",to which Julie prayed that it was "never". You have no evidence that Julie actively encouraged Jeremy to kill his parents,sister and nephews,no evidence that she gave him an alibi for the murders and no evidence that she knew he himself was the perpetrator,which is why he told her that Matthew McDonald had been the hitman.
You said it!! Not me!! But she did knowingly allow him to kill his family!! She said she knew for over a year!! AND did nothing to stop him!! LOL She even gave him some sleeping pills ;D ;D ;D ;D As for the 'no evidence' it never seems to stop you!!
-
I don't follow-Julie knew that Jeremy's family were all dead upon the occasion of the second telephone call:that was the import of the call and not the timing. If Jeremy wished to impart to Julie that he knew his family were dead before the alleged telephone call he received from his father then he's even dimmer than I made him out to be. Julie knowing that the family were all dead does not make her an accessory:why should it?
By perverting the course of justice for two or 3 weeks makes her an accessory after the fact. What I asked you was, is it true what you said she knew? Yes or no?
Also if she knew the family to be dead does than not make her even more guilty when she said to Jeremy go back to sleep instead of phoning the police with her suspicions?
-
I have a remidy against the Julie-Pulie-praise. Here it is!
That picture in the NOTW proves that she was only interested in fame and money. Otherwise why on earch should she pose in that manner seductively showing one leg like that on such a solemn subject? It's a bit like me witnessing a road accident where someone died and whilst being photographed by the press I say, "How do you want me to pose? Shall I show my hairy leg?"
-
The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.
You only saw it for the first time last Saturday?? :o :o. The article always reminds me of a song - I think by Cindi Lauper - True Colours!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You said it!! Not me!! But she did knowingly allow him to kill his family!! She said she knew for over a year!! AND did nothing to stop him!! LOL She even gave him some sleeping pills ;D ;D ;D ;D As for the 'no evidence' it never seems to stop you!!
You really don't get it. The plan emanated from Jeremy and Jeremy alone,and if I thought otherwise I would not support Julie for one moment. Like any woman would she said she did not want to hear about it whenever Jeremy broached the subject and an almost two-year relationship was condensed into a fourteen page statement of Julie's,which is why you may be confused.
-
Hello Caroline another song for your comments I like it I like it ;D ;D ;D
-
By perverting the course of justice for two or 3 weeks makes her an accessory after the fact. What I asked you was, is it true what you said she knew? Yes or no?
Also if she knew the family to be dead does than not make her even more guilty when she said to Jeremy go back to sleep instead of phoning the police with her suspicions?
Julie received an ambiguous telephone call in the middle of the night when she was feeling groggy and upon returning to bed realized the import of the telephone call. The last thing Julie wanted was the involvement of the Police:she didn't want to see Jeremy go to jail,she was still unsure as to who actually had murdered them,and the Osea Road and cheque book incidents meant that she might end up with a criminal record.The way the investigation was proceeding was four murders and a suicide decided no less by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones. Of course Julie must have had regrets,but it was too late as the victims were already dead.
-
You really don't get it. The plan emanated from Jeremy and Jeremy alone,and if I thought otherwise I would not support Julie for one moment. Like any woman would she said she did not want to hear about it whenever Jeremy broached the subject and an almost two-year relationship was condensed into a fourteen page statement of Julie's,which is why you may be confused.
No Steve, you don't get it. Like any normal young woman would have, she didn't ever mention these conversations to her friends never mind her mother.
She told him she didn't want to hear it but continued a relationship with someone planning to kill their family.
That is not the way young women behave in real life Steve. They would normally run a mile from such a weirdo....that's what any normal young woman would call him..... a weirdo who frightened them.
-
You really don't get it. The plan emanated from Jeremy and Jeremy alone,and if I thought otherwise I would not support Julie for one moment. Like any woman would she said she did not want to hear about it whenever Jeremy broached the subject and an almost two-year relationship was condensed into a fourteen page statement of Julie's,which is why you may be confused.
Like any woman would?? Any OTHER woman would NOT have gone a full year listening to a plan that involed the murder of 5 people!! Then when they end up dead, she still goes along with it and has to be forced into going to the police by friends. It's you that doesn't get it Steve!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.
Well, there isn´t much good to say about it, is there?
-
The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.
Steve, we don't know the innocent virginal girl you keep talking about. The "unbelievably vulgar comments" are directed at a woman who presents herself as being unbelievably vulgar. Had she presented herself differently there would be no comments made of that type. Much as you appear to worship her, if you're honest with yourself, there is NOTHING about any of her post trial behaviour that is praiseworthy of discreet. I imagine that for someone of your obviously high standards it must be difficult for you to make excuses for her. As for what Anji Greaves would have done, it's hypothetical.
-
Hello Caroline another song for your comments I like it I like it ;D ;D ;D
I'm sure she did 'Like It' Susan, and she got 25K to 'Like it' even more!! ;D ;D
That's the 'article' by the way!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Steve, we don't know the innocent virginal girl you keep talking about. The "unbelievably vulgar comments" are directed at a woman who presents herself as being unbelievably vulgar. Had she presented herself differently there would be no comments made of that type. Much as you appear to worship her, if you're honest with yourself, there is NOTHING about any of her post trial behaviour that is praiseworthy of discreet. I imagine that for someone of your obviously high standards it must be difficult for you to make excuses for her. As for what Anji Greaves would have done, it's hypothetical.
In fact it is very insulting towards Anji Greaves. Not all girls are willing to do what Julie did, far from it,
-
Must she though?? I'm not sure we actually have an offence of accessory after the fact anymore in this country and the nearest I can find (assisting an offender) requires a positive act rather than just a failure to say anything, as does perverting the course of justice. There is also an offence of concealing an offence, but that requires payment of some sort. I suppose the money he gave her for a holiday could amount to that, but it would be difficult to prove that that was the purpose. Was there anything in her early statements that was identified at trial or appeal as a deliberate lie?
Maybe NGB could help us out here, it'd be interesting to find out what the actual position would be.
Hello Miss Bridget
When the police left Goldhanger on 7th Aug JM claims in her wit stats dated 7th/8th Sept that she asked JB if he had done it and he said no he hadn't but that MM had or words to this effect. On 8th Aug the police took a wit stat from JM and not a word is mentioned about MM and/or JB?
I believe her 8th Aug stat to be the truth. However if we run with the latter had she have fessed up on 8th Aug more evidence potentially would have been preserved eg carpets etc, etc. The soc would have been treated differently from day 2.
I find it hard to believe that the above is not a criminal offence. Either she is lying period. Or she witheld significant info at the early stages of a police investigation into the brutal murders of 5 people.
As you said I would be interested to know what NGB's view of this is.
-
Hello Miss Bridget
When the police left Goldhanger on 7th Aug JM claims in her wit stats dated 7th/8th Sept that she asked JB if he had done it and he said no he hadn't but that MM had or words to this effect. On 8th Aug the police took a wit stat from JM and not a word is mentioned about MM and/or JB?
I believe her 8th Aug stat to be the truth. However if we run with the latter had she have fessed up on 8th Aug more evidence potentially would have been preserved eg carpets etc, etc. The soc would have been treated differently from day 2.
I find it hard to believe that the above is not a criminal offence. Either she is lying period. Or she witheld significant info at the early stages of a police investigation into the brutal murders of 5 people.
As you said I would be interested to know what NGB's view of this is.
Thank you NN, yes that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Those are omissions certainly, but it would seem that the offence assisting an offender cannot be committed by omission. I still can't find an offence of 'accessory after the fact' in current UK law, although there was one up until the commencement of the crim law act which appears to have replaced it with the assisting and offender offence. If that makes sense!
-
The vulgar comments were dispersed in all directions,not just Julie. But if you believe Jeremy to be 100% innocent then you have to believe that none of this happened,no conversations ever took place about Jeremy wanting to kill his family,that his remarks to Charles Marsden about the Farm burning down at Christmas 1984 when Jeremy thought the family would all be sleeping together were just chance casual remarks and remarkably rotten luck for him,as would have to be the case with the telephone call from his father in the middle of the night. You would have to believe that he didn't harbour any ill will towards his family despite Goldsmiths student James Richards coming into court and swearing on oath Jeremy told him on more than one occasion "I f*cking hate my parents". You would have to believe that Jeremy didn't bear a grudge against Sheila despite him telling Doris Foakes "I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila". Lastly why would Jeremy make a beeline for Julie after the murders and want to be alone with her if he knows she has got nothing against him. If Jeremy is innocent then Sheila has done the job for him,he is rid of them and is the sole benefactor and does not need Julie any more.
-
The first time I saw this picture last Saturday I was as shocked as anybody:the pictures are in thoroughly bad taste and Julie should not have proceeded with them. However the striking impact of the picture(and it's true that a picture can paint a thousand words)was somewhat mitigated by the unbelievably vulgar comments posted by several female members alongside on that occasion. I also think there would have been a similar photograph emanating from Anji Greaves had Jeremy been released,along with loose tongue pub talk emanating from Jeremy some weeks down the line which would have made a mockery of the whole not guilty verdict.
I doubt it she appears more classy for example wearing a jacket to court as indeed did Suzette. Only JM was without a jacket:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6043
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6930
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6051
Steve most middle classish young women in the 1980's did not:
- commit cheque book fraud
- deal pot for financial gain
- act as a watch for a burglary
- lie to the police over the brutal murders of 5 innocent people
In any event why are you attempting to blacken the name of Anji Greaves? She may look at the forum from time-to-time and find your comments upsetting.
-
Thank you NN, yes that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. Those are omissions certainly, but it would seem that the offence assisting an offender cannot be committed by omission. I still can't find an offence of 'accessory after the fact' in current UK law, although there was one up until the commencement of the crim law act which appears to have replaced it with the assisting and offender offence. If that makes sense!
(Hand up to ask a Q)
Miss Bridget
May I ask for the clarification on 'obstructing the course of justice'?
-
I doubt it she appears more classy for example wearing a jacket to court as indeed did Suzette. Only JM was without a jacket:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6043
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6930
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6051
Steve most middle classish young women in the 1980's did not:
- commit cheque book fraud
- deal pot for financial gain
- act as a watch for a burglary
- lie to the police over the brutal murders of 5 innocent people
In any event why are you attempting to blacken the name of Anji Greaves? She may look at the forum from time-to-time and find your comments upsetting.
Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.
-
(Hand up to ask a Q)
Miss Bridget
May I ask for the clarification on 'obstructing the course of justice'?
Isn't that just another name for perverting the course of justice? If so, then again, I think it requires a positive act as opposed to an omission.
-
Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.
That is just plain wrong to accuse Jeremy of being culpable of crimes COMMITTED BY JULIE HERSELF. And oh, so typical.
-
Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.
It has nothing to do with fashion its about respect ie respect for the court/proceedings, respect for those that lost their lives etc, etc. Had JB have turned up without a jacket and in an open necked shirt you would have sang it from the roof tops.
-
Isn't that just another name for perverting the course of justice? If so, then again, I think it requires a positive act as opposed to an omission.
Surely 'keeping quiet' in such instances as this is 'conspiring' to pervert the course of justice!!
-
Julie received an ambiguous telephone call in the middle of the night when she was feeling groggy and upon returning to bed realized the import of the telephone call. The last thing Julie wanted was the involvement of the Police:she didn't want to see Jeremy go to jail,she was still unsure as to who actually had murdered them,and the Osea Road and cheque book incidents meant that she might end up with a criminal record.The way the investigation was proceeding was four murders and a suicide decided no less by the Chief of Essex Police DCI Taff Jones. Of course Julie must have had regrets,but it was too late as the victims were already dead.
If that were to represent her defence I should think a guilty verdict against her would almost be a foregone conclusion? "I'm sorry that I didn't report this for a few weeks officer. But after all the victims were dead already". Anyway I didn't want Jeremy to go to gaol and I certainly didn't want to go there myself".
-
Surely 'keeping quiet' in such instances as this is 'conspiring' to pervert the course of justice!!
It seems not, but I'm happy to be corrected. If she'd actually lied in an effort to protect him then maybe, but staying quiet doesn't seem to be enough.
-
Must she though?? I'm not sure we actually have an offence of accessory after the fact anymore in this country and the nearest I can find (assisting an offender) requires a positive act rather than just a failure to say anything, as does perverting the course of justice. There is also an offence of concealing an offence, but that requires payment of some sort. I suppose the money he gave her for a holiday could amount to that, but it would be difficult to prove that that was the purpose. Was there anything in her early statements that was identified at trial or appeal as a deliberate lie?
Maybe NGB could help us out here, it'd be interesting to find out what the actual position would be.
I am not sure? But I believe the law says that you have a duty to report a crime and in failing to do that you may by that action be aiding and abetting that criminal?
-
Surely 'keeping quiet' in such instances as this is 'conspiring' to pervert the course of justice!!
Hi Caroline
I find it difficult to believe that it's not illegal. Also Rivlin said he went through JM's stats with a fine tooth combe for inconsistencies!!?? Was the jury denied yet another opportunity to weigh up all the evidence ie her change of heart from wit stat of 8th Aug to 8th/9th Sep along with the silencer potentially being contaminated either accidentally or deliberately!!??
-
Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.
The other side of that coin is that she was much more streetwise and a much stronger character than Jeremy and was capable of encouraging him to do all kinds of things that his parents wouldn't have approved of. He probably got a kick out of pleasing her and possibly one of his chat up lines may have been that one day he's be wealthy. I imagine she encouraged him to do things that would benefit her. Despite your protestations to the contrary I think her raison d'etre was financial and she was determined to take all that life with Jeremy could offer. Whether it was love or avarice is questionable but I feel determination had much to do with it and it paid off in the end. She did become a wealthy young woman but not quite in the way she's planned.
-
Your fashion photographs are irrelevant to the case. I don't defend everything Julie did and she would be the first to admit she has made mistakes,but from my point of view the crimes above which she perpetrated either to please Jeremy or because she was under his spell are as sickening as the mainly female contingent Jeremy has amassed in his continuing charismatic web of deceit spun to trap the very individuals in it now as it did with Julie almost 28 years ago.
Is this a true statement? Are you sure she would be the first to admit this?
-
I am not sure? But I believe the law says that you have a duty to report a crime and in failing to do that you may by that action be aiding and abetting that criminal?
We still bring crimes of war criminals to justice don't we? Is that not the same thing....after the fact... :-\ :) :) :)
-
We still bring crimes of war criminals to justice don't we? Is that not the same thing....after the fact... :-\ :) :) :)
Well I think we're aiding and abetting a criminal by our silence, knowing that he has committed a crime, love for that person is not counted as a valid reason.
-
I am not sure? But I believe the law says that you have a duty to report a crime and in failing to do that you may by that action be aiding and abetting that criminal?
From what I can see that is only an offence if you receive 'consideration' for not disclosing the information. But I'm way out of my comfort zone here, hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about will assist ;)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/5
-
This is an extract from Blackstones Criminal Practice 2012. It refers to the offence of assisting an offender but the wider comment is relevant:
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-MhyGeG3jbag/UX17raHEGTI/AAAAAAAACrM/gcGhrg_TPAI/s2048/IMAGE_FD89C7A1-DD3C-4D6C-8D44-86965EF0BC6B.JPG)
-
Well I think where aiding and abetting a criminal by our silence, knowing that he has committed a crime, love for that person is not counted as a valid reason.
I don't understand legal stuff or criminal cases....Does it not depend on what the law legislated at the time the supposed crime was committed? For example if I wore a seatbelt on the 19th and the law did not come into power till 20th then I would not be charged with that offence.
If I passed a speed camera I might not get charged on the day I passed it, but a few days later I will receive notification that I had been charged with the offence and this is because the law was in legislation at the time I committed the offence.
You see how I make things up lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can't believe that 'witholding' vital evidence in the early stages of a police investigation into the murder of 5 people is not a criminal offence and punishable as such.
Had JB have walked would the prosecution, police, relatives, media etc have accepted that JB was innocent, or would they have turned on JM and said had she not have witheld vital information on day 2 when she made her first wit stat more evidence would have been preserved and a conviction more likely?
-
Hi Caroline
I find it difficult to believe that it's not illegal. Also Rivlin said he went through JM's stats with a fine tooth combe for inconsistencies!!?? Was the jury denied yet another opportunity to weigh up all the evidence ie her change of heart from wit stat of 8th Aug to 8th/9th Sep along with the silencer potentially being contaminated either accidentally or deliberately!!??
Hi NN, I have to agree - however, I am sure some where along the line she was offered immunity!!
-
Hi NN, I have to agree - however, I am sure some where along the line she was offered immunity!!
I thought the offer of immunity related to the cheque book fraud only?
-
I thought the offer of immunity related to the cheque book fraud only?
We don´t know that. She isn´t going to tell us, I am sure, and neither is Essex Police.
-
Even with access to Julie's statement it was the head of investigation DCI Taff Jones' belief that they were dealing with four murders and a suicide,so Julie can hardly be blamed for that.
-
I thought the offer of immunity related to the cheque book fraud only?
I'm sure it related to that 'as well' ;)
-
I can't believe that 'witholding' vital evidence in the early stages of a police investigation into the murder of 5 people is not a criminal offence and punishable as such.
Had JB have walked would the prosecution, police, relatives, media etc have accepted that JB was innocent, or would they have turned on JM and said had she not have witheld vital information on day 2 when she made her first wit stat more evidence would have been preserved and a conviction more likely?
I think it depends if she gave Bamber a false alibi or not? Did she do or say anything to the police about the murders before she gave her testimony?
-
We don´t know that. She isn´t going to tell us, I am sure, and neither is Essex Police.
This one of those things in this case that causes me to doubt certain things. I really would like to know what actually went on "behind the scenes" in regards to JM and Essex Police.
-
Even with access to Julie's statement it was the head of investigation DCI Taff Jones' belief that they were dealing with four murders and a suicide,so Julie can hardly be blamed for that.
We aren't blaming her for that. We are blaming her for knowing certain things that the police did not know and yet held back on what she did know. If indeed what she knew was true of course?
-
I think it depends if she gave Bamber a false alibi or not? Did she do or say anything to the police about the murders before she gave her testimony?
Hi Lugg
JM states in her wit stat dated 7th/8th SEPT that she asked JB on 7th AUG if he did it. He stated no he did not but MM did. However when JM gave her first wit stat on 8th AUG she makes no ref to JB's confession of 7th AUG. So surely witholding vital information highly relevant to a major crime is a criminal offence?
JM did not provide JB with an alibi.
-
Even with access to Julie's statement it was the head of investigation DCI Taff Jones' belief that they were dealing with four murders and a suicide,so Julie can hardly be blamed for that.
Yes and imo he was/is spot on and this is further supported by JM's wit stat of 8th Aug. However, if he is guilty, and I don't for one minute believe that he is, then had JM have 'fessed' up on 8th Aug DCI Taff Jones would, I'm sure, have been all ears. He would not have been able to say 'arr but you're a scorned woman aren't you'? The police would then have treated the soc differently: thorough search of WHF and a find of the silencer, preserved the carpets, put a stop to the cremations. Had she have feared not being taken seriously then at least her conscience would have been clear. Why did she not discuss this with her mother or another family member or a friend or Colin or Ann Eaton when she left the morgue? I would suggest because it was all a pack of lies. I don't buy into your ridiculous excuse that she was love struck and spell bound by JB. In one breath you would have us believe that JB is in the bottom 10% of the population in terms of iq, which would render him unable to carry out all but the simplest taks, and on the other hand according to you he is capable of sweet talking, controlling and manipulating a woman educated to degree level ::) ::) ::)
I find the tone/style of JM's wit stat on 8th Aug completely different to her later ones. I guess she had a 'helping hand' with the others? Anyone agree?
-
Isn't that just another name for perverting the course of justice? If so, then again, I think it requires a positive act as opposed to an omission.
Miss Bridget
I think it might be slightly different?
Withholding info = impeding a police investigation? Check out Milly Dowler/NOTW?
-
Yes and imo he was/is spot on and this is further supported by JM's wit stat of 8th Aug. However, if he is guilty, and I don't for one minute believe that he is, then had JM have 'fessed' up on 8th Aug DCI Taff Jones would, I'm sure, have been all ears. He would not have been able to say 'arr but you're a scorned woman aren't you'? The police would then have treated the soc differently: thorough search of WHF and a find of the silencer, preserved the carpets, put a stop to the cremations. Had she have feared not being taken seriously then at least her conscience would have been clear. Why did she not discuss this with her mother or another family member or a friend or Colin or Ann Eaton when she left the morgue? I would suggest because it was all a pack of lies. I don't buy into your ridiculous excuse that she was love struck and spell bound by JB. In one breath you would have us believe that JB is in the bottom 10% of the population in terms of iq, which would render him unable to carry out all but the simplest taks, and on the other hand according to you he is capable of sweet talking, controlling and manipulating a woman educated to degree level ::) ::) ::)
I find the tone/style of JM's wit stat on 8th Aug completely different to her later ones. I guess she had a 'helping hand' with the others? Anyone agree?
Great post NN.
-
Yes and imo he was/is spot on and this is further supported by JM's wit stat of 8th Aug. However, if he is guilty, and I don't for one minute believe that he is, then had JM have 'fessed' up on 8th Aug DCI Taff Jones would, I'm sure, have been all ears. He would not have been able to say 'arr but you're a scorned woman aren't you'? The police would then have treated the soc differently: thorough search of WHF and a find of the silencer, preserved the carpets, put a stop to the cremations. Had she have feared not being taken seriously then at least her conscience would have been clear. Why did she not discuss this with her mother or another family member or a friend or Colin or Ann Eaton when she left the morgue? I would suggest because it was all a pack of lies. I don't buy into your ridiculous excuse that she was love struck and spell bound by JB. In one breath you would have us believe that JB is in the bottom 10% of the population in terms of iq, which would render him unable to carry out all but the simplest taks, and on the other hand according to you he is capable of sweet talking, controlling and manipulating a woman educated to degree level ::) ::) ::)
I find the tone/style of JM's wit stat on 8th Aug completely different to her later ones. I guess she had a 'helping hand' with the others? Anyone agree?
Totally and absolutely!! :)
-
I thought that aiding and abetting or accessory can refer to knowing that a crime has been committed (before or after) and not reporting it?
-
I thought that aiding and abetting or accessory can refer to knowing that a crime has been committed (before or after) and not reporting it?
That's the way I understood too!! NGB surely knows??
-
Hi NN, I have to agree - however, I am sure some where along the line she was offered immunity!!
The other significant thing to remember, is that Julie Mugford was initially interviewed under caution, but the details of that initial police interview has never been disclosed, it is beingwitheld under pii
presumeably because she said things in that interview which exposes the later witness statements as a pack of lies, and shows how DS Jones has put words into her mouth later on - at least this is what I have been told by a spook...
-
The other significant thing to remember, is that Julie Mugford was initially interviewed under caution, but the details of that initial police interview has never been disclosed, it is beingwitheld under pii
presumeably because she said things in that interview which exposes the later witness statements as a pack of lies, and shows how DS Jones has put words into her mouth later on - at least this is what I have been told by a spook...
In the withheld police interview under caution, Mugford speaks about things she suspects Jeremy to have done, not what she knows he has done, she tells DS Jones that Jeremy has dumped her and been cheating on her with her best friend, and she tells DS Jones, that she is prepared to do anything, and say anything to help the police arrest Jeremy for the burglary at Osea Road Camp site, and drug related offences, and cheque book fraud. When prompted by DS Jones in the interview, about wther or not she thought Jeremy had got anything to do with the deaths of his family, she replied, "I don't think so, but if you want me to say he did I will co-operate with anything the police want me to do, or say"...
-
I thought that aiding and abetting or accessory can refer to knowing that a crime has been committed (before or after) and not reporting it?
That may be because the police always put that slant on it when bullying I mean questioning people? This may have been the way they questioned Mugford?
-
Yes and imo he was/is spot on and this is further supported by JM's wit stat of 8th Aug. However, if he is guilty, and I don't for one minute believe that he is, then had JM have 'fessed' up on 8th Aug DCI Taff Jones would, I'm sure, have been all ears. He would not have been able to say 'arr but you're a scorned woman aren't you'? The police would then have treated the soc differently: thorough search of WHF and a find of the silencer, preserved the carpets, put a stop to the cremations. Had she have feared not being taken seriously then at least her conscience would have been clear. Why did she not discuss this with her mother or another family member or a friend or Colin or Ann Eaton when she left the morgue? I would suggest because it was all a pack of lies. I don't buy into your ridiculous excuse that she was love struck and spell bound by JB. In one breath you would have us believe that JB is in the bottom 10% of the population in terms of iq, which would render him unable to carry out all but the simplest taks, and on the other hand according to you he is capable of sweet talking, controlling and manipulating a woman educated to degree level ::) ::) ::)
I find the tone/style of JM's wit stat on 8th Aug completely different to her later ones. I guess she had a 'helping hand' with the others? Anyone agree?
Brilliant post, NaNu :)
-
Yes,,a very good post.
There should be a time limit as to how long documents/files etc,,should be retained by the PII after a crime,,,particularly if there IS a shadow of doubt on the conviction of that person. It's not right.
-
Miss Bridget
I think it might be slightly different?
Withholding info = impeding a police investigation? Check out Milly Dowler/NOTW?
That seems to be a phrase used by John Whittingdale as opposed to an actual charge. In any case, NOWT hacked Milly's phone and then claimed to have evidence that Milly was alive and living in the north of England, which would be a positive act.
You may find this interesting, it's guidance for academic researchers at Goldsmiths College who, in the course of their research, may come across or be told unreported information relating to criminal activities. From my reading of it there is no duty to disclose the information unless there is a specific duty under statute (for example offences of terrorism).
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/criminalbehaviourreport.doc
-
Mugford was interviewed under caution, and admitted how dishonest she was, she was a burglar, she was a drug dealor, she was a fraudster - as soon as dodgy Jones had enough evidence about such crimes, he had a duty to charge her with criminal offences, and either, grant her police bail, or produce her to the magistrate, who may grant her bail, or alternatively remand her in custody...
-
That seems to be a phrase used by John Whittingdale as opposed to an actual charge. In any case, NOWT hacked Milly's phone and then claimed to have evidence that Milly was alive and living in the north of England, which would be a positive act.
You may find this interesting, it's guidance for academic researchers at Goldsmiths College who, in the course of their research, may come across or be told unreported information relating to criminal activities. From my reading of it there is no duty to disclose the information unless there is a specific duty under statute (for example offences of terrorism).
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/criminalbehaviourreport.doc
Thank you Miss Bridget. I assume the above assignment is this week's homework? :) Just thought I'd say I don't mind if you mark my work in red :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10010509/Teachers-told-they-must-not-use-red-ink-for-marking-homework-in-case-it-upsets-pupils.html
I'm trained in the 'proceeds of crime act money laundering' and I know failure to support a suspicion is a criminal offence carrying a max 5 year prison sentence. Perhaps different rules apply to this as with terrorism.
-
Thank you Miss Bridget. I assume the above assignment is this week's homework? :) Just thought I'd say I don't mind if you mark my work in red :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10010509/Teachers-told-they-must-not-use-red-ink-for-marking-homework-in-case-it-upsets-pupils.html
I'm trained in the 'proceeds of crime act money laundering' and I know failure to report a suspicion is a criminal offence carrying a max 5 year prison sentence. Perhaps different rules apply to this as with terrorism.
Yes, POCA 2002 is another example of a statutory duty to report, there are probably others...treason is one I think?
-
Yes, POCA 2002 is another example of a statutory duty to report, there are probably others...treason is one I think?
Miss Bridget
I'm unsure how reliable this is but I struggle to comprehend that 'withholding' is not a criminal offence especially in a wit stat:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_be_arrested_for_Withholding_information_from_police
-
Miss Bridget
I'm unsure how reliable this is but I struggle to comprehend that 'withholding' is not a criminal offence especially in a wit stat:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_be_arrested_for_Withholding_information_from_police
I think that applies to US law which is different. It also contradicts itself if you read far enough through!
-
I think that applies to US law which is different. It also contradicts itself if you read far enough through!
Can't move thru' it on pc :-\ Did so on phone and seemed logical and pertinent to uk :-\
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc
See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii) still a bit ambiguous about 'withholding' :-\ But it was not true to the best of her knowledge and belief because according to JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep JM states that JB told her on 7th Aug that MM carried out the murders :-\
-
Only because Jeremy,,being without blame,,was trying to blame someone. He'd already blamed the relatives and indeed the police,,simply because he couldn't fathom out who would do such a thing.
It's human nature to start the blaming game when you know that it wasn't yourself.
-
Only because Jeremy,,being without blame,,was trying to blame someone. He'd already blamed the relatives and indeed the police,,simply because he couldn't fathom out who would do such a thing.
It's human nature to start the blaming game when you know that it wasn't yourself.
Hi Lookout
I don't personally believe JB ever introduced MM into the scenario. I think this was all JM's doing and a complete pack of lies.
I believe JM's wit stat of 8th Aug was the full truth period. However JB's prosecution was partly based on JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep where she states on 7th Aug JB told her MM was responsible ;) Therefore she must have lied in her wit stat of 8th Aug ;) and as such I believe that in itself is a criminal offence. So if we run with the prosecution as it stands why wasn't JM prosecuted as per the rules:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc
See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii)
-
Hi NN,,she should have been,,it goes without saying,,according to to the rules and procedures as per the justice.
-
Hi NN,,she should have been,,it goes without saying,,according to to the rules and procedures as per the justice.
Are you able to convince Miss Bridget ;)?
-
Are you able to convince Miss Bridget ;)?
I doubt it,NN. I wouldn't even try.
-
Are you able to convince Miss Bridget ;)?
Is the pope Hindu :)
-
Can't move thru' it on pc :-\ Did so on phone and seemed logical and pertinent to uk :-\
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc
See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii) still a bit ambiguous about 'withholding' :-\ But it was not true to the best of her knowledge and belief because according to JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep JM states that JB told her on 7th Aug that MM carried out the murders :-\
Well that is what he told her (according to her).
The procedure rules apply to the party wishing to introduce the evidence, not to the witness themself. The declaration the witness makes doesn't appear to cover withholding either.
-
Hi Lookout
I don't personally believe JB ever introduced MM into the scenario. I think this was all JM's doing and a complete pack of lies.
I believe JM's wit stat of 8th Aug was the full truth period. However JB's prosecution was partly based on JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep where she states on 7th Aug JB told her MM was responsible ;) Therefore she must have lied in her wit stat of 8th Aug ;) and as such I believe that in itself is a criminal offence. So if we run with the prosecution as it stands why wasn't JM prosecuted as per the rules:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc
See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii)
Nothing she said in her statement dated 8th August has been shown to be untrue. Of course to you and I there is such a thing as a lie by omission, but this doesn't appear to be an offence.
-
Are you able to convince Miss Bridget ;)?
Bridget is not the one that needs to be convinced. If ever there was a re trial, it would be the jury that ultimately decides what they believe and may the defence win....and given the fact JM did not come clean or made stories up because she was a scorned woman would not go down well...imo. :D :D :D :D
-
Well that is what he told her (according to her).
The procedure rules apply to the party wishing to introduce the evidence, not to the witness themself. The declaration the witness makes doesn't appear to cover withholding either.
Miss Bridget
I disagree with your interpretation of the rules insofar as I believe the procedure rules do apply to the witness if the witness statement is introduced as evidence.
-
Miss Bridget
I disagree with your interpretation of the rules insofar as I believe the procedure rules do apply to the witness if the witness statement is introduced as evidence.
Even if you are right, it still only requires certain information and a declaration to be included, it says nothing as to what must be included in the main body of the statement.
-
Nothing she said in her statement dated 8th August has been shown to be untrue. Of course to you and I there is such a thing as a lie by omission, but this doesn't appear to be an offence.
Miss Bridget
I disagree.
Wit stat 8th Aug
He told me he had supper with his parents during the conversation that evening and that he had a "pleasant as could be expected day due to harvesting". He did not make any more mention of the family.
Wit stat 8th/9th Sep
Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985...
...I said to him "You sound pissed off". He said, "I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never".
Look on the bright side you might end up having humble pie for supper instead of worms ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I asked NGB for his input but he said he likes to see women fight it out ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) He said he finds their illogical approach to legal matters endearing ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Hi Lookout
I don't personally believe JB ever introduced MM into the scenario. I think this was all JM's doing and a complete pack of lies.
I believe JM's wit stat of 8th Aug was the full truth period. However JB's prosecution was partly based on JM's wit stat of 8th/9th Sep where she states on 7th Aug JB told her MM was responsible ;) Therefore she must have lied in her wit stat of 8th Aug ;) and as such I believe that in itself is a criminal offence. So if we run with the prosecution as it stands why wasn't JM prosecuted as per the rules:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2012-part-27.doc
See 27.2 (b) (i) and (ii)
Julie didn't need to complicate matters by introducing Matthew McDonald into the equation and mentioning a ludicrous sum of £2000. Either she is telling the truth as spoken to her by Jeremy or she is risking making herself a laughing stock with Police when they examine her story.Your case against Julie anyway is that she garnered information from the Press and relatives and served it up second hand for the Police's benefit. Unfortunately Jeremy told Julie "a glove came off in the fight with Nevill..he put up a good fight for a man his age..",thus again gainsaying what you would like to be true.
-
Miss Bridget
I disagree.
Wit stat 8th Aug
He told me he had supper with his parents during the conversation that evening and that he had a "pleasant as could be expected day due to harvesting". He did not make any more mention of the family.
Wit stat 8th/9th Sep
Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985...
...I said to him "You sound pissed off". He said, "I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never".
Look on the bright side you might end up having humble pie for supper instead of worms ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I asked NGB for his input but he said he likes to see women fight it out ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) He said he finds their illogical approach to legal matters endearing ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Oh did he!
I see no particular inconsistency between those two statements.
-
Julie didn't need to complicate matters by introducing Matthew McDonald into the equation and mentioning a ludicrous sum of £2000. Either she is telling the truth as spoken to her by Jeremy or she is risking making herself a laughing stock with Police when they examine her story.Your case against Julie anyway is that she garnered information from the Press and relatives and served it up second hand for the Police's benefit. Unfortunately Jeremy told Julie "a glove came off in the fight with Nevill..he put up a good fight for a man his age..",thus again gainsaying what you would like to be true.
Hi Steve_uk
Is the above directed at me or Lookout?
-
All of you really. It's so much easier to tell the truth as Julie knows,when you can talk to your heart's content and clarify points where there may be ambiguities,rather than sit in front of Police for hours pulling threads from a white Arran sweater and mouthing continual "no comments" and "don't knows" with that sullen expression we have all come to know of the true Jeremy..
-
Miss Bridget
I disagree.
Wit stat 8th Aug
He told me he had supper with his parents during the conversation that evening and that he had a "pleasant as could be expected day due to harvesting". He did not make any more mention of the family.
Wit stat 8th/9th Sep
Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985...
...I said to him "You sound pissed off". He said, "I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never".
Look on the bright side you might end up having humble pie for supper instead of worms ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I asked NGB for his input but he said he likes to see women fight it out ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) He said he finds their illogical approach to legal matters endearing ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
In other words, he doesn´t know.... :P
-
All of you really. It's so much easier to tell the truth as Julie knows,when you can talk to your heart's content and clarify points where there may be ambiguities,rather than sit in front of Police for hours pulling threads from a white Arran sweater and mouthing continual "no comments" and "don't knows" with that sullen expression we have all come to know of the true Jeremy..
Funny, I have the impression of him fro photos, that he has a ready smile - and a warm smile at that. Can´t blame him for sullenness in the situation described.
-
In other words, he doesn´t know.... :P
lol
-
Hi steve are you sure he was wearing an Arran sweater ;D
-
Hi steve are you sure he was wearing an Arran sweater ;D
Or a sullen expression :)
-
I don't think I'd be laughing with joy at the prospect of having been being suspected of murder.
-
I don't think I'd be laughing with joy at the prospect of having been being suspected of murder.
No, but you would leave no stone unturned during interrogation to prove your innocence,not give "yes" or "no" answers which vouchsafed no information whatsoever delivered in a singsong tone whose procedure endured for hours..
-
Oh did he!
I see no particular inconsistency between those two statements.
Miss Bridget
I thought as much.
8th Aug = no further ref to family
8th/9th Sep = refers back to previous talk about killing family and then adds "tonight or never".
I've previously pointed out that JM's wit stats on blue are p**s poor quality. Our comepetitors appear in many ways more organised with better quality material. I'll ask one of the mods if this can be addressed.
-
Steve,,it was a mass murder,,the worst crime of its time,,,why wasn't the place immediately roped off.?
Why wasn't the area around the farmhouse ground methodically examined.?
Why wasn't the flooring inside the farmhouse methodically examined.?
Was there any odour on entry into the farmhouse.?
Were there any prints on the crockery.?
Were there any spent cigar/cigarettes in any ashtrays.?
Did you know that flooring inside a property is important when it comes to an investigation.?
If the repository where the silencer was fingerprinted,,where are the results.?
Because you say that Jeremy used the bicycle,,it would have been vital to have examined the outside area,,don't you agree.? Particularly outside the window area where you say he entered. ( yellow mud )
This is the nitty gritty of an investigation,and it wasn't carried out.
Instead,,it was easier to blame an innocent man than to have to carry out the duties of how an investigation should have been conducted.
Oh,,and outsiders should not have been allowed access to the farmhouse until on the say-so of the chief of police. Then again,,if the place had been roped off,,nobody would have been allowed near it while foot-printing was carried out.
I often wondered who the jury were and if any of them knew the outside family at all.
-
No, but you would leave no stone unturned during interrogation to prove your innocence,not give "yes" or "no" answers which vouchsafed no information whatsoever delivered in a singsong tone whose procedure endured for hours..
I have spent some time wondering how I would react under the same circumstances. I THINK it MAY go something like this. First round, I would answer questions to the best of my ability. Second round, again trying to be honest, I BET my answers would be slightly different. If it goes to a third round and the same questions are asked, but without my knowledge other people have been asked the same questions and given different answers, I would probably ask why the same questions were being asked. If it was pointed out several times that the previous time I'd been asked the question I'd given a different answer, I WOULD resort to "Yes" "No" and possibly "No comment" to prevent myself from becoming more muddled.
-
I have spent some time wondering how I would react under the same circumstances. I THINK it MAY go something like this. First round, I would answer questions to the best of my ability. Second round, again trying to be honest, I BET my answers would be slightly different. If it goes to a third round and the same questions are asked, but without my knowledge other people have been asked the same questions and given different answers, I would probably ask why the same questions were being asked. If it was pointed out several times that the previous time I'd been asked the question I'd given a different answer, I WOULD resort to "Yes" "No" and possibly "No comment" to prevent myself from becoming more muddled.
It is so easy sitting on the sideline judging the behaviour of people during police interviews, when in fact many of those sessions come close to being regular torture with snidy remarks, yelling, repetitions for hours and hours etc.
-
It is so easy sitting on the sideline judging the behaviour of people during police interviews, when in fact many of those sessions come close to being regular torture with snidy remarks, yelling, repetitions for hours and hours etc.
Yes and I believe JB's interviews were before the rules changed when all interviews were taped! Plus bear in mind JB was grieving the loss of his entire immediate adoptive family.
-
Yes and I believe JB's interviews were before the rules changed when all interviews were taped! Plus bear in mind JB was grieving the loss of his entire immediate adoptive family.
Why not just "family"? He had lost all of his immediate family.
-
It is so easy sitting on the sideline judging the behaviour of people during police interviews, when in fact many of those sessions come close to being regular torture with snidy remarks, yelling, repetitions for hours and hours etc.
Alias Hi. Yes it's easy to imagine a polite civilized discussion laced with regular cups of tea and cigarette breaks but as you say it would come close to torture after a few hours and under those circumstances the mask of civilization, which is only just skin deep at the best of times, would fall away.
-
Why not just "family"? He had lost all of his immediate family.
To distinguish between birth and adoptive :) An adopted person has at least two families :)
-
Steve,,it was a mass murder,,the worst crime of its time,,,why wasn't the place immediately roped off.?
Why wasn't the area around the farmhouse ground methodically examined.?
Why wasn't the flooring inside the farmhouse methodically examined.?
Was there any odour on entry into the farmhouse.?
Were there any prints on the crockery.?
Were there any spent cigar/cigarettes in any ashtrays.?
Did you know that flooring inside a property is important when it comes to an investigation.?
If the repository where the silencer was fingerprinted,,where are the results.?
Because you say that Jeremy used the bicycle,,it would have been vital to have examined the outside area,,don't you agree.? Particularly outside the window area where you say he entered. ( yellow mud )
This is the nitty gritty of an investigation,and it wasn't carried out.
Instead,,it was easier to blame an innocent man than to have to carry out the duties of how an investigation should have been conducted.
Oh,,and outsiders should not have been allowed access to the farmhouse until on the say-so of the chief of police. Then again,,if the place had been roped off,,nobody would have been allowed near it while foot-printing was carried out.
I often wondered who the jury were and if any of them knew the outside family at all.
The Zeitgeist of the 1980s was that a small clique knew how to run this country,they often as not spoke with plummy accents and had an air of credibility and efficiency about them,when we know from experience that this often wasn't the case. Both DCI Taff Jones and Julie Mugford were outsiders to the Home Counties culture and faced with a personage such as Jeremy Bamber who played his part so well he remarked to Julie the first chance he could "I should have been an actor",the head of investigation was fooled and White House Farm was not treated as a crime scene. Although this was undoubtedly a serious affair as you say I still think that had Sheila in a state of psychosis killed five people with 25 rounds of ammunition there would be some trace left for investigators to link to her upon entry and not the ambiguity which remains to this day.
-
To distinguish between birth and adoptive :) An adopted person has at least two families :)
I notice you never say just family when it comes to Jeremy or Sheila. Jeremy doesn´t really have two families - he never med any of his birth relatives, and Sheila only met her birth mother briefly.
Personally I prefer the term, family without the adopted - it seems to imply some sort of wedge existing at all times.
-
I notice you never say just family when it comes to Jeremy or Sheila. Jeremy doesn´t really have two families - he never med any of his birth relatives, and Sheila only met her birth mother briefly.
Personally I prefer the term, family without the adopted - it seems to imply some sort of wedge existing at all times.
Hear hear Alias.
-
I notice you never say just family when it comes to Jeremy or Sheila. Jeremy doesn´t really have two families - he never med any of his birth relatives, and Sheila only met her birth mother briefly.
Personally I prefer the term, family without the adopted - it seems to imply some sort of wedge existing at all times.
I frequently refer to my mother as "my adoptive mother" because neither of us was what the other wanted. However, I refer to her nieces and nephews as my cousins because although we are only just getting to really know each other, I'm very fond of them, and they, me. My personal feeling is that neither Jeremy nor Sheila was fully accepted by their adoptive family, although of course, they would never admit it, so it seems appropriate to refer to them as an "adopted family".
-
I frequently refer to my mother as "my adoptive mother" because neither of us was what the other wanted. However, I refer to her nieces and nephews as my cousins because although we are only just getting to really know each other, I'm very fond of them, and they, me. My personal feeling is that neither Jeremy nor Sheila was fully accepted by their adoptive family, although of course, they would never admit it, so it seems appropriate to refer to them as an "adopted family".
So the two people have never mentioned it but you 'feel' they weren't accepted? Based on what? The cuckoo lie? What?
-
I frequently refer to my mother as "my adoptive mother" because neither of us was what the other wanted. However, I refer to her nieces and nephews as my cousins because although we are only just getting to really know each other, I'm very fond of them, and they, me. My personal feeling is that neither Jeremy nor Sheila was fully accepted by their adoptive family, although of course, they would never admit it, so it seems appropriate to refer to them as an "adopted family".
So it's appropriate for you, because that is the way you perceive their relationships. It's telling then that neither JB or Sheila referred to their family that way.
-
So some agree with me, others don´t. Fair enough, especially since the ones who don´t are both adopted. We have a couple of adopted children in my immediate family - no one refers to or thinks about them as adopted. To us they are family, and very loved kids, I might add.
-
So some agree with me, others don´t. Fair enough, especially since the ones who don´t are both adopted. We have a couple of adopted children in my immediate family - no one refers to or thinks about them as adopted. To us they are family, and very loved kids, I might add.
My uncle is adopted and it never even enters my head most of the time, or any of my family. I only think of it when subjects like this come up.
-
My personal feeling is that neither Jeremy nor Sheila was fully accepted by their adoptive family, although of course, they would never admit it, so it seems appropriate to refer to them as an "adopted family".
Can I ask, April. What are you basing your personal feeling on? What documents, statements or comments?
-
So some agree with me, others don´t. Fair enough, especially since the ones who don´t are both adopted. We have a couple of adopted children in my immediate family - no one refers to or thinks about them as adopted. To us they are family, and very loved kids, I might add.
I agree with you Alias but can also understand some children never feel 'at home' in their adoptive families, for various reasons. Personally I generally forget my children are adopted unless I stop and think about it and I think on many levels it's the same for my children, fortunately for me. ;D
-
The Zeitgeist of the 1980s was that a small clique knew how to run this country,they often as not spoke with plummy accents and had an air of credibility and efficiency about them,when we know from experience that this often wasn't the case. Both DCI Taff Jones and Julie Mugford were outsiders to the Home Counties culture and faced with a personage such as Jeremy Bamber who played his part so well he remarked to Julie the first chance he could "I should have been an actor",the head of investigation was fooled and White House Farm was not treated as a crime scene. Although this was undoubtedly a serious affair as you say I still think that had Sheila in a state of psychosis killed five people with 25 rounds of ammunition there would be some trace left for investigators to link to her upon entry and not the ambiguity which remains to this day.
Dear Steve,,,you should have been a politician. Why.? Because you evaded my questions.
The someone speaks is down to their environment and it really shouldn't be an issue in a murder investigation. Yes,,Jeremy spoke differently,,but that's all part and parcel of being well-bred,,and there are a lot of people who don't like that for some unknown reason. Possibly their ignorance.
There is plenty to link Sheila to the crimes,,but nothing to link Jeremy,,except the way he spoke.
-
Dear Steve,,,you should have been a politician. Why.? Because you evaded my questions.
The someone speaks is down to their environment and it really shouldn't be an issue in a murder investigation. Yes,,Jeremy spoke differently,,but that's all part and parcel of being well-bred,,and there are a lot of people who don't like that for some unknown reason. Possibly their ignorance.
There is plenty to link Sheila to the crimes,,but nothing to link Jeremy,,except the way he spoke.
So he was convicted because of his accent? Laughable rubbish.
What about all the witnesses? Didnt they have the same accents?
-
Dear Steve,,,you should have been a politician. Why.? Because you evaded my questions.
The someone speaks is down to their environment and it really shouldn't be an issue in a murder investigation. Yes,,Jeremy spoke differently,,but that's all part and parcel of being well-bred,,and there are a lot of people who don't like that for some unknown reason. Possibly their ignorance.
There is plenty to link Sheila to the crimes,,but nothing to link Jeremy,,except the way he spoke.
I've answered your#431 fully because DCI Taff Jones was frightened of provoking a young man with a posh accent which might have resulted in a complaint to his superiors and that calamity of losing your job in the Thatcher era which kept everyone conforming to the accepted norm.
-
I notice you never say just family when it comes to Jeremy or Sheila. Jeremy doesn´t really have two families - he never med any of his birth relatives, and Sheila only met her birth mother briefly.
Personally I prefer the term, family without the adopted - it seems to imply some sort of wedge existing at all times.
Yes I would say the way closed adoptions were engineered in the baby scoop era ensured that a wedge existed. Good explanation.
My view is that many believed JB was capable of killing his family as they were not his 'real' family. By many I mean the jury, police, media etc. When I said he lost his adoptive family in my post I was trying to emphasise that this would be a 'loss'.
-
Alias/Mat/Vic.......and Maggie who knows about my circumstances. I'm always delighted to hear about successful adoptions. In a perfect world they would all be successful but sadly that's not the case. Mat, you ask what my personal feelings are based on. The answer to that is personal experience. There are huge parallels between my life pattern and that of Jeremy and Sheila and I certainly know what it feels like not to fit.
It wouldn't have been unreasonable for the Bambers to expect that the children they adopted would blend in in such a way that no demarcation line was discernable but it seems it may not have worked out like that. We do know that Sheila, if her letter is to be believed,was desperate for June's approval and I feel certain that, if RB's diary is anything to go by, farming was not a natural vocation for Jeremy.
I'd like to say something about what Ann has said of Sheila. I've had it pointed out to me that it was a witness statement, not a memoir, but whilst she has nothing positive to say of her, she does say that when Sheila visited for lunch, all she wanted to do was talk and how she was too busy to listen. She gives the impression that she had no common ground with Sheila.
I haven't pulled these thoughts out of the ether. I've based them in part on my own experiences and in part from what has been said by the family. Undoubtedly, some of you will feel that I've misinterpreted what I've read.
PS. Should have included Bridget in the above. Apologies.
-
So it's appropriate for you, because that is the way you perceive their relationships. It's telling then that neither JB or Sheila referred to their family that way.
You've got some answering to do...straight up I've had for dinner: liver, mashed potato, cabbage and gravy and I swear its referring to you as Miss Bridget has made me feel all nostalgic ;D ;D ;D
See Dr F's wit stat:
"In fact when I refer to Sheila's parents I mean her adopted parents" (Should read 'adoptive')
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1199.0.html
-
Alias/Mat/Vic.......and Maggie who knows about my circumstances. I'm always delighted to hear about successful adoptions. In a perfect world they would all be successful but sadly that's not the case. Mat, you ask what my personal feelings are based on. The answer to that is personal experience. There are huge parallels between my life pattern and that of Jeremy and Sheila and I certainly know what it feels like not to fit.
It wouldn't have been unreasonable for the Bambers to expect that the children they adopted would blend in in such a way that no demarcation line was discernable but it seems it may not have worked out like that. We do know that Sheila, if her letter is to be believed,was desperate for June's approval and I feel certain that, if RB's diary is anything to go by, farming was not a natural vocation for Jeremy.
I'd like to say something about what Ann has said of Sheila. I've had it pointed out to me that it was a witness statement, not a memoir, but whilst she has nothing positive to say of her, she does say that when Sheila visited for lunch, all she wanted to do was talk and how she was too busy to listen. She gives the impression that she had no common ground with Sheila.
I haven't pulled these thoughts out of the ether. I've based them in part on my own experiences and in part from what has been said by the family. Undoubtedly, some of you will feel that I've misinterpreted what I've read.
April 100%. Of course non-adoptees are not going to understand adoption psychology why would they? How could they?
-
April 100%. Of course non-adoptees are not going to understand adoption psychology why would they? How could they?
NaNu THANKYOU :) Sometimes it feels as if I'm speaking a language nobody understands. I certainly felt jumped on from a great height.
-
Alias/Mat/Vic.......and Maggie who knows about my circumstances. I'm always delighted to hear about successful adoptions. In a perfect world they would all be successful but sadly that's not the case. Mat, you ask what my personal feelings are based on. The answer to that is personal experience. There are huge parallels between my life pattern and that of Jeremy and Sheila and I certainly know what it feels like not to fit.
It wouldn't have been unreasonable for the Bambers to expect that the children they adopted would blend in in such a way that no demarcation line was discernable but it seems it may not have worked out like that. We do know that Sheila, if her letter is to be believed,was desperate for June's approval and I feel certain that, if RB's diary is anything to go by, farming was not a natural vocation for Jeremy.
I'd like to say something about what Ann has said of Sheila. I've had it pointed out to me that it was a witness statement, not a memoir, but whilst she has nothing positive to say of her, she does say that when Sheila visited for lunch, all she wanted to do was talk and how she was too busy to listen. She gives the impression that she had no common ground with Sheila.
I haven't pulled these thoughts out of the ether. I've based them in part on my own experiences and in part from what has been said by the family. Undoubtedly, some of you will feel that I've misinterpreted what I've read.
This happens all the time in non-adoptive families. I know from close quarters, and it is not fair in any way, but we are three sisters, and my mother never could stand my middle sister- It is her own biological child she simply dislikes.
My sister is desperate for my mother´s approval. Sadly I don´t think she will ever get it.
Not only a problem in adoptive families.
-
You've got some answering to do...straight up I've had for dinner: liver, mashed potato, cabbage and gravy and I swear its referring to you as Miss Bridget has made me feel all nostalgic ;D ;D ;D
See Dr F's wit stat:
"In fact when I refer to Sheila's parents I mean her adopted parents" (Should read 'adoptive')
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1199.0.html
Ok Miss Nun :)
Wtf does Dr F's comment have to do with the price of fish?
-
This happens all the time in non-adoptive families. I know from close quarters, and it is not fair in any way, but we are three sisters, and my mother never could stand my middle sister- It is her own biological child she simply dislikes.
My sister is desperate for my mother´s approval. Sadly I don´t think she will ever get it.
Not only a problem in adoptive families.
Alias, we've been here numerous times. Of course it happens in biological families but IMO there is greater pressure placed on the adopted child/the adopted child may feel there is greater pressure placed on it. I couldn't have been more different from my adoptive mother who had been told that "It will grow into your ways" I never did and I think I always knew she neither loved me nor liked me and your sister may well have felt exactly the same as I did. The need for approval was HUGE but not once did I get it. I was still trying though, 4 hrs before she died. My heart aches for your sister.
-
I've answered your#431 fully because DCI Taff Jones was frightened of provoking a young man with a posh accent which might have resulted in a complaint to his superiors and that calamity of losing your job in the Thatcher era which kept everyone conforming to the accepted norm.
Steve,,,I'm going to swear--------------ffs. >:(
"Frightened of provoking a man with a posh accent.?"
-
Ok Miss Nun :)
Wtf does Dr F's comment have to do with the price of fish?
Hey I'm multi-tasking: dinner, cleaning, drinking wine and posting ;D ;D ;D Perhaps I should have responded to Alias' post re why the differentiation between adoptive and birth parents.
What does your post have to do with the price of fish?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1199.0.html
-
Steve,,,I'm going to swear--------------ffs. >:(
"Frightened of provoking a man with a posh accent.?"
Lookout, if Steve speaks anything like he writes, he must have a mouthful of plum stones............as well as a very curious sense of humour :D :D :D :D
-
Lookout, if Steve speaks anything like he writes, he must have a mouthful of plum stones............as well as a very curious sense of humour :D :D :D :D
I think he has all those,April. He'd run a mile if he heard my language. ;D ;D ;D
-
This happens all the time in non-adoptive families. I know from close quarters, and it is not fair in any way, but we are three sisters, and my mother never could stand my middle sister- It is her own biological child she simply dislikes.
My sister is desperate for my mother´s approval. Sadly I don´t think she will ever get it.
Not only a problem in adoptive families.
Alias sorry to hear this. But your sister was never left thinking 'arr bet if she was my 'real' mother it would be different. Plus she did not have to deal with all the issues that an adoptee brought up in a closed adoption has to deal with even if they have a good or ok relationship with their adoptive parents.
-
I've answered your#431 fully because DCI Taff Jones was frightened of provoking a young man with a posh accent which might have resulted in a complaint to his superiors and that calamity of losing your job in the Thatcher era which kept everyone conforming to the accepted norm.
Well if he ever had a "posh" accent he's certainly lost it now. I've yet to meet a farming family with posh accents round these parts. Maybe you're listening to too many Archers episodes? ;D
-
Hey I'm multi-tasking: dinner, cleaning, drinking wine and posting ;D ;D ;D Perhaps I should have responded to Alias' post re why the differentiation between adoptive and birth parents.
What does your post have to do with the price of fish?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1199.0.html
Don't get the tasks mixed up or you'll end up drowning yourself whilst tipping your dinner all over the keyboard. ;D
-
Alias, we've been here numerous times. Of course it happens in biological families but IMO there is greater pressure placed on the adopted child/the adopted child may feel there is greater pressure placed on it. I couldn't have been more different from my adoptive mother who had been told that "It will grow into your ways" I never did and I think I always knew she neither loved me nor liked me and your sister may well have felt exactly the same as I did. The need for approval was HUGE but not once did I get it. I was still trying though, 4 hrs before she died. My heart aches for your sister.
Mine too. And for you and others who feel unloved by their parents, adoptive or not. It just is such a basic thing in life. All children deserve nothing less than unconditional love and acceptance for exactly who they are.
-
Mine too. And for you and others who feel unloved by their parents, adoptive or not. It just is such a basic thing in life. All children deserve nothing less than unconditional love and acceptance for exactly who they are.
Alias may I ask do you think Sheila felt loved and accepted by June?
-
Alias may I ask do you think Sheila felt loved and accepted by June?
I have to be diplomatic and say, I don´t know. I don´t know how June felt, I don´t have enough knowledge about her. She had some mental problems during the faze where she should have bonded with her child, and that most likely damaged their relationship. The early bonding is so important.
Still, June could have loved her daughter and accepted her. It seems the Bambers went to great lengths to help and accomodate Sheila.
I don´t know, NN.
-
NN,,times have changed since the 60's/70's and 80's,,where emotions weren't as openly expressed as today.
Years ago,,as long as parents fed,clothed and looked after children to the best of their ability,,it was sufficient and acceptable. Their duties were done. I would say that most were kissed goodnight,then in the morning on their way to school,,and maybe as infants were perched on parents knees while stories were read to them,,as in my own household,,but no outward show of emotion. Children weren't molly-coddled either,,they were taught such things as good manners,courtesy,,good morals.
-
I'm not adopted, had a cousin who was.
Parents provided me with everything I needed, looked after me. Were never big on hugs or kisses or the word 'love'.
But I think it's all just personal experiences and not really relevant to the case at all.
-
NN,,love was expressed in the prepared meals that you sat down to after school.
The beautifully laundered clothes and clean beds. There's more to love than hanging on to someone and pampering them. Values were entirely different. Pity they didn't exist today.
-
Mine too. And for you and others who feel unloved by their parents, adoptive or not. It just is such a basic thing in life. All children deserve nothing less than unconditional love and acceptance for exactly who they are.
Very true Alias, I cannot understand how a grown man or woman cannot give love to a child who needs it. It shouldn't be about bloodline or race but about humanity.
-
Well if he ever had a "posh" accent he's certainly lost it now. I've yet to meet a farming family with posh accents round these parts. Maybe you're listening to too many Archers episodes? ;D
He was hurrying Police from the outset with the telephone call whilst casually flicking through Yellow Pages himself knowing full well the occupants of the Farm were all dead. He then successfully achieved procrastination with his lie that Sheila had recently been indulging in target practice. Whatever the accent his stentorian tone was in evidence when he told DS Stan Jones to have Crispy put down.
-
He was hurrying Police from the outset with the telephone call whilst casually flicking through Yellow Pages himself knowing full well the occupants of the Farm were all dead. He then successfully achieved procrastination with his lie that Sheila had recently been indulging in target practice. Whatever the accent his stentorian tone was in evidence when he told DS Stan Jones to have Crispy put down.
Steve for goodness sake there's absolutely no proof any of that happened and it was a joint decision to have crispy put down. You just make it up as you go along.
-
Steve for goodness sake there's absolutely no proof any of that happened and it was a joint decision to have crispy put down. You just make it up as you go along.
Who was it a joint decision between, Maggie?
I do remember reading the documents someone posted (Patti maybe) in which Crispie was talked about, but it was a long time back.
-
Didnt Bamber hate the dog, afraid it would chew the wires to his Hi-Fi ?
-
Who was it a joint decision between, Maggie?
I do remember reading the documents someone posted (Patti maybe) in which Crispie was talked about, but it was a long time back.
If I remember rightly it was originally susan who asked ngb about what happened to Crispy. I have forgotten Ngbs answer but Susan could tell you exactly. I think Crispy had bitten Jeremy in the past and he asked Ann to look after him and Ann had the little dog put down but Susan is te expert (or ngb).
-
He was hurrying Police from the outset with the telephone call whilst casually flicking through Yellow Pages himself knowing full well the occupants of the Farm were all dead. He then successfully achieved procrastination with his lie that Sheila had recently been indulging in target practice. Whatever the accent his stentorian tone was in evidence when he told DS Stan Jones to have Crispy put down.
What has that got to do with "posh" accents? You said in effect that Taff Jones felt threatened by Jeremy's posh accent. I said he didn't have one.
-
Didnt Bamber hate the dog, afraid it would chew the wires to his Hi-Fi ?
The fact is none of them liked him, not only Jeremy. In effect no one wanted him either.
-
Even if you are right, it still only requires certain information and a declaration to be included, it says nothing as to what must be included in the main body of the statement.
Morning Miss Bridget
The only criteria for the main body is that it is true to the the best of the witness' knowledge and belief. Imo this wasn't the case as set out in my post #418. It was more than an omission or withholding.
-
I notice you never say just family when it comes to Jeremy or Sheila. Jeremy doesn´t really have two families - he never med any of his birth relatives, and Sheila only met her birth mother briefly.
Personally I prefer the term, family without the adopted - it seems to imply some sort of wedge existing at all times.
Hi Alias
In addition to my post of yesterday, if you care to have a look at page 1 and 2 of AE's wit stats on this thread you will see that she refers to SC and JB as June and NB's adopted children not just their children. There may be further references on the other pages but I just specifically recall pages 1 and 2 and haven't got time now to go through the other pages.
Also pretty much the first entry in RB's diary recounts an incident where JB was supposedly teased at school about being a bastard which RB appears to attribute in some way to the murders :'(
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=246.0;attach=635
As an adoptee I have to agree to some degree that there are fundamental differences between birth and adoptive families. More so with 'closed' adoptions. There is a mountain of professional evidence to support this. Also the fact that adoptive parents received no pre or post adoption counselling did not help matters. This was perhaps due to the fact that when 'closed' adoptions were arranged most professionals thought like posters on the forum ie no difference between birth and adoptive families. But many poor outcomes, as evidenced by the Bamber family, showed that this was far from true.
-
Morning N/N I find that rather strange to say the least that any family member would refer to the Bambers as adopted children must not have felt an affinity towards them :(
-
I have to be diplomatic and say, I don´t know. I don´t know how June felt, I don´t have enough knowledge about her. She had some mental problems during the faze where she should have bonded with her child, and that most likely damaged their relationship. The early bonding is so important.
Still, June could have loved her daughter and accepted her. It seems the Bambers went to great lengths to help and accomodate Sheila.
I don´t know, NN.
I agree Alias in that I have no idea how June felt about Sheila. I agree also that June's mental illness in '59 might have caused bonding issues (attachment disorder) and caused SC irreparable pyschological damage which appears not to have been picked up on by Dr F.
With regard to how SC felt about June I would say she disliked her intensely perhaps even hated her. I base this on Colin's book, statements from SC's girlfriends in Claire Powell's book and Dr F's wit stats. I can see no evidence whatsoever of a satisfactory relationship in Sheila's eyes.
-
NN,,times have changed since the 60's/70's and 80's,,where emotions weren't as openly expressed as today.
Years ago,,as long as parents fed,clothed and looked after children to the best of their ability,,it was sufficient and acceptable. Their duties were done. I would say that most were kissed goodnight,then in the morning on their way to school,,and maybe as infants were perched on parents knees while stories were read to them,,as in my own household,,but no outward show of emotion. Children weren't molly-coddled either,,they were taught such things as good manners,courtesy,,good morals.
I'm not adopted, had a cousin who was.
Parents provided me with everything I needed, looked after me. Were never big on hugs or kisses or the word 'love'.
But I think it's all just personal experiences and not really relevant to the case at all.
Mat/Lookout, please forgive me for putting you in bed together but it seemed the best way to address you both.
Lookout, you're correct that emotions are expressed more openly now than they were 50 years ago when a spotlessly clean house was the benchmark of a good mother. That would have made my mother Queen of mothers. It wasn't done for my benefit, though, it was done for her own. IMO, children would rather have a mother's time and approval than a dustfree environment and ironed sheets. I realized very early that both took precedence over me. I also felt the differences in response to me between my mother who told me constantly that "It doesn't matter, it's only you" and those people to whom I obviously did matter. I never FELT loved by my mother. I don't even know if she believed it necessary to love me. She had a purpose for me and providing I fulfilled it, I would have repaid her "generosity" in providing me with a home. Can any woman who loves her daughter call her a "whore" and "devil's child"? Rest assured those words don't come from nowhere, they've been running around inside heads for aeons, waiting for an opportunity, before they're spat out. Something perhaps, to do with the sins of the (birth)mother being visited on the (adopted)daughter.
Mat, there's a lot going on here, isn't there? You're post sounds like a mixture of "I'm all right, Jack" and "So what?" However, it's not your fault that you don't understand, but IMO, it's ignorance to shrug it off as "personal experience and not really relevant to the case at all" IMO, it's at the bottom of what this case is about.
-
Morning N/N I find that rather strange to say the least that any family member would refer to the Bambers as adopted children must not have felt an affinity towards them :(
Morning Susan
I can't imagine my adoptive cousins/uncles ever referring to me and/or my adopted brother as the adopted children of our adoptive parents :)
-
Morning april
Mat and lookout in bed together I think not somehow they lack the chemistry ;D May I add being brought up in Yorkshire where cuddles and hugs were short on the ground did not mean my parents did not love me to the contrary. I know many people who hug and cuddle and it is quite meaningless.
-
Morning april
Mat and lookout in bed together I think not somehow they lack the chemistry ;D May I add being brought up in Yorkshire where cuddles and hugs were short on the ground did not mean my parents did not love me to the contrary. I know many people who hug and cuddle and it is quite meaningless.
Good morning Susan.My thoughts exactly. What sticks in my mind more than anything,was the fact that I felt love even though it wasn't given freely. I also felt secure and " looked after " and above all,wanted.
I despair at the way some parents speak to and bahave towards their children. Tiniest tots being ignored while their mothers are busy on their mobiles.
At least as children,we conversed with parents and learned from them.
-
Hi lookout I felt secure and loved and knew my parents would have put their life on the line for me but we were never into hugging and kissing we did not need to demonstrate our love for each other in a tactile fashion.
-
Mat/Lookout, please forgive me for putting you in bed together but it seemed the best way to address you both.
Lookout, you're correct that emotions are expressed more openly now than they were 50 years ago when a spotlessly clean house was the benchmark of a good mother. That would have made my mother Queen of mothers. It wasn't done for my benefit, though, it was done for her own. IMO, children would rather have a mother's time and approval than a dustfree environment and ironed sheets. I realized very early that both took precedence over me. I also felt the differences in response to me between my mother who told me constantly that "It doesn't matter, it's only you" and those people to whom I obviously did matter. I never FELT loved by my mother. I don't even know if she believed it necessary to love me. She had a purpose for me and providing I fulfilled it, I would have repaid her "generosity" in providing me with a home. Can any woman who loves her daughter call her a "whore" and "devil's child"? Rest assured those words don't come from nowhere, they've been running around inside heads for aeons, waiting for an opportunity, before they're spat out. Something perhaps, to do with the sins of the (birth)mother being visited on the (adopted)daughter.
Mat, there's a lot going on here, isn't there? You're post sounds like a mixture of "I'm all right, Jack" and "So what?" However, it's not your fault that you don't understand, but IMO, it's ignorance to shrug it off as "personal experience and not really relevant to the case at all" IMO, it's at the bottom of what this case is about.
Brilliant post April :)
Lookout and Mat both have birth children. Therefore neither have experienced infertility and the loss that this brings about. Neither were adopted via a 'closed' adoption and therefore did not lose their identity before having to assume another.
I do not normally recount personal experiences instead I tend to discuss adoption on the forum in terms of research, studies and outcomes undertaken by professionals but the following is perhaps a good personal experience to illustrate the point.
At about 9 yoa I went to the hairdressers with my adoptive mum. My mum had her done and then I had mine done. The hairdresser said to me, whilst cutting my hair and in the presence of my mum, that I had lovely thick wavy hair and that it was unlike my mum's so I must take after my dad. My mum immediately said "oh yes she does". I could see all sorts of emotions run across my mum's face. I never said a word. Why the lie? Why the denial? Why the secret? Where did my hair come from? Why was I unable to know? I never mentioned the incident to my mum ever and vice-versa. This was the charade which was played out 24/7 :)
-
Hi lookout I felt secure and loved and knew my parents would have put their life on the line for me but we were never into hugging and kissing we did not need to demonstrate our love for each other in a tactile fashion.
That's right Susan. I'm afraid I give a negative result to those children who do " hang on " to their parents,,or ask if they're loved,,because it immediately tells me that there's some insecurity somewhere.
We weren't a hugging/kissing family. I suppose as a child,I didn't feel the need as things were the norm as far as I was concerned,,and I never felt as though I was missing out at all. The thought wouldn't have entered my head really.
It's only in the last 20 or so years,,that people have been made aware,brainwashed I call it,,,for the need to smother your children in hugs and kisses.
-
Morning april
Mat and lookout in bed together I think not somehow they lack the chemistry ;D May I add being brought up in Yorkshire where cuddles and hugs were short on the ground did not mean my parents did not love me to the contrary. I know many people who hug and cuddle and it is quite meaningless.
Yes I agree. My parents kissed me at bedtime, when I left for school and if we were apart ie overnight away with friends/family or hol. This appeared to be the norm amongst all my peers too. I'm a little more tactile with my children but I think that's just the era rather that anything else.
-
Good morning Susan.My thoughts exactly. What sticks in my mind more than anything,was the fact that I felt love even though it wasn't given freely. I also felt secure and " looked after " and above all,wanted.
I despair at the way some parents speak to and bahave towards their children. Tiniest tots being ignored while their mothers are busy on their mobiles.
At least as children,we conversed with parents and learned from them.
Morning april
Mat and lookout in bed together I think not somehow they lack the chemistry ;D May I add being brought up in Yorkshire where cuddles and hugs were short on the ground did not mean my parents did not love me to the contrary. I know many people who hug and cuddle and it is quite meaningless.
Lookout/Susan, I would agree with you entirely that children don't want/need to be smothered to show love. The important thing is that they FEEL love, which IMO, comes in a package of feeling part of the family unit/secure, feeling accepted, feeling they matter, feeling valued. When all these thing fall into place love becomes understood, which I think is what you are both saying of your childhoods. Susan, if a child has had the benefit of meaningful hugs and cuddles it will know the difference between those and meaningless gestures.
-
Hi NN, was this incident before or after you had been told you were adopted? Were parents told they musnt discuss the adoption with their children? Thst meant both parents and children were living a lie and that lie was bound to form a division between them. In my case ... blond mum of Asian children it was impossible to deceive even if Id wanted too.
-
Hi NN, was this incident before or after you had been told you were adopted? Were parents told they musnt discuss the adoption with their children? Thst meant both parents and children were living a lie and that lie was bound to form a division between them. In my case ... blond mum of Asian children it was impossible to deceive even if Id wanted too.
Hi Maggie
After I was told I had been adopted. My Mum told me when I was very young I had no idea what it all meant. Perhaps around the time I started school :-\ I think she said something like my other Mother was unable to look after me and that I hadn't grown in her tummy :o This was whilst she was bathing me. I then remember going all through family members and asking if they were adopted. When I kept hearing the word "No" I thought this doesn't sound good ;D Eventually I got to my Brother and she said "Yes" so I felt a little better that at least someone else was "adopted" whatever that meant. :). I don't ever recall the subject being raised again...EVER! Even though I was very young I seemed to understand that it was taboo and a once only conversation not to be referred to again. I have never discussed it once with my Dad!
-
Oh forgot to add the authorities advised adoptive parents to "tell" at a young age and leave it at that. Because of all the secrecy surrounding 'closed' adoptions there wouldn't have been much more to tell anyway.
-
Hi NN, was this incident before or after you had been told you were adopted? Were parents told they musnt discuss the adoption with their children? Thst meant both parents and children were living a lie and that lie was bound to form a division between them. In my case ... blond mum of Asian children it was impossible to deceive even if Id wanted too.
Well in the winter and from a distance we probably all looked similar but in the summer, especially on hols, it was very noticeable we were not from the same gene pool ;D My adoptive parents although 100% white just happened to turn very dark brown in the sun. My brother went a golden brown. But I'm part Scottish and Irish so have very fair Celtic skin which as a child would burn rather than tan so there was little me all white and/or pink or red ;D ;D ;D I would get prickly heat rash too and my Mum would get worried as the holiday doctors said I had measels and my mum insisted it wasn't poss as I'd already had measels ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Maggie
After I was told I had been adopted. My Mum told me when I was very young I had no idea what it all meant. Perhaps around the time I started school :-\ I think she said something like my other Mother was unable to look after me and that I hadn't grown in her tummy :o This was whilst she was bathing me. I then remember going all through family members and asking if they were adopted. When I kept hearing the word "No" I thought this doesn't sound good ;D Eventually I got to my Brother and she said "Yes" so I felt a little better that at least someone else was "adopted" whatever that meant. :). I don't ever recall the subject being raised again...EVER! Even though I was very young I seemed to understand that it was taboo and a once only conversation not to be referred to again. I have never discussed it once with my Dad!
NaNu/Maggie, my experience was quite different. I don't recall being told, just always having known but unlike NaNu, it played a huge part of my everyday life in that I wasn't allowed to do certain things/say certain things/go to certain places/mix with certain people because I was adopted. It was a constant reminder that I wasn't part of the family I was supposed to fit exactly into. Being told, as an adult that I had always been treated "as if you were one of us" comfirmed my belief that I never had been. I do recall that my birth mother was referred to as my "real/proper mother". When I asked what had happened to her, I was told "she didn't want you." I think my adoptive mother must have been consumed by unnamed fears but she seemed to be faced with a task she had little stomach for in order to reap the benefits later.
-
Oh forgot to add the authorities advised adoptive parents to "tell" at a young age and leave it at that. Because of all the secrecy surrounding 'closed' adoptions there wouldn't have been much more to tell anyway.
Cannot understand why it was thought a good idea to encourage families to live a lie. How could there ever be a decent relationship when great areas of truth were out of bounds? We had no choice as the difference was sort of out there but can remember being surprised and flattered when someone thought my little ones were my natural children with an Asian father. We spoke to them about where they came from and their natural mothers as far back as I can remember so it's always been an integral part of all our lives. I write to one of the mothers every few months. I think if relationships are safe and secure and also relaxed the choice of the child whether or not to have a relationship with their natural mother as well shouldn't be a threat....imo :)
-
Brilliant post April :)
Lookout and Mat both have birth children. Therefore neither have experienced infertility and the loss that this brings about. Neither were adopted via a 'closed' adoption and therefore did not lose their identity before having to assume another.
I do not normally recount personal experiences instead I tend to discuss adoption on the forum in terms of research, studies and outcomes undertaken by professionals but the following is perhaps a good personal experience to illustrate the point.
At about 9 yoa I went to the hairdressers with my adoptive mum. My mum had her done and then I had mine done. The hairdresser said to me, whilst cutting my hair and in the presence of my mum, that I had lovely thick wavy hair and that it was unlike my mum's so I must take after my dad. My mum immediately said "oh yes she does". I could see all sorts of emotions run across my mum's face. I never said a word. Why the lie? Why the denial? Why the secret? Where did my hair come from? Why was I unable to know? I never mentioned the incident to my mum ever and vice-versa. This was the charade which was played out 24/7 :)
NN,,speaking of hair/hairdressers,,,when in my early teens,I too had my " ringlets " cut off,,and my mother said she didn't know where my hair had come from. It was thick and fast-growing,and natural. Dads' hair was thinning and a different colour and mum was very dark,,and there was I---------------blonde.! So in point of fact,it's a question that a lot of mothers must ask. I used to always say that I wasn't born,,,I was invented, because I was so different from the rest of the family in pretty much every way. Even now,,I remain different from my brother.
My daughters aren't like me in character,,,but believe it or not,,people have thought that my step-daughter was my own,,as her characteristics are more like mine,than my own flesh and blood. We've always been close and I suppose because she was " there " before my own daughters were,,we'd already adopted a closeness anyway.It's also interesting to note that she has also shown as much,if not more love and affection too than my own ,outwardly also. So try and fathom that one out.
-
NN,,speaking of hair/hairdressers,,,when in my early teens,I too had my " ringlets " cut off,,and my mother said she didn't know where my hair had come from. It was thick and fast-growing,and natural. Dads' hair was thinning and a different colour and mum was very dark,,and there was I---------------blonde.! So in point of fact,it's a question that a lot of mothers must ask. I used to always say that I wasn't born,,,I was invented, because I was so different from the rest of the family in pretty much every way. Even now,,I remain different from my brother.
My daughters aren't like me in character,,,but believe it or not,,people have thought that my step-daughter was my own,,as her characteristics are more like mine,than my own flesh and blood. We've always been close and I suppose because she was " there " before my own daughters were,,we'd already adopted a closeness anyway.It's also interesting to note that she has also shown as much,if not more love and affection too than my own ,outwardly also. So try and fathom that one out.
Lookout, numerous people register surprise when they tell me how generous with their love and time are their children/grandchildren. IMO we reap what we sow and these people are being given back exactly what they always gave. Your relationship with your stepdaughter didn't just happen, lookout, you must have worked at it.
-
NaNu/Maggie, my experience was quite different. I don't recall being told, just always having known but unlike NaNu, it played a huge part of my everyday life in that I wasn't allowed to do certain things/say certain things/go to certain places/mix with certain people because I was adopted. It was a constant reminder that I wasn't part of the family I was supposed to fit exactly into. Being told, as an adult that I had always been treated "as if you were one of us" comfirmed my belief that I never had been. I do recall that my birth mother was referred to as my "real/proper mother". When I asked what had happened to her, I was told "she didn't want you." I think my adoptive mother must have been consumed by unnamed fears but she seemed to be faced with a task she had little stomach for in order to reap the benefits later.
April, at best your mother seemed to completely lack understanding and compassion of another human being, at worst she was a cruel and abusive person. You have said before that she knew how to behave in public so I assume she was convincing enough to fool the Adoption Officer, in those days it was as much about matching eye colour etc as whether the parents were fit for purpose, so to speak.
One of my kids is off on her hols in a week to get some sun and visit her family, her brother has held back his wedding party for her to be there and she'll meet more members of her natural family. Doesn't bother me because our relationship stands alone as what it is and it doesn't really matter what she calls me, nothing will change what we have. even so adoption is never ideal and adoptive children do always suffer even if integrated and secure within their family unit. The pain from knowledge they were 'given away' (whatever the reason) never completely goes away imo :) :) :)
-
April, at best your mother seemed to completely lack understanding and compassion of another human being, at worst she was a cruel and abusive person. You have said before that she knew how to behave in public so I assume she was convincing enough to fool the Adoption Officer, in those days it was as much about matching eye colour etc as whether the parents were fit for purpose, so to speak.
One of my kids is off on her hols in a week to get some sun and visit her family, her brother has held back his wedding party for her to be there and she'll meet more members of her natural family. Doesn't bother me because our relationship stands alone as what it is and it doesn't really matter what she calls me, nothing will change what we have. even so adoption is never ideal and adoptive children do always suffer even if integrated and secure within their family unit. The pain from knowledge they were 'given away' (whatever the reason) never completely goes away imo :) :) :)
Maggie, being told one was "given away" wasn't exactly a huge confidence booster :D :D :D
-
NN,,speaking of hair/hairdressers,,,when in my early teens,I too had my " ringlets " cut off,,and my mother said she didn't know where my hair had come from. It was thick and fast-growing,and natural. Dads' hair was thinning and a different colour and mum was very dark,,and there was I---------------blonde.! So in point of fact,it's a question that a lot of mothers must ask. I used to always say that I wasn't born,,,I was invented, because I was so different from the rest of the family in pretty much every way. Even now,,I remain different from my brother.
My daughters aren't like me in character,,,but believe it or not,,people have thought that my step-daughter was my own,,as her characteristics are more like mine,than my own flesh and blood. We've always been close and I suppose because she was " there " before my own daughters were,,we'd already adopted a closeness anyway.It's also interesting to note that she has also shown as much,if not more love and affection too than my own ,outwardly also. So try and fathom that one out.
Hi lookout, does your step daughter remember her mum? I think it's very starange for children to have a huge hole in their knowledge of where they came from which makes it difficult for them to know who they are. I do believe we all need to some extent to know where we come from, some more than others but also I believe having to live a lie with a whole area that can't be discussed is pretty damaging for any relationship. imo ASlso agree with April, you obviously loved her unconditionally and that's all a child really needs. She's now giving that love back and I'm sure you deserve it. ;D ;D
-
Maggie, being told one was "given away" wasn't exactly a huge confidence booster :D :D :D
I would imagine being told your natural mum didn't want you wasn't that good either april. :'( Even with my two that is the issue which is the hardest for them to come to terms with. They know the reasons..ie. culture, extreme poverty etc. They have spent time in that culture and therefore understand the difficulties women face but still, there is a lingering ?resentment?hurt? towards them for what they did. They were always told the truth about their mother's situations, that by giving them for adoption they gave them opportunity and it was all done because they loved them enough to make the effort instead of abandoning them, literally but it doesn't really wash...that old primal wound still smarts.
-
Hi lookout, does your step daughter remember her mum? I think it's very starange for children to have a huge hole in their knowledge of where they came from which makes it difficult for them to know who they are. I do believe we all need to some extent to know where we come from, some more than others but also I believe having to live a lie with a whole area that can't be discussed is pretty damaging for any relationship. imo ASlso agree with April, you obviously loved her unconditionally and that's all a child really needs. She's now giving that love back and I'm sure you deserve it. ;D ;D
Maggie,,yes,,my step-daughter remembers her mum.In fact when the childrens' dad gained custody of the two children,,the mother refused to sign to the fact that she was allowed access to the children,,she liked her booze too much to bother. However,as the children got older,I didn't once forbid them to see her if they so wished,,but they didn't appear interested and were quite affected when they were old enough to realise that she actually " didn't want them ",,,but as the years went by,they'd realised that they still had their dad,,who was more important to them.
When we learned of their mothers death in the early 90's,,I'd suggested they went to her funeral which of course out of courtesy,they did.
-
Miss Bridget
I disagree.
Wit stat 8th Aug
He told me he had supper with his parents during the conversation that evening and that he had a "pleasant as could be expected day due to harvesting". He did not make any more mention of the family.
Wit stat 8th/9th Sep
Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985...
...I said to him "You sound pissed off". He said, "I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never".
Look on the bright side you might end up having humble pie for supper instead of worms ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I asked NGB for his input but he said he likes to see women fight it out ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) He said he finds their illogical approach to legal matters endearing ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I hope I do not have to make clear that I said no such thing! I have been busy so have not have time to respond to PMs. I will try to catch up this afternoon. I will also post a response to Bridget's original question on this.
-
In other words, he doesn´t know.... :P
Oh yes I do...! More later.
-
ngb1066 thought you would ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh yes I do...! More later.
Thanks for clearing that up; so now we just need a disclaimer regarding females being illogical... 8)
-
Thanks for clearing that up; so now we just need a disclaimer regarding females being illogical... 8)
I have already given that disclaimer - I never said what NN suggested. She was joking as I am sure she will confirm.
-
I have already given that disclaimer - I never said what NN suggested. She was joking as I am sure she will confirm.
Absolutely NGB, I was just joking :)
-
Must she though?? I'm not sure we actually have an offence of accessory after the fact anymore in this country and the nearest I can find (assisting an offender) requires a positive act rather than just a failure to say anything, as does perverting the course of justice. There is also an offence of concealing an offence, but that requires payment of some sort. I suppose the money he gave her for a holiday could amount to that, but it would be difficult to prove that that was the purpose. Was there anything in her early statements that was identified at trial or appeal as a deliberate lie?
Maybe NGB could help us out here, it'd be interesting to find out what the actual position would be.
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I will try to deal with the key points and then apply that to Julie Mugford's position.
It is true that there the terms accessory before/after the fact are no longer used in English law (I say English rather than British or UK because I do not know if Scottish or Northern Irish law still uses the old terms). These terms were replaced with the crime of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Someone who aids and abets the principal is guilty of the same offence as the principal and is subject to the same penalties. Law students are still taught the old case law on accessories as it still applies to aiding and abetting.
In addition to the possibilty of prosecution for the main offence, someone who aids and abets may be guilty of other specific crimes, such as perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Knowledge of an offence does not in itself amount to a criminal offence, nor does silence save in certain specific statutory cases, such as terrorism and money laundering. To be guilty there must be some positive assistance, whether that assistance was before the commission of the offence, during the commission of the offence or after.
In the present case Julie Mugford was at severe risk of being prosecuted for several serious offences, apart from the ones she specifically confessed to, namely the burglary at the Osea caravan park, the cheque frauds and the importation and supplying of drugs (for which she would have received a prison sentence and had her career as a teacher wrecked before it began). The more serious offences were murder, perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. If she is to be believed (and she cannot have it both ways), by her own admission she not only knew of Jeremy's plans for a considerable period before the murders, but also she provided sleeping tablets to Jeremy in order that he could see whether drugging his family as part of the murder plot was a viable option. The fact that it was not viable does not make any difference. On the day itself she was made aware that the murders were to take place but did not so much as protest, let alone take any steps which might have thwarted the plan. If she is to be believed, Julie Mugford must have been in support of what was about to happen. Further assistance was provided after the murders by expressing calming words to Jeremy during the 3.00/3.30 am telephone call. When she arrived at WHF she provided comfort and encouragement to Jeremy in the knowledge of what he had done and this assisted Jeremy in his successful efforts to present himself to the police in a way which supported the proposition that Shela was responsible. When interviewed by the police she gave an account to the police which backed up Jeremy's account. Saying nothing is not an offence. However saying something which does not include accurate details (for example of her conversations with Jeremy over the previous 24 hours) was providing positive assistance to Jeremy.
In case there is any misunderstanding I am not suggesting that I believe Julie Mugford's testimony. However, the police did and on that basis she was at extreme risk of being charged with a very serious offence in addition to the ones to which she confessed. The fear of that prosecution was in my view the major factor in persuading Julie Mugford to tell the police, eventually, what they wanted to hear. She was trapped. There was no turning back. If she did not cooperate she was faced with the prospect of standing trial alongside Jeremy, facing a substantial prison term. She did not come forward voluntarily. She was in fact arrested and held in custody for a period and subjected to intense pressure. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be obtained to take the exceptional course of granting her immunity from prosecution in relation to all offences (with not even a formal caution, contrary to what was suggested at trial, meaning she had no criminal record whatsoever), upon the basis of her agreeing to be a prosecution witness. It is a very sorry story indeed.
-
Goodness me,,talk about being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea,,just which option would anyone have taken.? Get out of that one.
-
Thank you NGB :)
-
Hi lookout we have to admit she did not look too stressed out that poor Jeremy was being sent to prison for life but she did her pose and got her blood money of £25.000. I often wonder what she would have done or said to him if he had been found innocent.
-
Hi lookout we have to admit she did not look too stressed out that poor Jeremy was being sent to prison for life but she did her pose and got her blood money of £25.000. I often wonder what she would have done or said to him if he had been found innocent.
Fancy a shag for old times sake?
-
Hi N/N was that an offer prefer an hairy Scotsman than a Nun however naughty she is ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi lookout we have to admit she did not look too stressed out that poor Jeremy was being sent to prison for life but she did her pose and got her blood money of £25.000. I often wonder what she would have done or said to him if he had been found innocent.
I just don't know,Susan.
-
Hi N/N was that an offer prefer an hairy Scotsman than a Nun however naughty she is ;D ;D ;D ;D
Get the hairy Scotsman body groomed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz6rvXLpxvo
Poor NGB has spent hours drafting the above and now we've reduced it to tawdriness
-
Yes, thank you NGB, much appreciated.
So what you are saying basically is that whilst there is no requirement to volunteer the information at all, to volunteer incomplete (although in itself accurate) and thereby misleading information could be seen as a positive act and may well be an offence, am I understanding that correctly?
Did they actually grant her immunity, or was there a decision (however it was arrived at) that it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute?
-
Yes, thank you NGB, much appreciated.
So what you are saying basically is that whilst there is no requirement to volunteer the information at all, to volunteer incomplete (although in itself accurate) and thereby misleading information could be seen as a positive act and may well be an offence, am I understanding that correctly?
Did they actually grant her immunity, or was there a decision (however it was arrived at) that it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute?
Miss Bridget
Dinner is served
-
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I will try to deal with the key points and then apply that to Julie Mugford's position.
It is true that there the terms accessory before/after the fact are no longer used in English law (I say English rather than British or UK because I do not know if Scottish or Northern Irish law still uses the old terms). These terms were replaced with the crime of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Someone who aids and abets the principal is guilty of the same offence as the principal and is subject to the same penalties. Law students are still taught the old case law on accessories as it still applies to aiding and abetting.
In addition to the possibilty of prosecution for the main offence, someone who aids and abets may be guilty of other specific crimes, such as perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Knowledge of an offence does not in itself amount to a criminal offence, nor does silence save in certain specific statutory cases, such as terrorism and money laundering. To be guilty there must be some positive assistance, whether that assistance was before the commission of the offence, during the commission of the offence or after.
In the present case Julie Mugford was at severe risk of being prosecuted for several serious offences, apart from the ones she specically confessed to, namely the burglary at the Osea caravan park, the cheque frauds and the importation and supplying of drugs (for which she would have received a prison sentence and had her career as a teacher wrecked before it began). The more serious offences were murder, perverting the course of justice and assiting an offender. If she is to be believed (and she cannot have it both ways), by her own admission she not only knew of Jeremy's plans for a considerable period before the murders, but also she provided sleeping tablets to Jeremy in order that he could see whether drugging his family as part of the murder plot was a viable option. The fact that it was not viable does not make any difference. On the day itself she was made aware that the murders were to take place but did not so much as protest, let alone take any steps which might have thwarted the plan. If she is to be believed, Julie Mugford must have been in support of what was about to happen. Further assistance was provided after the murders by expressing calming words to Jeremy during the 3.00/3.30 am telephone call. When she arrived at WHF she provided comfort and encouragement to Jeremy in the knowledge of what he had done and this assisted Jeremy in his successful efforts to present himself to the police in a way which supported the proposition that Shela was responsible. When interviewed by the police she gave an account to the police which backed up Jeremy's account. Saying nothing is not an offence. However saying something which does not include accurate details (for example of her conversations with Jeremy over the previous 24 hours) was providing positive assistance to Jeremy.
In case there is any misunderstanding I am not suggesting that I believe Julie Mugford's testimony. However, the police did and on that basis she was at extreme risk of being charged with a very serious offence in addition to the ones to which she confessed. The fear of that prosecution was in my view the major factor in persuading Julie Mugford to tell the police, eventually, what they wanted to hear. She was trapped. There was no turning back. If she did not cooperate she was faced with the prospect of standing trial alongside Jeremy, facing a substantial prison term. She did not come forward voluntarily. She was in fact arrested and held in custody for a period and subjected to intense pressure. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be obtained to take the exceptional course of granting her immunity from prosecution in relation to all offences (with not even a formal caution, contrary to what was suggested at trial, meaning she had no criminal record whatsoever), upon the basis of her agreeing to be a proscution witness. It is a very sorry story indeed.
Hi NGB :)
OK, I don't know much about law, but its true she was not prosecuted 27 years ago, but what if new evidence came to light? What if the law changed? Could she be prosecuted for something she was given immunity for 27 years later on? Just askin! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Miss Bridget
Dinner is served
You have a terrible habit of reading into my posts things which I haven't actually said.
-
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I will try to deal with the key points and then apply that to Julie Mugford's position.
It is true that there the terms accessory before/after the fact are no longer used in English law (I say English rather than British or UK because I do not know if Scottish or Northern Irish law still uses the old terms). These terms were replaced with the crime of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Someone who aids and abets the principal is guilty of the same offence as the principal and is subject to the same penalties. Law students are still taught the old case law on accessories as it still applies to aiding and abetting.
In addition to the possibilty of prosecution for the main offence, someone who aids and abets may be guilty of other specific crimes, such as perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Knowledge of an offence does not in itself amount to a criminal offence, nor does silence save in certain specific statutory cases, such as terrorism and money laundering. To be guilty there must be some positive assistance, whether that assistance was before the commission of the offence, during the commission of the offence or after.
In the present case Julie Mugford was at severe risk of being prosecuted for several serious offences, apart from the ones she specically confessed to, namely the burglary at the Osea caravan park, the cheque frauds and the importation and supplying of drugs (for which she would have received a prison sentence and had her career as a teacher wrecked before it began). The more serious offences were murder, perverting the course of justice and assiting an offender. If she is to be believed (and she cannot have it both ways), by her own admission she not only knew of Jeremy's plans for a considerable period before the murders, but also she provided sleeping tablets to Jeremy in order that he could see whether drugging his family as part of the murder plot was a viable option. The fact that it was not viable does not make any difference. On the day itself she was made aware that the murders were to take place but did not so much as protest, let alone take any steps which might have thwarted the plan. If she is to be believed, Julie Mugford must have been in support of what was about to happen. Further assistance was provided after the murders by expressing calming words to Jeremy during the 3.00/3.30 am telephone call. When she arrived at WHF she provided comfort and encouragement to Jeremy in the knowledge of what he had done and this assisted Jeremy in his successful efforts to present himself to the police in a way which supported the proposition that Shela was responsible. When interviewed by the police she gave an account to the police which backed up Jeremy's account. Saying nothing is not an offence. However saying something which does not include accurate details (for example of her conversations with Jeremy over the previous 24 hours) was providing positive assistance to Jeremy.
In case there is any misunderstanding I am not suggesting that I believe Julie Mugford's testimony. However, the police did and on that basis she was at extreme risk of being charged with a very serious offence in addition to the ones to which she confessed. The fear of that prosecution was in my view the major factor in persuading Julie Mugford to tell the police, eventually, what they wanted to hear. She was trapped. There was no turning back. If she did not cooperate she was faced with the prospect of standing trial alongside Jeremy, facing a substantial prison term. She did not come forward voluntarily. She was in fact arrested and held in custody for a period and subjected to intense pressure. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be obtained to take the exceptional course of granting her immunity from prosecution in relation to all offences (with not even a formal caution, contrary to what was suggested at trial, meaning she had no criminal record whatsoever), upon the basis of her agreeing to be a proscution witness. It is a very sorry story indeed.
Brilliant post, thanks from me too.
-
ngb I thank you so much for your post it has helped me understand the situation better regarding Julie Mugford.
-
Hello Bridget that is because N/N is in a habit all the time ;D ;D ;D
-
You have a terrible habit of reading into my posts things which I haven't actually said.
Miss Bridget
Take is as a compliment that a) I actually read your posts and b) you sound so bloody convincing ;D ;D ;D
What will you have with your humble pie?
-
You have a terrible habit of reading into my posts things which I haven't actually said.
Miss Bridget
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173915.html#msg173915
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173920.html#msg173920
-
Talking of statements,,there was a farm worker who knew Jeremy well. A Mrs Kemps,,,or a name similar,,who'd said that Jeremy didn't have the gumption to murder anyone.So she must have known him pretty well to pass a comment like that.
-
Hello Bridget that is because N/N is in a habit all the time ;D ;D ;D
Yes Susan and one I would dearly love to shake due to the adverse effect it has on my eyesight :'( :'( :'(
-
Miss Bridget
Take is as a compliment that a) I actually read your posts and b) you sound so blood convincing ;D ;D ;D
What will you have with your humble pie?
No humble pie for me thanks...
I said right from the start that I didn't know the answer, which is why I asked the question. All I have done since is humour you with debate.
-
No humble pie for me thanks...
I said right from the start that I didn't know the answer, which is why I asked the question. All I have done since is humour you with debate.
Miss Bridget
Awwww you always tell us that its the taking part that's important :-\
You said nothing she said in her 8th Aug stat was untrue and that it was simply an omission. That is not true and NGB has confirmed it as such.
-
Miss Bridget
Awwww you always tell us that its the taking part that's important :-\
You said nothing she said in her 8th Aug stat was untrue and that it was simply an omission. That is not true and NGB has confirmed it as such.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173915.html#msg173915w
No he hasn't, he's confirmed that an omission can in some circumstances be a positive act, which is what is required for the offence.
-
No he hasn't, he's confirmed that an omission can in some circumstances be a positive act, which is what is required for the offence.
Miss Bridget
Errrr no...NGB confirms that she provided assistance. I am referring to the wit stats of 8th Aug and 8th/9th Aug where you said you could see no inconsistencies ie it was omission only. I said it was more than an omission and NGB has confirmed that it amounted to assistance.
-
Miss Bridget
Errrr no...NGB confirms that she provided assistance. I am referring to the wit stats of 8th Aug and 8th/9th Aug where you said you could see no inconsistencies ie it was omission only. I said it was more than an omission and NGB has confirmed that it amounted to assistance.
And I'm not disagreeing with you, I was referring to the part where you claimed that her statement was untrue.
-
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I will try to deal with the key points and then apply that to Julie Mugford's position.
It is true that there the terms accessory before/after the fact are no longer used in English law (I say English rather than British or UK because I do not know if Scottish or Northern Irish law still uses the old terms). These terms were replaced with the crime of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Someone who aids and abets the principal is guilty of the same offence as the principal and is subject to the same penalties. Law students are still taught the old case law on accessories as it still applies to aiding and abetting.
In addition to the possibilty of prosecution for the main offence, someone who aids and abets may be guilty of other specific crimes, such as perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Knowledge of an offence does not in itself amount to a criminal offence, nor does silence save in certain specific statutory cases, such as terrorism and money laundering. To be guilty there must be some positive assistance, whether that assistance was before the commission of the offence, during the commission of the offence or after.
In the present case Julie Mugford was at severe risk of being prosecuted for several serious offences, apart from the ones she specically confessed to, namely the burglary at the Osea caravan park, the cheque frauds and the importation and supplying of drugs (for which she would have received a prison sentence and had her career as a teacher wrecked before it began). The more serious offences were murder, perverting the course of justice and assiting an offender. If she is to be believed (and she cannot have it both ways), by her own admission she not only knew of Jeremy's plans for a considerable period before the murders, but also she provided sleeping tablets to Jeremy in order that he could see whether drugging his family as part of the murder plot was a viable option. The fact that it was not viable does not make any difference. On the day itself she was made aware that the murders were to take place but did not so much as protest, let alone take any steps which might have thwarted the plan. If she is to be believed, Julie Mugford must have been in support of what was about to happen. Further assistance was provided after the murders by expressing calming words to Jeremy during the 3.00/3.30 am telephone call. When she arrived at WHF she provided comfort and encouragement to Jeremy in the knowledge of what he had done and this assisted Jeremy in his successful efforts to present himself to the police in a way which supported the proposition that Shela was responsible. When interviewed by the police she gave an account to the police which backed up Jeremy's account. Saying nothing is not an offence. However saying something which does not include accurate details (for example of her conversations with Jeremy over the previous 24 hours) was providing positive assistance to Jeremy.
In case there is any misunderstanding I am not suggesting that I believe Julie Mugford's testimony. However, the police did and on that basis she was at extreme risk of being charged with a very serious offence in addition to the ones to which she confessed. The fear of that prosecution was in my view the major factor in persuading Julie Mugford to tell the police, eventually, what they wanted to hear. She was trapped. There was no turning back. If she did not cooperate she was faced with the prospect of standing trial alongside Jeremy, facing a substantial prison term. She did not come forward voluntarily. She was in fact arrested and held in custody for a period and subjected to intense pressure. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be obtained to take the exceptional course of granting her immunity from prosecution in relation to all offences (with not even a formal caution, contrary to what was suggested at trial, meaning she had no criminal record whatsoever), upon the basis of her agreeing to be a proscution witness. It is a very sorry story indeed.
Brilliant post ngb. It lays guilt squarely upon JM whatever side one may be on. What a very different life she would be living now if she had been charged.
-
Yes, thank you NGB, much appreciated.
So what you are saying basically is that whilst there is no requirement to volunteer the information at all, to volunteer incomplete (although in itself accurate) and thereby misleading information could be seen as a positive act and may well be an offence, am I understanding that correctly?
Did they actually grant her immunity, or was there a decision (however it was arrived at) that it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute?
Well it vertainly wouldn't have been in HER interest.
-
And I'm not disagreeing with you, I was referring to the part where you claimed that her statement was untrue.
Miss Bridget
I disagree.
I was showing that it was more than an omission and you disagreed:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173915.html#msg173915
As far as I'm concerned I won and you're a very bad looser :P :P :P
-
Miss Bridget
I disagree.
I was showing that it was more than an omission and you disagreed:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173915.html#msg173915
As far as I'm concerned I won and you're a very bad looser :P :P :P
No, you said:
You said nothing she said in her 8th Aug stat was untrue and that it was simply an omission. That is not true and NGB has confirmed it as such.
I was disagreeing with your assertion that anything in her statement was untrue.
I win because I asked I question and as a result learnt something today. You lose because your overall assertion that it is a crime to withhold evidence was wrong. But the overall winner is NGB, who nailed it (probably).
-
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I will try to deal with the key points and then apply that to Julie Mugford's position.
It is true that there the terms accessory before/after the fact are no longer used in English law (I say English rather than British or UK because I do not know if Scottish or Northern Irish law still uses the old terms). These terms were replaced with the crime of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Someone who aids and abets the principal is guilty of the same offence as the principal and is subject to the same penalties. Law students are still taught the old case law on accessories as it still applies to aiding and abetting.
In addition to the possibilty of prosecution for the main offence, someone who aids and abets may be guilty of other specific crimes, such as perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Knowledge of an offence does not in itself amount to a criminal offence, nor does silence save in certain specific statutory cases, such as terrorism and money laundering. To be guilty there must be some positive assistance, whether that assistance was before the commission of the offence, during the commission of the offence or after.
In the present case Julie Mugford was at severe risk of being prosecuted for several serious offences, apart from the ones she specically confessed to, namely the burglary at the Osea caravan park, the cheque frauds and the importation and supplying of drugs (for which she would have received a prison sentence and had her career as a teacher wrecked before it began). The more serious offences were murder, perverting the course of justice and assiting an offender. If she is to be believed (and she cannot have it both ways), by her own admission she not only knew of Jeremy's plans for a considerable period before the murders, but also she provided sleeping tablets to Jeremy in order that he could see whether drugging his family as part of the murder plot was a viable option. The fact that it was not viable does not make any difference. On the day itself she was made aware that the murders were to take place but did not so much as protest, let alone take any steps which might have thwarted the plan. If she is to be believed, Julie Mugford must have been in support of what was about to happen. Further assistance was provided after the murders by expressing calming words to Jeremy during the 3.00/3.30 am telephone call. When she arrived at WHF she provided comfort and encouragement to Jeremy in the knowledge of what he had done and this assisted Jeremy in his successful efforts to present himself to the police in a way which supported the proposition that Shela was responsible. When interviewed by the police she gave an account to the police which backed up Jeremy's account. Saying nothing is not an offence. However saying something which does not include accurate details (for example of her conversations with Jeremy over the previous 24 hours) was providing positive assistance to Jeremy.
In case there is any misunderstanding I am not suggesting that I believe Julie Mugford's testimony. However, the police did and on that basis she was at extreme risk of being charged with a very serious offence in addition to the ones to which she confessed. The fear of that prosecution was in my view the major factor in persuading Julie Mugford to tell the police, eventually, what they wanted to hear. She was trapped. There was no turning back. If she did not cooperate she was faced with the prospect of standing trial alongside Jeremy, facing a substantial prison term. She did not come forward voluntarily. She was in fact arrested and held in custody for a period and subjected to intense pressure. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be obtained to take the exceptional course of granting her immunity from prosecution in relation to all offences (with not even a formal caution, contrary to what was suggested at trial, meaning she had no criminal record whatsoever), upon the basis of her agreeing to be a proscution witness. It is a very sorry story indeed.
Neil, many thanks for taking the time and trouble to give us that excellent clarification :)
-
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I will try to deal with the key points and then apply that to Julie Mugford's position.
It is true that there the terms accessory before/after the fact are no longer used in English law (I say English rather than British or UK because I do not know if Scottish or Northern Irish law still uses the old terms). These terms were replaced with the crime of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Someone who aids and abets the principal is guilty of the same offence as the principal and is subject to the same penalties. Law students are still taught the old case law on accessories as it still applies to aiding and abetting.
In addition to the possibilty of prosecution for the main offence, someone who aids and abets may be guilty of other specific crimes, such as perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Knowledge of an offence does not in itself amount to a criminal offence, nor does silence save in certain specific statutory cases, such as terrorism and money laundering. To be guilty there must be some positive assistance, whether that assistance was before the commission of the offence, during the commission of the offence or after.
In the present case Julie Mugford was at severe risk of being prosecuted for several serious offences, apart from the ones she specically confessed to, namely the burglary at the Osea caravan park, the cheque frauds and the importation and supplying of drugs (for which she would have received a prison sentence and had her career as a teacher wrecked before it began). The more serious offences were murder, perverting the course of justice and assiting an offender. If she is to be believed (and she cannot have it both ways), by her own admission she not only knew of Jeremy's plans for a considerable period before the murders, but also she provided sleeping tablets to Jeremy in order that he could see whether drugging his family as part of the murder plot was a viable option. The fact that it was not viable does not make any difference. On the day itself she was made aware that the murders were to take place but did not so much as protest, let alone take any steps which might have thwarted the plan. If she is to be believed, Julie Mugford must have been in support of what was about to happen. Further assistance was provided after the murders by expressing calming words to Jeremy during the 3.00/3.30 am telephone call. When she arrived at WHF she provided comfort and encouragement to Jeremy in the knowledge of what he had done and this assisted Jeremy in his successful efforts to present himself to the police in a way which supported the proposition that Shela was responsible. When interviewed by the police she gave an account to the police which backed up Jeremy's account. Saying nothing is not an offence. However saying something which does not include accurate details (for example of her conversations with Jeremy over the previous 24 hours) was providing positive assistance to Jeremy.
In case there is any misunderstanding I am not suggesting that I believe Julie Mugford's testimony. However, the police did and on that basis she was at extreme risk of being charged with a very serious offence in addition to the ones to which she confessed. The fear of that prosecution was in my view the major factor in persuading Julie Mugford to tell the police, eventually, what they wanted to hear. She was trapped. There was no turning back. If she did not cooperate she was faced with the prospect of standing trial alongside Jeremy, facing a substantial prison term. She did not come forward voluntarily. She was in fact arrested and held in custody for a period and subjected to intense pressure. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be obtained to take the exceptional course of granting her immunity from prosecution in relation to all offences (with not even a formal caution, contrary to what was suggested at trial, meaning she had no criminal record whatsoever), upon the basis of her agreeing to be a proscution witness. It is a very sorry story indeed.
I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.
On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.
Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.
-
I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.
On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.
Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.
Oh, I can't wait for Neil's answer to this!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.
On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.
Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.
What Neil has presented is a statement of facts of law. Your assertion that he drifts into flights of fancy is VERY much a case of pot calling kettle. Neil's professional objectivity is a far cry from your emotional outpouring of Julie's innocence.
-
I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.
On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.
Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.
I would call your answer a 'flight of fancy' steve. ;D ;D
-
Does anyone here actually believe there is a chance JM is going to ever be charged with anything?
-
Does anyone here actually believe there is a chance JM is going to ever be charged with anything?
They'd have to get past Steve first.
-
They'd have to get past Steve first.
April ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Does anyone here actually believe there is a chance JM is going to ever be charged with anything?
Too late, she made a deal. Besides, isn´t there some statute of limitation timewise?
-
Do you think our Steve has blotted his copy book. ;D
-
Too late, she made a deal. Besides, isn´t there some statute of limitation timewise?
Exactly abs! She had a deal, with the police. I fail to see any reason to go after Mugford until Jeremy is proven innocent.
-
Exactly abs! She had a deal, with the police. I fail to see any reason to go after Mugford until Jeremy is proven innocent.
The reason here at the board, at the moment at least, is that we have a member who regards Julie as nothing less than a saint! It is hard to read. 8)
-
Come on Bridget - can't you take up cluedo or something? Your debating 'tactics' are wearing thin for all to see..
... and hang on a minute; I have copies of posts you have made in relation to the burglary omission in Simon's case - you contradict yourself left, right and centre...
Do keep up Steph, this discussion was about whether or not a lie by omission is an offence. You can hardly compare it with a situation where a convicted murderer fails to mention the fact that he was also out burgling on the night in question, but if it makes you feel better I don't think Simon has committed an offence.
-
What Neil has presented is a statement of facts of law. Your assertion that he drifts into flights of fancy is VERY much a case of pot calling kettle. Neil's professional objectivity is a far cry from your emotional outpouring of Julie's innocence.
To be fair to Steve, what Neil presented was the case for the prosecution! But he included the point of law I asked him about for which I am grateful.
-
Does anyone here actually believe there is a chance JM is going to ever be charged with anything?
Personally - nope!
-
Personally - nope!
The way its going with S Hall never say never there is always just that day.
-
Also - at the time Simon was questioned by the police, he had been convicted on NO offence, so again you are wrong.... DO KEEP UP!!
Not doing very well are you!
I'm sorry but your post makes absolutely no sense.
-
What Neil has presented is a statement of facts of law. Your assertion that he drifts into flights of fancy is VERY much a case of pot calling kettle. Neil's professional objectivity is a far cry from your emotional outpouring of Julie's innocence.
In paragraph 4 he goes off into flights of fancy with his statements that Julie provided sleeping tablets for Jeremy to use as was asserted in her statement on Nevill's gin and tonic,but we don't know for a fact whether Julie gave them him in connivance or whether Jeremy took them from where they were lying around after Julie found the tablets ineffective for the purpose of giving her a good night's sleep. So Julie provided calm,soothing words did she when they were together behind closed doors at White House Farm. How on earth does ngb1066 know this for a fact? From what I read they never stopped rowing after the murders and how many times have the Jeremy supporters quoted numerous incidents and not allowed us to forget them?
-
The way its going with S Hall never say never there is always just that day.
I don't think you can compare the two cases to be honest Mertol. Simon Hall killed one person. Jeremy Bamber killed five, including two young children. Bambers crimes are believed to be pre-meditated too.
-
Of course it doesn't Bridget - it doesn't suit your agenda that's why :o :o :o :o
You accused my husband of the omittance of the burglary - when are you suggesting he 'omitted' this evidence?
Does it matter? This conversation was about omitting facts in order to assist an offender. I don't think it counts if you are the actual suspect, and especially if you are later convicted.
Why do you have to turn every thread into a Simon hall thread?
-
In paragraph 4 he goes off into flights of fancy with his statements that Julie provided sleeping tablets for Jeremy to use as was asserted in her statement on Nevill's gin and tonic,but we don't know for a fact whether Julie gave them him in connivance or whether Jeremy took them from where they were lying around after Julie found the tablets ineffective for the purpose of giving her a good night's sleep. So Julie provided calm,soothing words did she when they were together behind closed doors at White House Farm. How on earth does ngb1066 know this for a fact? From what I read they never stopped rowing after the murders and how many times have the Jeremy supporters quoted numerous incidents and not allowed us to forget them?
The fact is that she claims to have been party to the a discussion in which her talked of a plan to drug the family and she still brought sleeping tablets to his house. Whether they were used or not, is immaterial, she still provided them.
-
JM was a prosecution witness - so how was her omitting facts going to help JB? ::)
Do you even know why prosecution witnesses do this?
And YES it maters because you are wrong AGAIN!!
I suggest you go back to about page 24 and read the discussion. That way you may actually understand the debate.
-
I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.
On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.
Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.
Whoever you are? He was a barrister in criminal law and has worked on top notch cases, that's who he is. So I would trust his words more than I do a wannabe Mills and Boon fiction writer.
-
Whoever you are? He was a barrister in criminal law and has worked on top notch cases, that's who he is. So I would trust his words more than I do a wannabe Mills and Boon fiction writer.
All the more to get his facts right in a brain which appears muddled,using a prosecution tactic which his colleagues in law rejected 28 years ago.
-
She's hardly going to change her story after giving evidence in a Court of law now is she?
The part you quote was immediately post-murders,and in any case Julie told a story which was remarkably consistent.
-
The part you quote was immediately post-murders,and in any case Julie told a story which was remarkably consistent.
Consistently unbelievable!!
-
Jesus H C! You really are up your own backside aren't you! ::)
You really don't understand humour, do you.
I am merely joining in the debate, the fact that I refer to my husbands case is because these facts are relevant to practically all MOJ cases.
There were prosecution witnesses in my husbands case too you know.. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Simon recently made some clarifications in relation to his evidence. You should also look this up to see where Simon stands 'in the eyes of the law.'
In law he is a convicted murderer who has now admitted to omitting the fact that he is also a burglar, and your point is?
-
Yes, thank you NGB, much appreciated.
So what you are saying basically is that whilst there is no requirement to volunteer the information at all, to volunteer incomplete (although in itself accurate) and thereby misleading information could be seen as a positive act and may well be an offence, am I understanding that correctly?
Did they actually grant her immunity, or was there a decision (however it was arrived at) that it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute?
Yes, volunteering incomplete information, provided that this misleads the police, could be seen as a positive act of assisting the offender. Obviously each situation has to be assessed on its own facts.
My understanding is that Julie Mugford was granted immunity from prosecution in relation to all disclosed offences on the authority of the DPP and on that basis was inteviewed as a witness rather than under caution as a suspect.
-
Hi NGB :)
OK, I don't know much about law, but its true she was not prosecuted 27 years ago, but what if new evidence came to light? What if the law changed? Could she be prosecuted for something she was given immunity for 27 years later on? Just askin! ;D ;D ;D ;D
If Julie mugford was given immunity from prosecution she could never be prosecuted for the specific offences in respect of which the immunity was given. However she could still be proecuted for other offences if new evidence came to light, for example perjury or perverting the course of justice.
-
No humble pie for me thanks...
I said right from the start that I didn't know the answer, which is why I asked the question. All I have done since is humour you with debate.
Miss Bridget has an eager looking pussy that wants stroking...purr...meow...
Gee thanks Miss Bridget you're so kind. You know that's not true you got very animated when discussing terrorism and POCA 2002 :)
-
No, you said:
I was disagreeing with your assertion that anything in her statement was untrue.
I win because I asked I question and as a result learnt something today. You lose because your overall assertion that it is a crime to withhold evidence was wrong. But the overall winner is NGB, who nailed it (probably).
Miss Bridget
Miss Bridget has an eager looking pussy that wants stroking...purr...meow
I said I did not know about withholding. I asserted that her statements contain more than omissions ie untruths which I highlighted. You disagreed. You don't know what questions I ask by pm ;)
-
I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.
On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
-
Does anyone here actually believe there is a chance JM is going to ever be charged with anything?
I very much doubt it, mainly because of the immunity granted to her.
-
Hello ngb I think steve's post is both rude and insulting and he has shown himself in a very bad light on this forum. He should be ashamed of himself.
-
Oh,,how I wish that I was educated to such a standard. Brilliant post,ngb. Bravo to you. A credit to the forum.
-
Well,if Mugford ommitted things from her first statement,she has failed to be truthful. Does failing to be truthful equal as being a lie? Bridget believed this was so in the case of Simon Hall,but not in the case of Julie Mugford. A tad hypocrytical me thinks!
-
I very much doubt it, mainly because of the immunity granted to her.
Ngb,,cannot that immunity ever be overturned ?
-
Yes thank you again NGB for further clarification. The forum and Jeremy are very lucky to have you :)
-
Hi lookout
I agree brilliant response from ngb to steve and shows he is a man of integrity with a first class legal brain. I read steve's post for the first time today and to be honest with you I am in shock and speechless at its contents and he has really gone down in my estimation. The opening "whoever you are" tells me steve does not follow the forum closely just wants to post his own views on his wonderful Julie and dreadful Jeremy. Shame on him.
-
Hello ngb I think steve's post is both rude and insulting and he has shown himself in a very bad light on this forum. He should be ashamed of himself.
Hi Susan
I've said before that at times I think Steve_uk's posts are so extreme that he has to be playing devil's advocate. When I saw Steve_uk's post above I found it hilarious and I honestly thought he must be a friend of NGB's and it was all a wind-up :)
-
Hello N/N I second that as everyone on this forum has tremendous respect for ngb and we know him to be very honest and fair in his assessment of matters.
-
Hi Susan
I've said before that at times I think Steve_uk's posts are so extreme that he has to be playing devil's advocate. When I saw Steve_uk's post above I found it hilarious and I honestly thought he must be a friend of NGB's and it was all a wind-up :)
I've always been of the opinion that Steve is a " wind-up ",in his own right,that is,,just to keep the forum on its toes.
-
Ngb,,cannot that immunity ever be overturned ?
Only in exceptional circumstances and I cannot currently think of any such circumstances in this case. Obviously if she confessed to having told a pack of lies she could be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice, but that is clearly unlikely to happen. She might be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice in relation to the lies she told during the trial about her News of the World deal, but again I think that is unlikely to happen.
-
Hi N/N wish I had looked at it like that I will read it again and fall off my chair laughing the audacity of the guy to speak in such tones. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D especialy the bit "whoever you are" :'(
-
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
Fantastic post Neil - I think it speak volumes that even the most ardent guilty supporters can't bring themselves to defend the actions of Julie Mugford - never mind the limits that Steve_UK has headed by attempting to discredit your own credentials in defence of the indefensible!!
-
Hi lookout steve is so consumed with steve he does not know the forum exists and if nobody replied to his posts he would do it himself and get the answers he is looking for. ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank you to all members who have made kind comments about my posts on this thread. I do my best to give answers on aspects of the case when asked or where I feel I may be able to add something of value and I try to present an objective assessment. I suspect my assessment of Julie Mugford's position may even find some resonance with members who believe Jeremy to be guilty. I would be interested to hear from Vidvic on this.
-
Hi lookout steve is so consumed with steve he does not know the forum exists and if nobody replied to his posts he would do it himself and get the answers he is looking for. ;D ;D ;D
That made me laugh,Susan. ;D ;D
-
Only in exceptional circumstances and I cannot currently think of any such circumstances in this case. Obviously if she confessed to having told a pack of lies she could be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice, but that is clearly unlikely to happen. She might be proecuted for perverting the course of justice in relation to the lies she told during the trial about her News of the World deal, but again I think that is unlikely to happen.
Thankyou for your answer on that,ngb. I hope JM can live with the possibilities that could well have been realised.
-
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
Neil, such an excellent and dignified post, and how gracious of you not to sink to the level of the post which addressed you, "who ever you are." I can only view such a post as ignorant arrogance. I may in the future come to see it through NaNu's eyes but until then I have to agree with what Susan says, that Steve appears to be so consumed with Steve (and pushing his overriding obsession with Julie) that his own answers would seem to be the only ones of any importance to him. I hope he can muster the humility and grace to offer you an apology.
-
Hello april what an excellent post. You have a wonderful way with words. Well done ;D
-
Hello april what an excellent post. You have a wonderful way with words. Well done ;D
And your words, Susan dear, are very much appreciated :-* :-* :-*
-
Hello april what an excellent post. You have a wonderful way with words. Well done ;D
Yes,,indeed,another educated post. Well put,April.
-
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
Took the words right out of my mouth. ::) ;D
-
There isn't a face of Pinocchio Lugg. ;D ;D
-
Yes,,indeed,another educated post. Well put,April.
Awwww Lookout, THANKYOU :-* :-* :-*
-
There isn't a face of Pinocchio Lugg. ;D ;D
-
Well,if Mugford ommitted things from her first statement,she has failed to be truthful. Does failing to be truthful equal as being a lie? Bridget believed this was so in the case of Simon Hall,but not in the case of Julie Mugford. A tad hypocrytical me thinks!
I do wish people would actually read my posts before commenting. Both Simon Hall and Julie Mugford lied by omission and I've said as much in this thread. The question was whether or not (in relation to a witness) this was an offence.
-
Miss Bridget has an eager looking pussy that wants stroking...purr...meow...
Gee thanks Miss Bridget you're so kind. You know that's not true you got very animated when discussing terrorism and POCA 2002 :)
Animated? Honest, was practically asleep.
-
Bridget may wish to be careful whom she refers to in future as a liar. She may find herself up in court again one day needing to explain herself.
Thanks for that, best laugh I've had all day. Simon lied by omission, sue me.
-
Dear Bridget, dear Steph, it's Friday night, the end of a long week. This is probably one of the most used threads on the forum at the moment and has stimulated more debate than several others put together. May I respectfully ask you both to please play nicely. It would be such a shame if this thread had to be locked again to prevent it wandering off course. Wishing you both a happy Friday :)
-
Well said April - the keys are once again jangling!! ;D ;D
-
Dearest April - It is indeed Friday & the start of the weekend.. ;D ;D ;D ;D
My husband is not here to defend himself and I object to Bridget's constant goading. I get pulled up the moment I mention her case, yet she is allowed to drop Simon's name into her posts whenever it suits.
I do not have a problem playing nicely, when and that's a big when - my opponent plays fair.
Have a good day... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Dearest Steph. It's good to know that at least one of you is willing. It means there's only one to go ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have never been a party to a case, until you understand that you're never going to get it.
April, I would be more than happy to ignore her indefinitely, if she would agree to do the same.
-
Dearest Steph. It's good to know that at least one of you is willing. It means there's only one to go ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
If she continues to respond to my posts I'll continue to respond to hers.
-
I have never been a party to a case, until you understand that you're never going to get it.
April, I would be more than happy to ignore her indefinitely, if she would agree to do the same.
Dear Bridget, WOW, SO many choices or more correctly A choice and several alternatives. You could decide that because it's Friday, you'd rather have a few drinks(I'll join you in that one) You could agree to DISagree. You could agree to totally ignore each other.......... or you COULD take it "Off Topic". :) :)
-
Dear Bridget, WOW, SO many choices or more correctly A choice and several alternatives. You could decide that because it's Friday, you'd rather have a few drinks(I'll join you in that one) You could agree to DISagree. You could agree to totally ignore each other.......... or you COULD take it "Off Topic". :) :)
If you check back you will notice that it is never me who instigates these 'discussions'.
-
If you check back you will notice that it is never me who instigates these 'discussions'.
The way I look at it is.
You can be sat in the park, midning your own business, talking to someone - and BOOM Steph pops up with her ramblings.
You can be in the supermarket, browsing the food, BOOM Hall pops up with her ramblings.
And then you're both told to behave.
:-\
-
The way I look at it is.
You can be sat in the park, midning your own business, talking to someone - and BOOM Steph pops up with her ramblings.
You can be in the supermarket, browsing the food, BOOM Hall pops up with her ramblings.
And then you're both told to behave.
:-\
And then on cue Mat turns up and puts in his two penn'orth....
-
And then on cue Mat turns up and puts in his two penn'orth....
I just see Bridget going through what Petey, Patti, Susie, Roch and myself went through. It's annoying.
-
Thank you to all members who have made kind comments about my posts on this thread. I do my best to give answers on aspects of the case when asked or where I feel I may be able to add something of value and I try to present an objective assessment. I suspect my assessment of Julie Mugford's position may even find some resonance with members who believe Jeremy to be guilty. I would be interested to hear from Vidvic on this.
Lol....have a good weekend Neil !!
-
I just see Bridget going through what Petey, Patti, Susie, Roch and myself went through. It's annoying.
But your interventions pour petrol on the flames, as I am sure you know.
-
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
Brilliant post NGB...I wish I could give you 5 stars... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Lol....have a good weekend Neil !!
Come on Vic ... surely you have an opinion on this? 8)
-
The way I look at it is.
You can be sat in the park, midning your own business, talking to someone - and BOOM Steph pops up with her ramblings.
You can be in the supermarket, browsing the food, BOOM Hall pops up with her ramblings.
And then you're both told to behave.
:-\
Exactly right.
-
Come on Vic ... surely you have an opinion on this? 8)
He's stuck for words NGB....Noooooooooooooooooooooo Never...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Will you please stick to threads subject please. Its getting beyond a joke to keep reading the back sniping....and its spoiling a good thread.
-
Has any of you actually read the statement of AE? Or are we all too busy trying to get personal to each other..
-
Has any of you actually read the statement of AE? Or are we all too busy trying to get personal to each other..
AE has rather taken a back seat, Patti :)
-
Patti Vic stuck for words never nooooooooooooooo(just found out how to do the repeat O it has taken me 4 years) I can see I will be a Mod next ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
AE has rather taken a back seat, Patti :)
I am beginning to think so has Jeremy, April. :) :(
-
Patti Vic stuck for words never nooooooooooooooo(just found out how to do the repeat O it has taken me 4 years) I can see I will be a Mod next ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo lolol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti Vic stuck for words never nooooooooooooooo(just found out how to do the repeat O it has taken me 4 years) I can see I will be a Mod next ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan dear, I'm sure you recall the Sally Army song "Come And Join Us" :D :D :D
-
Susan dear, I'm sure you recall the Sally Army song "Come And Join Us" :D :D :D
Hey I was in the sally army.....I played the tambourine with ribbons. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello april I am sure you will recall I am a member of the Sally Army and love banging my tambourine in the pubs at night and getting an odd pinch on the rear quite nice, ;D ;D ;D a girl has to get a thrill where she can these days ;) ;) ;)
-
Hi Patti but did you get pinched on the rear like I did bet you did'ent ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello april I am sure you will recall I am a member of the Sally Army and love banging my tambourine in the pubs at night and getting an odd pinch on the rear quite nice, ;D ;D ;D a girl has to get a thrill where she can these days ;) ;) ;)
You mean you've swapped your pole for a circular wooden job, with metal bits in it....Poor pole! :'(
-
Patti what makes you think I have swapped my pole. Not lightly the tin fills up much quicker than with the tambourine ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti what makes you think I have swapped my pole. Not lightly the tin fills up much quicker than with the tambourine ;D ;D ;D
Well you have to shake it like you mean it.....lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lol....have a good weekend Neil !!
Come on, Vidvic, you can do it!
-
A woman need's to be given immunity from prosecution for fraud , to enable her to give evidence against a man that shot two children in the head as they slept , says it all !!
-
A woman need's to be given immunity from prosecution for fraud , to enable her to give evidence against a man that shot two children in the head as they slept , says it all !!
If Jeremy is guilty, and I am willing to contemplate that, as I am on the fence, that is not the whole story. It is not "just" fraud, burglary and drug smuggling/dealing, it is also not acting on the telephone call from Jeremy at 10:00 pm," It´s now or never."
Julie could possibly have prevented this unfortunate family from being killed if she had. That is extremely serious.
For a month after the murders, Julie went everywhere with the alleged murderer and didn´t tell police what she knew. For a whole month!
-
If Jeremy is guilty, and I am willing to contemplate that, as I am on the fence, that is not the whole story. It is not "just" fraud, burglary and drug smuggling/dealing, it is also not acting on the telephone call from Jeremy at 10:00 pm," It´s now or never."
Julie could possibly have prevented this unfortunate family from being killed if she had. That is extremely serious.
For a month after the murders, Julie went everywhere with the alleged murderer and didn´t tell police what she knew. For a whole month!
I hope that fence does you no harm Abs !!
-
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
i) Every one of us has left medication of some kind lying around the house in our lives whether it was the useless placebo sleeping tablets which Julie's London doctor prescribed for her or just a pack of Nurofen we've opened and tossed to one side. You cannot possibly know that Julie connived in their use for the purposes of drugging somebody else and I'm surprised that you open with what is one of your weakest arguments.
ii)Again you cannot possibly know that Julie was aware that Jeremy stuffed toothpaste tubes full of cannabis unless you were actually there and saw her pack them in what I assume what was his suitcase. Julie could easily as well have discovered this back at home or not known at all until Jeremy told her.
iii)What does "tonight's the night..it's now or never" mean? Do you know? The Headmaster of Gresham's public school described Jeremy Bamber as "a relentless tease" and Julie would have looked pretty stupid telephoning the Police if had been a false alarm,assuming that she knew the import of those words,which she did not,only realizing by the time of the second telephone call that the family were all dead.
iv)Why would Julie drop powerful hints as you call them to friends about Jeremy's involvement in the murders if she wanted to become Mrs. Bamber? Of course Julie did not want the involvement of the Police as she still held a candle for the man and didn't want him to go to jail,let alone her previous criminal activities induced by Jeremy. Cheque book journalism was a real problem in the 1980s and it was my understanding nothing was signed until the verdict. The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.
v) I'm surprised as a lawyer that you give such weight to Julie's evidence,but again you were not the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake,who said "I advise you to treat Miss Mugford's evidence with a great deal of caution". It was quite evidently to my mind the silencer evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber,evidence which Mike to his credit has done much to cast the shadow of doubt upon,though Julie did bring a human touch to the proceedings which made the trial more dramatic.
In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?
One last thing about Julie's evidence. Of course you have to dissociate yourself from it,because any serious probing of her story would lose any last vestige of sympathy for Jeremy Bamber as his thought processes developed and in retrospect became clear. This was Jeremy's scheme not Julie's and to attempt to endow her with the same attributes will not work with me,or any other serious studier of the White House Murder crimes.
-
I hope that fence does you no harm Abs !!
Hi Jon, you remember me! It is starting to hurt a little, I must admit, I have been on that fence from the first time I heard about this case a couple of years or so agp.
Show me an accomplice, then I am off the fence, because I don´t believe Jeremy could have done this alone. I always get this question in my head: where was Sheila while Jeremy was killing the twins, killing June and fighting with and finally killing Ralph? There must have been someone else there to control three adults. Or a completely different scenario.
-
Hi Steve, Iwouldn't dream of trying to answer your post for ngb. I'm sure he will do a great job on it when back on the forum.
However, I really must speak up for Angie Greaves. What has she ever done to deserve your accusations of gold digger and skirt hitcher. Particularly as she isn't on the forum to defend herself, I do feel she deserves an apology from you.
-
Exactly right.
Well someone's got to take the first step. If what she says is not true, then just ignore it.
-
Hi Jon, you remember me! It is starting to hurt a little, I must admit, I have been on that fence from the first time I heard about this case a couple of years or so agp.
Show me an accomplice, then I am off the fence, because I don´t believe Jeremy could have done this alone. I always get this question in my head: where was Sheila while Jeremy was killing the twins, killing June and fighting with and finally killing Ralph? There must have been someone else there to control three adults. Or a completely different scenario.
Yes Abs , i remember you well , hope you are keeping well , in my opinion Abs no woman stands by and holiday's with a man after killing two children , then as to be threatened with prosecution to come clean . What was she going to do , if she was not a fraudster ?
-
i) Every one of us has left medication of some kind lying around the house in our lives whether it was the useless placebo sleeping tablets which Julie's London doctor prescribed for her or just a pack of Nurofen we've opened and tossed to one side. You cannot possibly know that Julie connived in their use for the purposes of drugging somebody else and I'm surprised that you open with what is one of your weakest arguments.
ii)Again you cannot possibly know that Julie was aware that Jeremy stuffed toothpaste tubes full of cannabis unless you were actually there and saw her pack them in what I assume what was his suitcase. Julie could easily as well have discovered this back at home or not known at all until Jeremy told her.
iii)What does "tonight's the night..it's now or never" mean? Do you know? The Headmaster of Gresham's public school described Jeremy Bamber as "a relentless tease" and Julie would have looked pretty stupid telephoning the Police if had been a false alarm,assuming that she knew the import of those words,which she did not,only realizing by the time of the second telephone call that the family were all dead.
iv)Why would Julie drop powerful hints as you call them to friends about Jeremy's involvement in the murders if she wanted to become Mrs. Bamber? Of course Julie did not want the involvement of the Police as she still held a candle for the man and didn't want him to go to jail,let alone her previous criminal activities induced by Jeremy. Cheque book journalism was a real problem in the 1980s and it was my understanding nothing was signed until the verdict. The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.
v) I'm surprised as a lawyer that you give such weight to Julie's evidence,but again you were not the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake,who said "I advise you to treat Miss Mugford's evidence with a great deal of caution". It was quite evidently to my mind the silencer evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber,evidence which Mike to his credit has done much to cast the shadow of doubt upon,though Julie did bring a human touch to the proceedings which made the trial more dramatic.
In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?
One last thing about Julie's evidence. Of course you have to dissociate yourself from it,because any serious probing of her story would lose any last vestige of sympathy for Jeremy Bamber as his thought processes developed and in retrospect became clear. This was Jeremy's scheme not Julie's and to attempt to endow her with the same attributes will not work with me,or any other serious studier of the White House Murder crimes.
Alarm bells go off right away right there! I would risk "looking pretty stupid" if five people´s lives were at risk! ANY day. Are you kidding me! Good Lord.
Lots of other things I would like to address in your post, but I think this needs to stand alone.
And what exactly is so difficult to understand about "tonight's the night..it's now or never"? There is only one way to interpret that: I am going to kill my family tonight.
Your posts sometimes upset me, Steve.
-
Yes Abs , i remember you well , hope you are keeping well , in my opinion Abs no woman stands by and holiday's with a man after killing two children , then as to be threatened with prosecution to come clean . What was she going to do , if she was not a fraudster ?
Hello Jon, If you are saying that "no woman stands by and holidays with a man after killing two children" Are you suggesting either that A, Julie killed them or B Jeremy didn't kill them and she's lying.
-
Alarm bells go off right away right there! I would risk "looking pretty stupid" if five people´s lives were at risk! ANY day. Are you kidding me! Good Lord.
Lots of other things I would like to address in your post, but I think this needs to stand alone.
And what exactly is so difficult to understand about "tonight's the night..it's now or never"? There is only one way to interpret that: I am going to kill my family tonight.
Your posts sometimes upset me, Steve.
My take on this is that she never took all his family killing talk seriously, she just thought he was blowing off steam. I think it's clear what the phrase means if you take it literally, but she just thought it was more of his BS.
-
Hi Steve, Iwouldn't dream of trying to answer your post for ngb. I'm sure he will do a great job on it when back on the forum.
However, I really must speak up for Angie Greaves. What has she ever done to deserve your accusations of gold digger and skirt hitcher. Particularly as she isn't on the forum to defend herself, I do feel she deserves an apology from you.
No because she badmouthed Julie by saying it was obvious Jeremy wanted to give her the elbow and couldn't take the hint,then dumped him herself when she realized he wasn't going to inherit.
-
i) Every one of us has left medication of some kind lying around the house in our lives whether it was the useless placebo sleeping tablets which Julie's London doctor prescribed for her or just a pack of Nurofen we've opened and tossed to one side. You cannot possibly know that Julie connived in their use for the purposes of drugging somebody else and I'm surprised that you open with what is one of your weakest arguments.
ii)Again you cannot possibly know that Julie was aware that Jeremy stuffed toothpaste tubes full of cannabis unless you were actually there and saw her pack them in what I assume what was his suitcase. Julie could easily as well have discovered this back at home or not known at all until Jeremy told her.
iii)What does "tonight's the night..it's now or never" mean? Do you know? The Headmaster of Gresham's public school described Jeremy Bamber as "a relentless tease" and Julie would have looked pretty stupid telephoning the Police if had been a false alarm,assuming that she knew the import of those words,which she did not,only realizing by the time of the second telephone call that the family were all dead.
iv)Why would Julie drop powerful hints as you call them to friends about Jeremy's involvement in the murders if she wanted to become Mrs. Bamber? Of course Julie did not want the involvement of the Police as she still held a candle for the man and didn't want him to go to jail,let alone her previous criminal activities induced by Jeremy. Cheque book journalism was a real problem in the 1980s and it was my understanding nothing was signed until the verdict. The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.
v) I'm surprised as a lawyer that you give such weight to Julie's evidence,but again you were not the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake,who said "I advise you to treat Miss Mugford's evidence with a great deal of caution". It was quite evidently to my mind the silencer evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber,evidence which Mike to his credit has done much to cast the shadow of doubt upon,though Julie did bring a human touch to the proceedings which made the trial more dramatic.
In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?
One last thing about Julie's evidence. Of course you have to dissociate yourself from it,because any serious probing of her story would lose any last vestige of sympathy for Jeremy Bamber as his thought processes developed and in retrospect became clear. This was Jeremy's scheme not Julie's and to attempt to endow her with the same attributes will not work with me,or any other serious studier of the White House Murder crimes.
Hmm...Interesting point. It is irrelevant because if it was not Julie it would have been Anji Greaves? That is rather a strange judgment upon Anji Greaves isn't it. The plain facts are that it was NOT Anji Greaves. But it WAS Julie Mugford. And she looked just like a whore and I suggest that she was akin to a whore as she sold her story about her self to the press. And how could you possible know that the papers were not signed until after the verdict, when JM herself said that she could not remember when she signed it? Could not remember my arse. She sold out Jeremy to save her own skin. Plain as you ignorance is sure.
-
My take on this is that she never took all his family killing talk seriously, she just thought he was blowing off steam. I think it's clear what the phrase means if you take it literally, but she just thought it was more of his BS.
How many people/men have you been with who keep talking about killing his family? For a year - with detailed plans of poisoning and arson.
I sure haven´t been with anyone doing that, not even close!
-
No because she badmouthed Julie by saying it was obvious Jeremy wanted to give her the elbow and couldn't take the hint,then dumped him herself when she realized he wasn't going to inherit.
I would suggest you don't know why she dumped him. If she dumped him because he was found guilty and she believed he was guilty well she did what most women would do, why would she want to be the girlfriend of a murderer? Unlike Julie, she cut and ran very understandable at the time. Just because she wasn't nice to Julie doesn't mean she would have behaved in the brazen way Julie did and again I believe she deserves an apology.
-
How many people/men have you been with who keep talking about killing his family? For a year - with detailed plans of poisoning and arson.
I sure haven´t been with anyone doing that, not even close!
If that was so she must have been pretty thick not to see it all until after the event.
-
Hmm...Interesting point. It is irrelevant because if it was not Julie it would have been Anji Greaves? That is rather a strange judgment upon Anji Greaves isn't it. The plain facts are that it was NOT Anji Greaves. But it WAS Julie Mugford. And she looked just like a whore and I suggest that she was akin to a whore as she sold her story about her self to the press. And how could you possible know that the papers were not signed until after the verdict, when JM herself said that she could not remember when she signed it? Could not remember my arse. She sold out Jeremy to save her own skin. Plain as you ignorance is sure.
So incredibly insulting to Anji Greaves! Not ALL women stoop as low as Julie Mugford, far, FAR from it!
-
Alarm bells go off right away right there! I would risk "looking pretty stupid" if five people´s lives were at risk! ANY day. Are you kidding me! Good Lord.
Lots of other things I would like to address in your post, but I think this needs to stand alone.
And what exactly is so difficult to understand about "tonight's the night..it's now or never"? There is only one way to interpret that: I am going to kill my family tonight.
Your posts sometimes upset me, Steve.
From what I have read Julie is to this day devastated at what we might agree was her non-action,but the most telling incident to my mind occurred at Blazer's restaurant Blackheath when Jeremy seeing Julie so distraught took her hand,looked into her eyes and said:"You mustn't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway.."
-
How many people/men have you been with who keep talking about killing his family? For a year - with detailed plans of poisoning and arson.
I sure haven´t been with anyone doing that, not even close!
Thankfully none, but I think it was the fact that he went on about it for a year, did nothing about it and had an apparently normal relationship with his family otherwise, which lead her to believe he wasn't seriously contemplating doing it.
-
If that was so she must have been pretty thick not to see it all until after the event.
We know that Julie wasn´t thick, so there.
-
Thankfully none, but I think it was the fact that he went on about it for a year, did nothing about it and had an apparently normal relationship with his family otherwise, which lead her to believe he wasn't seriously contemplating doing it.
Is there any proof that he was thinking about it for a year other than what we get from JM?
-
Is there any proof that he was thinking about it for a year other than what we get from JM?
Not as far as I know, although Steve will quote another couple of people at you. I tend towards those other comments being off the cuff (although horrid) remarks, because I haven't seen the context in which they were made.
-
Thankfully none, but I think it was the fact that he went on about it for a year, did nothing about it and had an apparently normal relationship with his family otherwise, which lead her to believe he wasn't seriously contemplating doing it.
It doesn´t ring plausible to me. Would you have risked "looking pretty stupid" calling the police after the 10:00 pm call, and heck, it was Steve who said police; why didn´t she call the family at least? If she was uncomfortable talking to the Bambers, she could have asked for Sheila.
-
It doesn´t ring plausible to me. Would you have risked "looking pretty stupid" calling the police after the 10:00 pm call, and heck, it was Steve who said police; why didn´t she call the family at least? If she was uncomfortable talking to the Bambers, she could have asked for Sheila.
Well, I disagree with Steve's assertion that looking stupid would have ever crossed her mind. I think on hearing JBs comment she just thought something along the lines of "for f*ck's sake not this again" and thought no more about it until she got the 3am call.
-
Well, I disagree with Steve's assertion that looking stupid would have ever crossed her mind. I think on hearing JBs comment she just thought something along the lines of "for f*ck's sake not this again" and thought no more about it until she got the 3am call.
And then said: go back to bed---?
Have to go, just so you know I am not being rude if I don´t answer. Have a nice night, all.
-
Well, I disagree with Steve's assertion that looking stupid would have ever crossed her mind. I think on hearing JBs comment she just thought something along the lines of "for f*ck's sake not this again" and thought no more about it until she got the 3am call.
I can accept that Bridget but why did she stay with him? Sleep with him? amd holiday with him? Can't believe she would have done that, for a start she would surely have been terrified of him?
-
And then said: go back to bed---?
Have to go, just so you know I am not being rude if I don´t answer. Have a nice night, all.
It was during the 3am phone call that she told him to go to bed I think, after which the penny dropped according to her.
-
It's all lies, Mugford knew nothing of the sort, and hadn't got a clue what Jeremy was talking about when he called her at 3:30am (Mystic Bridget enjoyed getting in a mention of the call at 3am, rather than the correct time of 3:30am)...
-
I can accept that Bridget but why did she stay with him? Sleep with him? amd holiday with him? Can't believe she would have done that, for a start she would surely have been terrified of him?
Honestly, it makes little sense to me either, but I'm basing that on what I would or wouldn't do.
-
The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.
In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?
I cannot believe you're excusing Julie revealing her thighs on the ground that Anji Greaves MAY have.
As for the rest of your politically motivated cant, I find it difficult to work out how you manage to live in a world where you appear to view all other beings as incapable of your level of intelligence. The above paragraph seems full of anger, bitterness and resentment and condemnation. You can go on extoling Julie's virtues till the cows come home but she's married and living in Canada.
-
Hi Steve, Iwouldn't dream of trying to answer your post for ngb. I'm sure he will do a great job on it when back on the forum.
However, I really must speak up for Angie Greaves. What has she ever done to deserve your accusations of gold digger and skirt hitcher. Particularly as she isn't on the forum to defend herself, I do feel she deserves an apology from you.
Who got 25 grand from the NOTW whilst hitching her skirt for the camera!! That wasn't Angie Greaves was it? No, that was Julie Mugford!!
-
Who got 25 grand from the NOTW whilst hitching her skirt for the camera!! That wasn't Angie Greaves was it? No, that was Julie Mugford!!
Yes Caroline, WE know that, but Steve assures us with something uncannily close to clairvoyance, that Anji WOULD have done it.
-
i) Every one of us has left medication of some kind lying around the house in our lives whether it was the useless placebo sleeping tablets which Julie's London doctor prescribed for her or just a pack of Nurofen we've opened and tossed to one side. You cannot possibly know that Julie connived in their use for the purposes of drugging somebody else and I'm surprised that you open with what is one of your weakest arguments.
ii)Again you cannot possibly know that Julie was aware that Jeremy stuffed toothpaste tubes full of cannabis unless you were actually there and saw her pack them in what I assume what was his suitcase. Julie could easily as well have discovered this back at home or not known at all until Jeremy told her.
iii)What does "tonight's the night..it's now or never" mean? Do you know? The Headmaster of Gresham's public school described Jeremy Bamber as "a relentless tease" and Julie would have looked pretty stupid telephoning the Police if had been a false alarm,assuming that she knew the import of those words,which she did not,only realizing by the time of the second telephone call that the family were all dead.
iv)Why would Julie drop powerful hints as you call them to friends about Jeremy's involvement in the murders if she wanted to become Mrs. Bamber? Of course Julie did not want the involvement of the Police as she still held a candle for the man and didn't want him to go to jail,let alone her previous criminal activities induced by Jeremy. Cheque book journalism was a real problem in the 1980s and it was my understanding nothing was signed until the verdict. The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.
v) I'm surprised as a lawyer that you give such weight to Julie's evidence,but again you were not the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake,who said "I advise you to treat Miss Mugford's evidence with a great deal of caution". It was quite evidently to my mind the silencer evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber,evidence which Mike to his credit has done much to cast the shadow of doubt upon,though Julie did bring a human touch to the proceedings which made the trial more dramatic.
In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?
One last thing about Julie's evidence. Of course you have to dissociate yourself from it,because any serious probing of her story would lose any last vestige of sympathy for Jeremy Bamber as his thought processes developed and in retrospect became clear. This was Jeremy's scheme not Julie's and to attempt to endow her with the same attributes will not work with me,or any other serious studier of the White House Murder crimes.
Unbelievable!! But wholly predictable!!
-
Im not as stupid as jeremy i for the life of me would have anything to do with mugford , i would just be as happy waxing a racer cycle frame, unless i have it wrong steve seems to think the money was just for mugford well earned so to speak.
-
Im not as stupid as jeremy i for the life of me would have anything to do with mugford , i would just be as happy waxing a racer cycle frame, unless i have it wrong steve seems to think the money was just for mugford well earned so to speak.
I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.
-
I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.
Steve with respect you are more a mouthpiece for Julie than for the victim's imo.
-
Steve with respect you are more a mouthpiece for Julie than for the victim's imo.
Well I see Julie as a victim-sorry to rub salt into the wound. Many women would not recover from the rejection and guilt-trip she suffered,pick themselves up,dust themselves off and start again at the age of 21. I have said many times I don't know how Julie managed to juggle her career and family responsibilities and she thoroughly deserves her 6 figure salary she is paid currently in Canada.
-
I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.
Fair enough but then you make an excuse for her by saying if it wasn't her flashing her thighs it would have been AG when you couldn't possibly know that. And Maggie is right, it does seen that you are here to defend Julie above and beyond anyone else!! And if Jeremy is innocent, he is also a victim. However, you won't find anyone here from either side who doesn't care about the victims.
-
I've said many times that the photographs were in thoroughly bad taste and a mistake on Julie's part. She has since tried to make amends with her charity work in Canada and I think it would have been mean to say the least not to have given her a second chance. I can understand how frustrated the Jeremy supporters must feel at what they perceive as an innocent man's wrongful incarceration,though it also angers me at the same time that he gains support from them when the victims can't speak for themselves and therefore need a mouthpiece which is what I am offering.
Hi Steve
Julie's evidence alone is not enough to say that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of any crime at all. There is no forensic evidence she could ever point to that would convince anyone of Jeremy's guilt. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Lets put it another way: Scenario!
There are two people in court giving evidence to a crime.
One is a bank manager the other is a student.
The bank manager has 10 years of banking experience. He has never been arrested and is a law abiding citizen, married with two children.
The student is from a broken home. She has just been jilted by her boyfriend, she has had dealing with drugs, she has also been involved in two thefts.
They both give different variations on what happened in the park.
Answer me honestly who would you believe....the bank manager or student. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Well I see Julie as a victim-sorry to rub salt into the wound. Many women would not recover from the rejection and guilt-trip she suffered,pick themselves up,dust themselves off and start again at the age of 21. I have said many times I don't know how Julie managed to juggle her career and family responsibilities and she thoroughly deserves her 6 figure salary she is paid currently in Canada.
And we see Jeremy as a victim of Julie! Sorry to rub salt in the wounds!! She did nothing special, there are thousands - make that MILLIONS of women who are rejected everyday and still manage to have successful career. Not sure she has everything she deserves yet - maybe one day she will!! ;)
-
Fair enough but then you make an excuse for her by saying if it wasn't her flashing her thighs it would have been AG when you couldn't possibly know that. And Maggie is right, it does seen that you are here to defend Julie above and beyond anyone else!! And if Jeremy is innocent, he is also a victim. However, you won't find anyone here from either side who doesn't care about the victims.
Of course I know that. Anji Greaves had the champagne on ice with journalists from the Sun in a top London hotel boudoir with a banner reading "FAITH,TRUTH,JUSTICE..WELCOME HOME JEREMY" and would have pocketed the £50,000 cheque on offer had she not put it down her bra or put it inside her garter first.
-
Hi Steve
Julie's evidence alone is not enough to say that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of any crime at all. There is no forensic evidence she could ever point to that would convince anyone of Jeremy's guilt. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Lets put it another way: Scenario!
There are two people in court giving evidence to a crime.
One is a bank manager the other is a student.
The bank manager has 10 years of banking experience. He has never been arrested and is a law abiding citizen, married with two children.
The student is from a broken home. She has just been jilted by her boyfriend, she has had dealing with drugs, she has also been involved in two thefts.
They both give different variations on what happened in the park.
Answer me honestly who would you believe....the bank manager or student. :-\ :-\ :-\
In your case I would believe the bank manager but I don't really understand the analogy as Jeremy was hardly John the Baptist..
-
Of course I know that. Anji Greaves had the champagne on ice with journalists from the Sun in a top London hotel boudoir with a banner reading "FAITH,TRUTH,JUSTICE..WELCOME HOME JEREMY" and would have pocketed the £50,000 cheque on offer had she not put it down her bra or put it inside her garter first.
What an odd thing to say! And you know nothing of the sort! I would just like to know what century you think she belonged to? I know 1985 was a while ago but I'm sure 'garters' were just a tad before that? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In your case I would believe the bank manager but I don't really understand the analogy as Jeremy was hardly John the Baptist..
No analogy, the point being that Julie lied about the visit to the bank!!
-
What an odd thing to say! And you know nothing of the sort! I would just like to know what century you think she belonged to? I know 1985 was a while ago but I'm sure 'garters' were just a tad before that? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Compared to some of the posts I have read this week mine are as pure as the driven snow. I know the Anji Greaves story because it's in the Claire Powell book,and Ms. Greaves should sue if it was inaccurate.
-
No analogy, the point being that Julie lied about the visit to the bank!!
Do you have proof of that? As for Patti's student example,Jeremy was hardly in that bracket was he?
-
Compared to some of the threads I have read this week mine are as pure as the driven snow. I know the Anji Greaves story because it's in the Claire Powell book,and Ms. Greaves should sue if it was inaccurate.
I'm not talking about her plans to sell a news story, I'm talking about how you're trying to pass the buck regards the provocative poses. That was Julie not AG - and no matter how much you try and twist things around, you won't change that!! She said (as part of her contract) she had to do pictures, but no one 'forced' her into lifting her skirt for a story that involved the deaths of 5 people - 5 deaths which (if you believe her - and YOU do) she could have prevented!! Even if I thought Jeremy Bamber was guilty, I would still be appalled by the testimony of Julie Mugford because she claims to have known of the plans for a full year and yet did nothing because she wanted to be Mrs Jeremy Bamber and she would have been too, had he not dumped her when he discovered how possessive she was - and as it turned out - vengeful - as he found out to his detriment!!
-
Proof is in the bank manager Alan Dovey's statement.
-
Do you have proof of that? As for Patti's student example,Jeremy was hardly in that bracket was he?
Of course there is proof, have you read Dovey's statement?? I can't believe you just asked that!!
-
Proof is in the bank manager Alan Dovey's statement.
Thanks Tyler, I thought I had just lost my mind for a second!! Might need a lie down in a darkend room soon!! ;D ;D
-
Well I see Julie as a victim-sorry to rub salt into the wound. Many women would not recover from the rejection and guilt-trip she suffered,pick themselves up,dust themselves off and start again at the age of 21. I have said many times I don't know how Julie managed to juggle her career and family responsibilities and she thoroughly deserves her 6 figure salary she is paid currently in Canada.
You really are as blind as a bat as regards JM aren't you? I've never read such twaddle in all my life. She was calculating crook and nothing more who lied to get an innocent man convicted in order to deprive him of a normal life. Then she ran away to Canada and proceeded to try and propitiate her sins with charity work. But no amount of charity work will ever pay that high price that she vainly hopes for. I order to do that she must put things right by telling the truth.
-
You really are as blind as a bat as regards JM aren't you? I've never read such twaddle in all my life. She was calculating crook and nothing more who lied to get an innocent man convicted in order to deprive him of a normal life. Then she ran away to Canada and proceeded to try and propitiate her sins with charity work. But no amount of charity work will ever pay that high price that she vainly hopes for. I order to do that she must put things right by telling the truth.
Well said!!
-
Of course there is proof, have you read Dovey's statement?? I can't believe you just asked that!!
Unfortunately he doesn't appear to know the case very well does he?
-
Unfortunately he doesn't appear to know the case very well does he?
Sadly no, only what has been written in books and only then, if the ideas back up his own thoughts - or is it a chicken and egg situation? :)
-
I'm not talking about her plans to sell a news story, I'm talking about how you're trying to pass the buck regards the provocative poses. That was Julie not AG - and no matter how much you try and twist things around, you won't change that!! She said (as part of her contract) she had to do pictures, but no one 'forced' her into lifting her skirt for a story that involved the deaths of 5 people - 5 deaths which (if you believe her - and YOU do) she could have prevented!! Even if I thought Jeremy Bamber was guilty, I would still be appalled by the testimony of Julie Mugford because she claims to have known of the plans for a full year and yet did nothing because she wanted to be Mrs Jeremy Bamber and she would have been too, had he not dumped her when he discovered how possessive she was - and as it turned out - vengeful - as he found out to his detriment!!
Jeremy Bamber was damaged goods before he even met Julie. He had an affair with Suzette Ford whom he told "let's make babies",but tragically for all concerned none were produced. Winding the story on Sheila is presented with two babies and a flat in a fashionable area of London,and due to her illness is unable to support them properly without help from her parents. All this is building up resentment in Jeremy as he farms the drab landscape of Essex stuck inside a tractor with a canopy,and unbeknownst to his parents he plots his revenge inside this vehicle as he counts the furlongs to his freedom.
Julie is an outsider just as DCI Taff Jones was to the Essex scene and both fall for Jeremy's charm in their own way. Julie is sidetracked by the incredible pressure of a teaching career which is impossible at the best of times,particularly in its inception when you have no routine to follow. Add on Jeremy's hatred for his parents which the Jeremy supporters never acknowledge and would gain more credibility with myself if they did,an occasion which Jeremy found too tempting to miss when the whole family would stay under one roof,his knowledge of guns which had earned him a modicum of respect among his peers at Gresham's from a boy desperate for any kind of attention,a lightning storm which had disrupted the telephone system and Sheila in a vacant state due to mistakes with her medication,and Jeremy suddenly sees a possible way out. Of course he's not a psychopath and wouldn't normally have the gumption to proceed with the wicked plan,but with the help of a dose of cocaine coupled with the cannabis already in his system he is set on his deadly course. When the cocaine wears off he remembers little of his evil rampage and sticks to his maxim of "tell the truth wherever possible". The difficult questions he avoids at every turn and is unable to attack Julie without incriminating himself,which is why he has never done so.
-
When the cocaine wears off? It only gives a "high" for between half an hour to an hour. He sure must have acted out his "plan" quickly!
-
Jeremy Bamber was damaged goods before he even met Julie. He had an affair with Suzette Ford whom he told "let's make babies",but tragically for all concerned none were produced. Winding the story on Sheila is presented with two babies and a flat in a fashionable area of London,and due to her illness is unable to support them properly without help from her parents. All this is building up resentment in Jeremy as he farms the drab landscape of Essex stuck inside a tractor with a canopy,and unbeknownst to his parents he plots his revenge inside this vehicle as he counts the furlongs to his freedom.
Julie is an outsider just as DCI Taff Jones was to the Essex scene and both fall for Jeremy's charm in their own way. Julie is sidetracked by the incredible pressure of a teaching career which is impossible at the best of times,particularly in its inception when you have no routine to follow. Add on Jeremy's hatred for his parents which the Jeremy supporters never acknowledge and would gain more credibility with myself if they did,an occasion which Jeremy found too tempting to miss when the whole family would stay under one roof,his knowledge of guns which had earned him a modicum of respect among his peers at Gresham's from a boy desperate for any kind of attention,a lightning storm which had disrupted the telephone system and Sheila in a vacant state due to mistakes with her medication,and Jeremy suddenly sees a possible way out. Of course he's not a psychopath and wouldn't normally have the gumption to proceed with the wicked plan,but with the help of a dose of cocaine coupled with the cannabis already in his system he is set on his deadly course. When the cocaine wears off he remembers little of his evil rampage and sticks to his maxim of "tell the truth wherever possible". The difficult questions he avoids at every turn and is unable to attack Julie without incriminating himself,which is why he has never done so.
And you accused Neil of 'flights of fancy' ::) ::)
-
When the cocaine wears off? It only gives a "high" for between half an hour to an hour. He sure must have acted out his "plan" quickly!
After having just written one of my best posts #703 off the cuff in less than two minutes could you please explain the Dovey statement which I took to signify that the girls were going to pay money back that they had fraudulently obtained. As for your point tyler I'm afraid that the murders were indeed done in a very short space of time as DCI Wilkinson cycled the route to White House Farm from Goldhanger in 6(six)minutes.
-
After having just written one of my best posts #703 off the cuff in less than two minutes could you please explain the Dovey statement which I took to signify that the girls were going to pay money back that they had fraudulently obtained. As for your point tyler I'm afraid that the murders were indeed done in a very short space of time as DCI Wilkinson cycled the route to White House Farm from Goldhanger in 6(six)minutes.
Read the statement! And I'm not surprised it only took you a short while to write, it's the same stuff you always write.
-
Steve, do you honestly believe that Julie couldn't have stopped the murders?
-
Read the statement! And I'm not surprised it only took you a short while to write, it's the same stuff you always write.
I read through it 10 minutes ago whilst Lugg and yourself were tattling on. Now where did Julie lie..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.0.html
-
After having just written one of my best posts #703 off the cuff in less than two minutescould you please explain the Dovey statement which I took to signify that the girls were going to pay money back that they had fraudulently obtained. As for your point tyler I'm afraid that the murders were indeed done in a very short space of time as DCI Wilkinson cycled the route to White House Farm from Goldhanger in 6(six)minutes.
I can well believe it. It's rubbish.
-
Steve, do you honestly believe that Julie couldn't have stopped the murders?
Vidvic as I say I believe Julie was sidetracked with an incredibly stressful moment of her career and knowing how she has advanced in that career she probably was a perfectionist all the way through it in a way I never was. I think she saw Jeremy as the practical joker that he was and humoured him in some of the party antics one can read about in the books on the case and took the murder plot in the same vein. Do you think Robert Boutflour is to be admonished for not acting upon Jeremy's "I could easily kill my parents" or is it because Julie wrote an account of her life of nearly two years spent in Jeremy's company condensed into 14 pages which makes it appear all the more dramatic,or maybe because she was a pretty young woman that she was picked on whereas the old man was not.
-
Vidvic as I say I believe Julie was sidetracked with an incredibly stressful moment of her career and knowing how she has advanced in that career she probably was a perfectionist all the way through it in a way I never was. I think she saw Jeremy as the practical joker that he was an humoured him in some of the party antics one can read about in the books on the case and took the murder plot in the same vein. Do you think Robert Boutflour is to be admonished for not acting upon Jeremy's "I could easily kill my parents" or is it because Julie wrote an account of her life of nearly two years spent in Jeremy's company condensed into 14 pages which makes it appear all the more dramatic,or maybe because she was a pretty young woman that she was picked on whereas the old man was not.
I meant you no malice in asking, I believe most of her story, But the person she was then and the person she is now are two very different things, in my honest opinion.
-
Yes, volunteering incomplete information, provided that this misleads the police, could be seen as a positive act of assisting the offender. Obviously each situation has to be assessed on its own facts.
My understanding is that Julie Mugford was granted immunity from prosecution in relation to all disclosed offences on the authority of the DPP and on that basis was inteviewed as a witness rather than under caution as a suspect.
Sorry to drag this back up, but what do you make of this from the appeal?
The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.
As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.
Has further evidence turned up on that issue? If so, was it included in the last CCRC application?
-
Can I ask you another Steve?
why do you think Bamber sent her a note whilst they were both being interviewed?
-
I read through it 10 minutes ago whilst Lugg and yourself were tattling on. Now where did Julie lie..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.0.html
Julie said she and SB went to the bank alone and of their own volition - she goes into detail about how they were afraid to go in, how they tentatively approached a cashier to ask to see the manager. How she did all the talking because Susan was scared!! Turns out it was all BS because they didn't go alone at all, they met SJ on his day off and HE did all of the talking and made sure the bank wouldn't prosecute the cases 'star witnesses'. I seriously can't believe that you needed me to point this out, it's been mentioned so many times but Dovey's statement is clear enough without my explanation - 'he' had no reason to lie!!
-
Julie said she and SB went to the bank alone and of their own volition - she goes into detail about how they were afraid to go in, how they tentatively approached a cashier to ask to see the manager. How she did all the talking because Susan was scared!! Turns out it was all BS because they didn't go alone at all, they met SJ on his day off and HE did all of the talking and made sure the bank wouldn't prosecute the cases 'star witnesses'. I seriously can't believe that you needed me to point this out, it's been mentioned so many times but Dovey's statement is clear enough without my explanation - 'he' had no reason to lie!!
Trouble is Caroline, as you'll see when the appeal notes get to that point, he said at the appeal that he couldn't stand by that.
-
Trouble is Caroline, as you'll see when the appeal notes get to that point, he said at the appeal that he couldn't stand by that.
What? That he totally imagined a man being with them and that the meeting was prior arranged? I have read his statement and it is from the 2002 appeal and he is quite clear about what happened and who was present.
What makes it worse is that he was never even called as a witness at the trial!!
-
What? That he totally imagined a man being with them and that the meeting was prior arranged? I have read his statement and it is from the 2002 appeal and he is quite clear about what happened and who was present.
What makes it worse is that he was never even called as a witness at the trial!!
No, he was certain that there was a police officer present but couldn't identify that officer as Stan Jones. He also stated that the officer had not put him under any pressure at all to drop any prosecution. So what we have is a difference as to whether or not a police officer attended, and I don't really see how you can decide who is right. Personally I go with Dovey being a reliable witness with no axe to grind and so I believe a police officer was present. But since he says the officer did not put him under any pressure I can't see why anyone would need to lie about it.
-
What? That he totally imagined a man being with them and that the meeting was prior arranged? I have read his statement and it is from the 2002 appeal and he is quite clear about what happened and who was present.
What makes it worse is that he was never even called as a witness at the trial!!
But he was a witness in 2002 and there were inconsistencies between his statement and his testimony.
-
No, he was certain that there was a police officer present but couldn't identify that officer as Stan Jones. He also stated that the officer had not put him under any pressure at all to drop any prosecution. So what we have is a difference as to whether or not a police officer attended, and I don't really see how you can decide who is right. Personally I go with Dovey being a reliable witness with no axe to grind and so I believe a police officer was present. But since he says the officer did not put him under any pressure I can't see why anyone would need to lie about it.
And yet, Julie Mugford lied about it! Why would he need to be put under pressure? His statement gives the impression that he was told from 'his' own superior's what would be happening and as the meeting had been prior arranged the details were quite obviously discussed before Dovey was involved - he was after all, only a stand in manager.
-
But he was a witness in 2002.
Vic, there is a CLEAR discrepancy between Dovey's and Mugfords statements and no one will convince me that it wasn't on purpose. If Mugford was 'seen' to have gone to the bank of her own volition, it would obviously make her a better witness in the eyes of the prosecution.
-
And yet, Julie Mugford lied about it! Why would he need to be put under pressure? His statement gives the impression that he was told from 'his' own superior's what would be happening and as the meeting had been prior arranged the details were quite obviously discussed before Dovey was involved - he was after all, only a stand in manager.
I don't see how you can say that she lied about it with any certainty. There are 3 separate accounts, hers, Susan's and Dovey's and his conflicts with theirs. I prefer his because I see him as neutral, but at the same time, since I can't see any reason for them to lie (especially since they couldn't have got away with the lie because of him) I think they were just mistaken.
He specifically states that he made the decision not to prosecute himself.
-
I don't see how you can say that she lied about it with any certainty. There are 3 separate accounts, hers, Susan's and Dovey's and his conflicts with theirs. I prefer his because I see him as neutral, but at the same time, since I can't see any reason for them to lie (especially since they couldn't have got away with the lie because of him) I think they were just mistaken.
He specifically states that he made the decision not to prosecute himself.
Seriously?? They forgot that they didn't actually ask the cashier to see the manager? That they were accompanied by a police office? That JM didn't do most of the talking (in fact Dovey states that she didn't say anything). The reason for them to lie is that as I have just stated, if they were seen to go to the bank of their own volition, it makes them a better witness than if cohered. Sorry Bridget but I certainly don't buy for one moment that they just forgot or were (like a lot of people in this case) simply 'mistaken'
-
Seriously?? They forgot that they didn't actually ask the cashier to see the manager? That they were accompanied by a police office? That JM didn't do most of the talking (in fact Dovey states that she didn't say anything). The reason for them to lie is that as I have just stated, if they were seen to go to the bank of their own volition, it makes them a better witness than if cohered. Sorry Bridget but I certainly don't buy for one moment that they just forgot or were (like a lot of people in this case) simply 'mistaken'
And, they did get away with it, he wasn't called as a witness!
One more thing before I go for what is for me (lately) and early night - If this was all above board as you would have me believe, were is the statement from the police officer who attended with them? And how were they allowed to make such an omission in their statements when they were officially escorted there by an officer who you would imagine, would have made a report - somewhere?
-
Seriously?? They forgot that they didn't actually ask the cashier to see the manager? That they were accompanied by a police office? That JM didn't do most of the talking (in fact Dovey states that she didn't say anything). The reason for them to lie is that as I have just stated, if they were seen to go to the bank of their own volition, it makes them a better witness than if cohered. Sorry Bridget but I certainly don't buy for one moment that they just forgot or were (like a lot of people in this case) simply 'mistaken'
He doesn't say anything about the cashier, what makes you think they didn't speak to one?
Where does he say that JM didn't say anything? I'm not saying he didn't say that, but I can't find it.
Why would anyone try to hide the fact that a police officer was present when clearly he was going to say different? Did they forget to bribe him?
-
He doesn't say anything about the cashier, what makes you think they didn't speak to one?
Where does he say that JM didn't say anything? I'm not saying he didn't say that, but I can't find it.
Why would anyone try to hide the fact that a police officer was present when clearly he was going to say different? Did they forget to bribe him?
Where is the police officers statement? He wasn't called as a witness so he didn't say anything!!
-
And, they did get away with it, he wasn't called as a witness!
The defence were at liberty to call him, but when asked in 2002 whether they would have done in light of the revelation of the discrepancy said the following:
We are conscious of the fact that Mr Edmund Lawson QC, in a statement put before the court, said that he found it difficult to say unequivocally that the defence would have made use of this information even if they had been aware of it. He said of this matter that "it may seem relatively unimportant". He observed, however, that if it showed the police to have been dishonest in that there were denials of what had really happened, then there might have been a use to be made of it to attack police credibility.
And on that basis the CoA decision was:
We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.
-
Where is the police officers statement? He wasn't called as a witness so he didn't say anything!!
Well clearly as far as the prosecution were concerned there was no police officer, but that's not what I asked you.
-
The defence were at liberty to call him, but when asked in 2002 whether they would have done in light of the revelation of the discrepancy said the following:
We are conscious of the fact that Mr Edmund Lawson QC, in a statement put before the court, said that he found it difficult to say unequivocally that the defence would have made use of this information even if they had been aware of it. He said of this matter that "it may seem relatively unimportant". He observed, however, that if it showed the police to have been dishonest in that there were denials of what had really happened, then there might have been a use to be made of it to attack police credibility.
And on that basis the CoA decision was:
We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.
In the first instance, in no way are they saying they wouldn't have used the discrepancy, truth is they weren't aware of of it and so we will never know. Had they known, perhaps it would have uncovered why there is no statement by the officer who attended the bank with JM and SB- that in itself is suspicious. In the second, the conclusion doesn't surprise me in the least but I don't agree with it!!
-
Well clearly as far as the prosecution were concerned there was no police officer, but that's not what I asked you.
So the whole truth wasn't heard and you don't think that's deceitful? As far as the cashier goes, read JM's statement again and then read Dovey's. That is all I am saying because we will never agree.
-
The relevant section of Julie Mugfords statement .....
“There ws no appointment made. (cough!) I think we stood outside the bank for 10 minutes, building ourselves up. Susan was a basket case, very nervous I would have to do the initial talking. We went in as we felt we had to try and correct this. We went to the teller and asked to speak to the manager. We were initially refused (Why? an appointment HAD been made and they weren't alone!!). I said it's about fraud which changed the tellers mind. They went off to speak to somebody. I have been reminded that the visit to the bank occurred on 4th October 1985. The date was not significant in the sense of appointments (HA!!), it was a day we plucked up courage to go (and you say she didn't lie!! :). It was close to the officer asking us if we had been to the bank. We went though to a room at the back and met someone who we assumed to be the manager. We told him we had lied and said the cheque book was gone. We said we'd spent the cheques Susan now had to do more talking because it was her cheque book. We offered to pay the money back and he asked us questions like, who signed the cheques? How much had we spent? And how we would pay the money back? We asked what would happen from here and would we be arrested. He said he needed to refer to his supervisors as it was not his decision to make (he said it was!). In relation to the arrest he said he didn't think we would be because it was so bizarre that without our admissions it would never be traced. He said that this happened quite a lot in banks and it was most peculiar that people i.e. us, would come to admit what they;ve done and pay off the debt. Te amount was pretty minuscule to the bank (no manager or acting manager would say that!!). We left out name and might have left Stan JONES number" (why? he was probably stood next to them!! :)
and further …..
"I have been specifically asked if there was any collusion with police to ensure that Susan and I attended court without a record and were therefore credible witnesses (this is the reason you asked for!). I am unaware of any if this occurred I did ask a question about how we could fix the situation and the response did act as a prompt to us. We were never directed , told to do anything or informed to do anything and we were not prompted. As far as I am aware our activities were not monitored. We went to the bank on the day we chose when we had built up the courage. We were not escorted or accompanied by the police on that day. I do not believe I would have immediately reported to Stan JONES that we had attended the bank, but I feel sure that I would have told him during one of our meetings or conversations."
This is completely at odds with what Dovey says and is completely blatant!
-
The relevant section of Julie Mugfords statement .....
“There ws no appointment made. (cough!) I think we stood outside the bank for 10 minutes, building ourselves up. Susan was a basket case, very nervous I would have to do the initial talking. We went in as we felt we had to try and correct this. We went to the teller and asked to speak to the manager. We were initially refused (Why? an appointment HAD been made and they weren't alone!!). I said it's about fraud which changed the tellers mind. They went off to speak to somebody. I have been reminded that the visit to the bank occurred on 4th October 1985. The date was not significant in the sense of appointments (HA!!), it was a day we plucked up courage to go (and you say she didn't lie!! :). It was close to the officer asking us if we had been to the bank. We went though to a room at the back and met someone who we assumed to be the manager. We told him we had lied and said the cheque book was gone. We said we'd spent the cheques Susan now had to do more talking because it was her cheque book. We offered to pay the money back and he asked us questions like, who signed the cheques? How much had we spent? And how we would pay the money back? We asked what would happen from here and would we be arrested. He said he needed to refer to his supervisors as it was not his decision to make (he said it was!). In relation to the arrest he said he didn't think we would be because it was so bizarre that without our admissions it would never be traced. He said that this happened quite a lot in banks and it was most peculiar that people i.e. us, would come to admit what they;ve done and pay off the debt. Te amount was pretty minuscule to the bank (no manager or acting manager would say that!!). We left out name and might have left Stan JONES number" (why? he was probably stood next to them!! :)
and further …..
"I have been specifically asked if there was any collusion with police to ensure that Susan and I attended court without a record and were therefore credible witnesses (this is the reason you asked for!). I am unaware of any if this occurred I did ask a question about how we could fix the situation and the response did act as a prompt to us. We were never directed , told to do anything or informed to do anything and we were not prompted. As far as I am aware our activities were not monitored. We went to the bank on the day we chose when we had built up the courage. We were not escorted or accompanied by the police on that day. I do not believe I would have immediately reported to Stan JONES that we had attended the bank, but I feel sure that I would have told him during one of our meetings or conversations."
This is completely at odds with what Dovey says and is completely blatant!
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
“I next saw Jeremy on Friday, 6th September 1985 when he came to my flat and
helped with Brett to move my furniture to my present address. We left on a
reasonable happy note. I haven't seen him since.
There is one important thing I remember that I must add, when Jeremy phoned
me about 3.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 7th August 1985 he did say "I haven't been
to bed tonight". I remember this because I told him to go to bed.
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.”
Julie alleges that Bamber confessed to her that that he had hired Mathew Macdonald to carry out the killings
From pages 11 and 12
“About 8.30 pm the same day Ds JONES and Dc CLARKE left the house leaving
Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the
first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I than said
to Jeremy, "Did you do it?"
He said,"No, I couldn't have done it, Matthew did it," I knew to whom
he was referring.
He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from
the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been
completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated that for
his age he was very strong and had put up a fight. He said that Matthew
had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had
a mental blank and had fired 7 shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins
and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and
didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself.
under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest. He told me that he had told Matthew where the gun was going to be, how to get into
the house. He had found out what bedroom they had all been sleeping in as
Sheila and the twins frequently slept in different rooms when they visited
the farm. He also told Matthew 'how to leave the house so it appeared locked,
and the route back to Goldhanger. I asked him how much he paid Matthew and
he said "£2,000."
It’s worth comparing Julie Mugford’s dishonest account of the visit to the bank with her account of Jeremy’s confession, which has a chilling similarity to it from the point of view of style. The addition of incidental details, which seemingly give a ring of truth to the story, is present in both. References to the person's mental state add a sense of realism. For example, Matthew had experienced a "mental blank" and Susan was "a basket case".
“The date was not significant in the sense of appointments, it was a day we plucked up courage to go”
"I asked Jerry if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and
didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself.
under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest."
-
Sorry to drag this back up, but what do you make of this from the appeal?
The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.
As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.
Has further evidence turned up on that issue? If so, was it included in the last CCRC application?
That I believe was a carefully worded statement in order to get round the fact that she was granted immunity. If therefore she was not granted immunity then surely it means that the police can still prosecute, because such a situation leaves her wide open to prosecution if just one piece of "new" evidence is found. But to be honest I can see right through the judge's remarks and I think most people here can also.
-
Trouble is Caroline, as you'll see when the appeal notes get to that point, he said at the appeal that he couldn't stand by that.
Why was that do you think Vic?
-
No, he was certain that there was a police officer present but couldn't identify that officer as Stan Jones. He also stated that the officer had not put him under any pressure at all to drop any prosecution. So what we have is a difference as to whether or not a police officer attended, and I don't really see how you can decide who is right. Personally I go with Dovey being a reliable witness with no axe to grind and so I believe a police officer was present. But since he says the officer did not put him under any pressure I can't see why anyone would need to lie about it.
It all depends on what is meant by "pressure" doesn't it? I wonder how many banks wouldn't prosecute fraud?
-
Seriously?? They forgot that they didn't actually ask the cashier to see the manager? That they were accompanied by a police office? That JM didn't do most of the talking (in fact Dovey states that she didn't say anything). The reason for them to lie is that as I have just stated, if they were seen to go to the bank of their own volition, it makes them a better witness than if cohered. Sorry Bridget but I certainly don't buy for one moment that they just forgot or were (like a lot of people in this case) simply 'mistaken'
Makes you think doesn't it? Just how much of her statement IS to be relied on?
-
It all depends on what is meant by "pressure" doesn't it? I wonder how many banks wouldn't prosecute fraud?
I agree Lugg particularly because it was a premeditated and coolly executed crime. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing which was worth a try, this was planned. It shows greed and a lack of moral behaviour...she was a.bad lot imo.
-
He doesn't say anything about the cashier, what makes you think they didn't speak to one?
Where does he say that JM didn't say anything? I'm not saying he didn't say that, but I can't find it.
Why would anyone try to hide the fact that a police officer was present when clearly he was going to say different? Did they forget to bribe him?
But the fact still remains that they gave a completely different story, thus giving the impression that it was all their own grieving conscience that made them tell the truth and that would have looked far better for them in the eyes of the jury.
-
Julie alleges that Bamber confessed to her that that he had hired Mathew Macdonald to carry out the killings
From pages 11 and 12
“About 8.30 pm the same day Ds JONES and Dc CLARKE left the house leaving
Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the
first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I than said
to Jeremy, "Did you do it?"
He said,"No, I couldn't have done it, Matthew did it," I knew to whom
he was referring.
He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from
the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been
completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated that for
his age he was very strong and had put up a fight. He said that Matthew
had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had
a mental blank and had fired 7 shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins
and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and
didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself.
under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest. He told me that he had told Matthew where the gun was going to be, how to get into
the house. He had found out what bedroom they had all been sleeping in as
Sheila and the twins frequently slept in different rooms when they visited
the farm. He also told Matthew 'how to leave the house so it appeared locked,
and the route back to Goldhanger. I asked him how much he paid Matthew and
he said "£2,000."
It’s worth comparing Julie Mugford’s dishonest account of the visit to the bank with her account of Jeremy’s confession, which has a chilling similarity to it from the point of view of style. The addition of incidental details, which seemingly give a ring of truth to the story, is present in both. References to the person's mental state add a sense of realism. For example, Matthew had experienced a "mental blank" and Susan was "a basket case".
“The date was not significant in the sense of appointments, it was a day we plucked up courage to go”
"I asked Jerry if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and
didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself.
under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest."
Yes, I know what you mean, she seems to embroider details in order to emphasise particular aspects of realism. Or as Steve would say, she over eggs the pudding!!
-
And yet, Julie Mugford lied about it! Why would he need to be put under pressure? His statement gives the impression that he was told from 'his' own superior's what would be happening and as the meeting had been prior arranged the details were quite obviously discussed before Dovey was involved - he was after all, only a stand in manager.
Morning :)
Not only did JM lie but SB lied about it too....Makes you wonder if they lied about the time of the phone calls too....You can't lie in one respect and expect to believed in another. If it was SJ that was present then that presence did have an influence in one way or another, he was there as a mean to support the girls...why else would a male copper be there? Not stopping got loads to do...
Have a brill day... :D :D :D :D
-
It all depends on what is meant by "pressure" doesn't it? I wonder how many banks wouldn't prosecute fraud?
The appointment was pre-arranged above Dovey's head. It's clear that the out-come to let them off was also pre-arranged and there was never any doubt that they would be let off. The whole thing was a formality and an exercise to thwart any attempt by the defense to discredit the 'star' witness. It was important that they were 'seen' to have gone of their own accord which is why there is no statement from the accompanying officer (who I still believe was Jones) and why Dovey never ended up being at trial. The defense didn't know the full story behind the cheque book fraud saga and had they realised I believe they would most definitely have used it and I don't care what anyone says, it most certainly does highlight deceit imo!!
-
So the whole truth wasn't heard and you don't think that's deceitful? As far as the cashier goes, read JM's statement again and then read Dovey's. That is all I am saying because we will never agree.
The problem I have with this is that given the circumstances of JM and SBs confessions to the cheque fraud I don't find it the least bit surprising that they, either of their own volition or encouraged by police, tried to limit the damage by visiting the bank. I still see them as a pair of dishonest thieves trying to save their own skins however the visit happened. The fact that they were 'let off' to me just translates as 'got away with it' and doesn't make them any less criminal to my mind than had they have been prosecuted.
I don't believe for one minute that it was their consciences that lead them to go to the bank, but Dovey apparently did, despite the fact that it would have been easier for him to believe that had they NOT been accompanied by a police officer.
So, given that the benefits of lying about the police officer's presence were so small when weighed against the risk that Dovey would blow their cover by saying something completely different, I just don't see the point of lying about it. The judge in his summing up pointed out that it was the dishonesty behind the fraud that the jury were being asked to weigh up against the truth of her evidence, and the presence of the police officer makes no difference to that. It might have made a difference if the girls were frogmarched there by the officer against their will, or if the officer had taken the visit as an opportunity to persuade the bank not to prosecute, but from Dovey's comments I don't believe that was the case either.
-
My giddy aunt,,there's some perjury abound. We'd all be behind bars if we committed the same.
-
The appointment was pre-arranged above Dovey's head. It's clear that the out-come to let them off was also pre-arranged and there was never any doubt that they would be let off. The whole thing was a formality and an exercise to thwart any attempt by the defense to discredit the 'star' witness. It was important that they were 'seen' to have gone of their own accord which is why there is no statement from the accompanying officer (who I still believe was Jones) and why Dovey never ended up being at trial. The defense didn't know the full story behind the cheque book fraud saga and had they realised I believe they would most definitely have used it and I don't care what anyone says, it most certainly does highlight deceit imo!!
And imo Caroline. ;D It's ludicrous that they were let off with a caution for stealing from a bank. It just doesn't make any sense and as I said before, it was a crime which highlights how deceitful Julie and Susan Battersby were. They planned this crime, as far as we are aware (unless we believe steve) Jeremy had nothing to do with it. It was thought up and executed by those two girls, they were totally responsible for what they did, he wasn't involved. There can have been only one reason why they weren't charged Dovey would have been given orders from higher up the chain, as a loyal employee he was just following orders imo.. Police favours and all that ;D ;D
-
Try and get away with the same thing today,Maggie.! 100 days community if you're lucky.
-
That I believe was a carefully worded statement in order to get round the fact that she was granted immunity. If therefore she was not granted immunity then surely it means that the police can still prosecute, because such a situation leaves her wide open to prosecution if just one piece of "new" evidence is found. But to be honest I can see right through the judge's remarks and I think most people here can also.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you, the decision states quite categorically that she was not given immunity, nothing carefully worded about it. Either she was or she wasn't.
-
And imo Caroline. ;D It's ludicrous that they were let off with a caution for stealing from a bank. It just doesn't make any sense and as I said before, it was a crime which highlights how deceitful Julie and Susan Battersby were. They planned this crime, as far as we are aware (unless we believe steve) Jeremy had nothing to do with it. It was thought up and executed by those two girls, they were totally responsible for what they did, he wasn't involved. There can have been only one reason why they weren't charged Dovey would have been given orders from higher up the chain, as a loyal employee he was just following orders imo.. Police favours and all that ;D ;D
They didn't even get cautions did they?
-
And imo Caroline. ;D It's ludicrous that they were let off with a caution for stealing from a bank. It just doesn't make any sense and as I said before, it was a crime which highlights how deceitful Julie and Susan Battersby were. They planned this crime, as far as we are aware (unless we believe steve) Jeremy had nothing to do with it. It was thought up and executed by those two girls, they were totally responsible for what they did, he wasn't involved. There can have been only one reason why they weren't charged Dovey would have been given orders from higher up the chain, as a loyal employee he was just following orders imo.. Police favours and all that ;D ;D
So now Dovey is lying when he said he made the decision himself?
-
The problem I have with this is that given the circumstances of JM and SBs confessions to the cheque fraud I don't find it the least bit surprising that they, either of their own volition or encouraged by police, tried to limit the damage by visiting the bank. I still see them as a pair of dishonest thieves trying to save their own skins however the visit happened. The fact that they were 'let off' to me just translates as 'got away with it' and doesn't make them any less criminal to my mind than had they have been prosecuted.
I don't believe for one minute that it was their consciences that lead them to go to the bank, but Dovey apparently did, despite the fact that it would have been easier for him to believe that had they NOT been accompanied by a police officer.
So, given that the benefits of lying about the police officer's presence were so small when weighed against the risk that Dovey would blow their cover by saying something completely different, I just don't see the point of lying about it. The judge in his summing up pointed out that it was the dishonesty behind the fraud that the jury were being asked to weigh up against the truth of her evidence, and the presence of the police officer makes no difference to that. It might have made a difference if the girls were frogmarched there by the officer against their will, or if the officer had taken the visit as an opportunity to persuade the bank not to prosecute, but from Dovey's comments I don't believe that was the case either.
I don't believe it was the case either Bridget. I do believe any discussions and bargaining would have happened at a higher level and behind closed doors. We have no idea what Doveywas told or if any pressure was brought to bear. A cousin of mine was a Bank Manager at this time. The old type bank manager had a reputation of power but they weren't really all powerful, they had to behave themselves and take orders from higher up the chain or no doubt their promotion or even their job could be in jeopardy so we really don't know what went on behind the scenes imo.
The police wanted Julie Mugford to be a credible witness in a murder trial...I'm sure it's not the last time such 'arrangements' have been made.
-
So now Dovey is lying when he said he made the decision himself?
Very possibly Bridget, I don't believe anything is totally out in the open. I do believe arrangements are made to assist police. I don't trust any of them and if the police want a job done they will find a way, I'll stroke your back ....does go on. It's how the system works in my opinion. They explain they have a murder trial where thay need to use JM as a witness but they need her as clean as possible. They are sure he's done the murder but need her as star witness to nail him...so they can put him away for life.......
-
Well it certainly wouldn't have been in Doveys' interest to have attended court,,would it.?
What a fiasco that could have been.
-
I don't believe it was the case either Bridget. I do believe any discussions and bargaining would have happened at a higher level and behind closed doors. We have no idea what Doveywas told or if any pressure was brought to bear. A cousin of mine was a Bank Manager at this time. The old type bank manager had a reputation of power but they weren't really all powerful, they had to behave themselves and take orders from higher up the chain or no doubt their promotion or even their job could be in jeopardy so we really don't know what went on behind the scenes imo.
The police wanted Julie Mugford to be a credible witness in a murder trial...I'm sure it's not the last time such 'arrangements' have been made.
Well as I've said, the lack of a prosecution doesn't to my mind bring her any more credibility, in fact the fact that she wasn't prosecuted turns me against her somewhat, but I accept that others may have different views.
If what you say about the bank's decision is true, do you not think that Dovey's statements and evidence are incredibly misleading, given that he will have been aware of what was being asked of him about pressure, wherever it was coming from?
-
i) Every one of us has left medication of some kind lying around the house in our lives whether it was the useless placebo sleeping tablets which Julie's London doctor prescribed for her or just a pack of Nurofen we've opened and tossed to one side. You cannot possibly know that Julie connived in their use for the purposes of drugging somebody else and I'm surprised that you open with what is one of your weakest arguments.
ii)Again you cannot possibly know that Julie was aware that Jeremy stuffed toothpaste tubes full of cannabis unless you were actually there and saw her pack them in what I assume what was his suitcase. Julie could easily as well have discovered this back at home or not known at all until Jeremy told her.
iii)What does "tonight's the night..it's now or never" mean? Do you know? The Headmaster of Gresham's public school described Jeremy Bamber as "a relentless tease" and Julie would have looked pretty stupid telephoning the Police if had been a false alarm,assuming that she knew the import of those words,which she did not,only realizing by the time of the second telephone call that the family were all dead.
iv)Why would Julie drop powerful hints as you call them to friends about Jeremy's involvement in the murders if she wanted to become Mrs. Bamber? Of course Julie did not want the involvement of the Police as she still held a candle for the man and didn't want him to go to jail,let alone her previous criminal activities induced by Jeremy. Cheque book journalism was a real problem in the 1980s and it was my understanding nothing was signed until the verdict. The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.
v) I'm surprised as a lawyer that you give such weight to Julie's evidence,but again you were not the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake,who said "I advise you to treat Miss Mugford's evidence with a great deal of caution". It was quite evidently to my mind the silencer evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber,evidence which Mike to his credit has done much to cast the shadow of doubt upon,though Julie did bring a human touch to the proceedings which made the trial more dramatic.
In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?One last thing about Julie's evidence. Of course you have to dissociate yourself from it,because any serious probing of her story would lose any last vestige of sympathy for Jeremy Bamber as his thought processes developed and in retrospect became clear. This was Jeremy's scheme not Julie's and to attempt to endow her with the same attributes will not work with me,or any other serious studier of the White House Murder crimes.
Steve_UK - I do not propose to respond in detail to your points because I would only be repeating myself and I see that other members have already challenged you on several points. However I have to respond to the paragraph above highlighted in blue. You are thoroughly insulting as well as inaccurate. For the record I am not a "public school type", I attended the local comprehensive and for most of my childhood lived in a council house. I have experience in different fields, including law, and I certainly never adopted a "lackadaisical attitude" to my cases. I take particular offence to your implication that I am xenophobic, homophobic and racist. I was for many years very politically active and opposition to such attitutes was fundamental to my beliefs and work. You know nothing about me but choose to denigrate me in effort to bolster your opposition to my arguments. I did not attack you, I simply gave an honest and I believe objective assessment in response to a question from a forum member. Your snide attack on me does you no credit, and certainly does not further your arguments.
-
The problem I have with this is that given the circumstances of JM and SBs confessions to the cheque fraud I don't find it the least bit surprising that they, either of their own volition or encouraged by police, tried to limit the damage by visiting the bank. I still see them as a pair of dishonest thieves trying to save their own skins however the visit happened. The fact that they were 'let off' to me just translates as 'got away with it' and doesn't make them any less criminal to my mind than had they have been prosecuted.
I don't believe for one minute that it was their consciences that lead them to go to the bank, but Dovey apparently did, despite the fact that it would have been easier for him to believe that had they NOT been accompanied by a police officer.
So, given that the benefits of lying about the police officer's presence were so small when weighed against the risk that Dovey would blow their cover by saying something completely different, I just don't see the point of lying about it. The judge in his summing up pointed out that it was the dishonesty behind the fraud that the jury were being asked to weigh up against the truth of her evidence, and the presence of the police officer makes no difference to that. It might have made a difference if the girls were frogmarched there by the officer against their will, or if the officer had taken the visit as an opportunity to persuade the bank not to prosecute, but from Dovey's comments I don't believe that was the case either.
w
It's the reason why the cheque book fraud needed to come out at all that (to me) is important. When Mugford told her tale, she would have been asked if there was anything that the defense might know that could damage her as a witness. She knew that Jeremy knew about the scam and 'had' to come clean. EP them just made the best of it by staging a grand confession by a remorseful Mugford. There was really no danger of Dovey being asked as a witness because the defense were under the impression that they went to the bank of their own accord - I believe the day was chosen carefully because it was SJ's day off and so (although there in an official capacity) he didn't make a statement. Obviously and without question Dovey was influenced by his superiors and the presence of a police officer - just the fact that it was arranged and to have the officer present and his explanation about them being important witness's in a murder case would tell him that he needed to comply. It's ludicrous to argue that this was all above board.
-
What a scheming " whatsaname ".!
-
Well as I've said, the lack of a prosecution doesn't to my mind bring her any more credibility, in fact the fact that she wasn't prosecuted turns me against her somewhat, but I accept that others may have different views.
If what you say about the bank's decision is true, do you not think that Dovey's statements and evidence are incredibly misleading, given that he will have been aware of what was being asked of him about pressure, wherever it was coming from?
Hi Bridget, I don't really think Dovey was particularly misleading in so far as he told it as it was on the day. On rereading his statement it may very well be that Dovey was never involved in any cover up. All decisions were made by a different department, he stated this categorically, all he had to do was listen to the story go through the required motions and then report back to what is now the fraud department. Any decision was made in that department so he was very probably telling the truth about what happened that day. He was a small cog and may not have known much or anything about the arrangements anyway so was able to answer honestly about what occurred on the day. So I agree after all, he may not have lied at all but that doesn't mean arrangements hadn't been made with the fraud department to accept their apology and not press charges. imo
-
steve wow I sense you are somewhat supporting Jeremy in your post in that maybe if he had had a firm of lawyers say from the working class district of the North who called a spade a spade he may have been found innocent. I had a sneaky feeling underneath all your talk you were being swayed towards Jeremy being innocent.
-
steve wow I sense you are somewhat supporting Jeremy in your post in that maybe if he had had a firm of lawyers say from the working class district of the North who called a spade a spade he may have been found innocent. I had a sneaky feeling underneath all your talk you were being swayed towards Jeremy being innocent.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Steve_UK - I do not propose to respond in detail to your points because I would only be repeating myself and I see that other members have already challenged you on several points. However I have to respond to the paragraph above highlighted in blue. You are thoroughly insulting as well as inaccurate. For the record I am not a "public school type", I attended the local comprehensive and for most of my childhood lived in a council house. I have experience in different fields, including law, and I certainly never adopted a "lackadaisical attitude" to my cases. I take particular offence to your implication that I am xenophobic, homophobic and racist. I was for many years very politically active and opposition to such attitutes was fundamental to my beliefs and work. You know nothing about me but choose to denigrate me in effort to bolster your opposition to my arguments. I did not attack you, I simply gave an honest and I believe objective assessment in response to a question from a forum member. Your snide attack on me does you no credit, and certainly does not further your arguments.
Well said ngb. :) :)
-
Well said ngb. :) :)
My sentiments too,Maggie.
-
So now Dovey is lying when he said he made the decision himself?
No he wasn't lying and Maggie didn't say he was but he was most certainly influenced by the fact that it was all arranged prior to his knowledge and he states that he had to consult with his superiors. It's blindingly obvious exactly what occurred, but if you chose to believe it was just all a bit of a misunderstanding, that's down to you. However, as with the panic button, nothing you or anyone else says will convince me that this wasn't a deliberate attempt to make Mugford seem like a credible witness and in doing so, they engineered the bank situation so the cheque book fraud could not be used by the defense to discredit Mugford!! Mugford adamantly refuses to admit that an appointment was arranged and that the meeting was conducted in the presence of a police officer and yet Dovey insists that is was prior arranged and that the officer was present. i believe Dovey and as such, would ask again why there is no statement from the attending police officer! Mugford made her statement in 2002 it seems like the passage of time has not affected her inability to tell the truth.
Just read that back and it sounds a bit snippy. It's not meant to but I am getting frustrated by this blackberry and it's predictive text. It keeps putting words in my mouth - a little like Dovey's superiors and the attending police officer - although a little less subtly. ;)
-
Well as I've said, the lack of a prosecution doesn't to my mind bring her any more credibility, in fact the fact that she wasn't prosecuted turns me against her somewhat, but I accept that others may have different views.
If what you say about the bank's decision is true, do you not think that Dovey's statements and evidence are incredibly misleading, given that he will have been aware of what was being asked of him about pressure, wherever it was coming from?
Of course not, the deceit was certainly not his!
-
Hi ngb steve was obviously brought up without being taught manners and respect and even lads from tough Northern backgrounds have manners he has lost his on his way.He is quite arrogant and pompous with little or no knowledge on the Jeremy Bamber case. I would have to say he appears to have a large chip on his shoulder which is a shame really as I am sure he is quite an intelligent man underneath all his rudeness and nonsense. His defense of Julie coming from such a basic working class background his words not mine he seems to use this as an excuse for her not knowing right from wrong.
-
I'm not sure I'm understanding you, the decision states quite categorically that she was not given immunity, nothing carefully worded about it. Either she was or she wasn't.
Yes I know. That is what I am questioning. The fact that she WASN'T granted imminity and just that the police chose not to prosecute means surely that she can still be prosecuted for those crimes if found that they purgered themselves? If they were given immunity then they could never be prosecuted for those crimes. But if just "let off" then they could still be prosecuted if circumstances changed? That's all I'm saying.
-
Steve_UK - I do not propose to respond in detail to your points because I would only be repeating myself and I see that other members have already challenged you on several points. However I have to respond to the paragraph above highlighted in blue. You are thoroughly insulting as well as inaccurate. For the record I am not a "public school type", I attended the local comprehensive and for most of my childhood lived in a council house. I have experience in different fields, including law, and I certainly never adopted a "lackadaisical attitude" to my cases. I take particular offence to your implication that I am xenophobic, homophobic and racist. I was for many years very politically active and opposition to such attitutes was fundamental to my beliefs and work. You know nothing about me but choose to denigrate me in effort to bolster your opposition to my arguments. I did not attack you, I simply gave an honest and I believe objective assessment in response to a question from a forum member. Your snide attack on me does you no credit, and certainly does not further your arguments.
And if I may be permitted to add to your very eloquent post, Neil, I would like to point out that Steve is very quick off the mark to complain of perceived insults to spotless Julie about whom we all know something, but he doesn't hold back in delivering insults to those of us about who he knows precisely NOTHING couched as "Whoever you are", "What you all fail to realize", "Psychobabble". It seems he would convey to us all that he has more professional knowledge of the case than the rest of us put together when in truth, most of that knowledge MAY have come from nothing more academic than the books written after the case and cannot be said to be entirely accurate.
-
Hi ngb steve was obviously brought up without being taught manners and respect and even lads from tough Northern backgrounds have manners he has lost his on his way.He is quite arrogant and pompous with little or no knowledge on the Jeremy Bamber case. I would have to say he appears to have a large chip on his shoulder which is a shame really as I am sure he is quite an intelligent man underneath all his rudeness and nonsense. His defense of Julie coming from such a basic working class background his words not mine he seems to use this as an excuse for her not knowing right from wrong.
Beautifully put, Susan :)
-
Hi ngb steve was obviously brought up without being taught manners and respect and even lads from tough Northern backgrounds have manners he has lost his on his way.He is quite arrogant and pompous with little or no knowledge on the Jeremy Bamber case. I would have to say he appears to have a large chip on his shoulder which is a shame really as I am sure he is quite an intelligent man underneath all his rudeness and nonsense. His defense of Julie coming from such a basic working class background his words not mine he seems to use this as an excuse for her not knowing right from wrong.
Hi Susan, I think most of us here are from a working class back ground and proud to be so. You're right, he does seem to have a massive chip on his shoulder and his arrogance seems to have no bounds. This does however seem to be a recent side to his character - perhaps Steve now sees himself as an expert on the Bamber case and the rest of us merely plebs. My advice to him would be to hold off on the Mastermind application forms just yet! :)
-
Hello Caroline steve has changed recently and getting bolder by the minute I have not yet decided if this is due to him thinking he is now an expert on the case or he is on the defensive as he is now totally out of his depth especially with ngb.
-
Steve_UK - I do not propose to respond in detail to your points because I would only be repeating myself and I see that other members have already challenged you on several points. However I have to respond to the paragraph above highlighted in blue. You are thoroughly insulting as well as inaccurate. For the record I am not a "public school type", I attended the local comprehensive and for most of my childhood lived in a council house. I have experience in different fields, including law, and I certainly never adopted a "lackadaisical attitude" to my cases. I take particular offence to your implication that I am xenophobic, homophobic and racist. I was for many years very politically active and opposition to such attitutes was fundamental to my beliefs and work. You know nothing about me but choose to denigrate me in effort to bolster your opposition to my arguments. I did not attack you, I simply gave an honest and I believe objective assessment in response to a question from a forum member. Your snide attack on me does you no credit, and certainly does not further your arguments.
Ngb I was going to challenge Steve-uk on those points. But chose not to as you alone could give the only acceptable answer. I also had in mind the "public school boy" point and was about to say that not everyone in certain professions went to a public school. Certainly not the lady barrister I used to know. In my humble opinion I think the statements that Steve-uk made about you tell us more about his own failings than about yours. I found your posts to be intelligent, well calculated, documented and enlightening.
It is unfortunate that in his zeal to defend Julie Mugford he hashed together some random thoughts about you in a couple of minutes he has successfully depicted himself as a rather garrulous person and has tipped the scales as far as I am concerned against him so that my opinion of him has decreased somewhat.
-
steve wow I sense you are somewhat supporting Jeremy in your post in that maybe if he had had a firm of lawyers say from the working class district of the North who called a spade a spade he may have been found innocent. I had a sneaky feeling underneath all your talk you were being swayed towards Jeremy being innocent.
Campion once told me of an accountant he knew named "Swindle". ;D
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not from a working class background,,so I'll be next on Steves' list . ;D ;D
There were no maids,,except for one in my fathers family.Her name.? Mrs Shufflebottom,,to which I had a plentiful supply of thick ears for laughing/giggling,as a youngster,,which youngsters do.
-
Campion once told me of an accountant he knew named "Swindle". ;D
What sticks in my mind was an undertakers not far from the family home years ago,,and his name was I.Berry. As a child I used to imagine that people had to have names that matched their occupation. D'oh.!
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not from a working class background,,so I'll be next on Steves' list . ;D ;D
There were no maids,,except for one in my fathers family.Her name.? Mrs Shufflebottom,,to which I had a plentiful supply of thick ears for laughing/giggling,as a youngster,,which youngsters do.
You..you...posh person you! >:( ;D
-
What sticks in my mind was an undertakers not far from the family home years ago,,and his name was I.Berry. As a child I used to imagine that people had to have names that matched their occupation. D'oh.!
Well on my journey to work every morning (I worked in Southend then) I passed a a butcher's shop in Rayleigh called "Mr. Butcher - Butchers"
-
What sticks in my mind was an undertakers not far from the family home years ago,,and his name was I.Berry. As a child I used to imagine that people had to have names that matched their occupation. D'oh.!
At school my PE teacher used to say, "Belt up Belton or I'll belt yer one". ;D
-
Well on my journey to work every morning (I worked in Southend then) I passed a a butcher's shop in Rayleigh called "Mr. Butcher - Butchers"
It is surprising how many names that do actually match their occupations. ;D ;D
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not from a working class background,,so I'll be next on Steves' list . ;D ;D
There were no maids,,except for one in my fathers family.Her name.? Mrs Shufflebottom,,to which I had a plentiful supply of thick ears for laughing/giggling,as a youngster,,which youngsters do.
Good Lancashire name .lookout!!! ;D ;D
-
At school my PE teacher used to say, "Belt up Belton or I'll belt yer one". ;D
Lugg ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Vic, there is a CLEAR discrepancy between Dovey's and Mugfords statements and no one will convince me that it wasn't on purpose. If Mugford was 'seen' to have gone to the bank of her own volition, it would obviously make her a better witness in the eyes of the prosecution.
Exactly.
-
Hello Caroline steve has changed recently and getting bolder by the minute I have not yet decided if this is due to him thinking he is now an expert on the case or he is on the defensive as he is now totally out of his depth especially with ngb.
Susan dear, Steve's posts appear to be delivering the message that he is the only one amongst us who isn't intellectually challenged. They also deliver the message that Steve is diplomatically challenged.
-
Well on my journey to work every morning (I worked in Southend then) I passed a a butcher's shop in Rayleigh called "Mr. Butcher - Butchers"
We have a timber yard here in Copenhagen called Hammer og søn = Hammer and son. There are plenty of those - always funny! ;D
Now to something entirely different.
Steve:
Of course I know that. Anji Greaves had the champagne on ice with journalists from the Sun in a top London hotel boudoir with a banner reading "FAITH,TRUTH,JUSTICE..WELCOME HOME JEREMY" and would have pocketed the £50,000 cheque on offer had she not put it down her bra or put it inside her garter first.
This from a man who calls female members´ posts "vulgar". Steve, I find this post of yours extremely vulgar. Wiping off Julie Mugford´s tastelessness and lack of class on Anji Greaves in the most rude manner. You owe her an apology.
You also owe NGB an unconditional apology for your extreme and uncalled for rudeness towards him. Your tone has changed lately, and not for the better. You "talk down" to other posters here. Steve, you have no reason, right or cause to do that, and it looks stupid, because all you have is a love for the criminal, Julie Mugford + you have read a few true crime books, which always concist of a mixture of fact and fiction.
Had to get this off my chest.
-
Alias I have noticed steve has changed recently as he was never rude and disrespectful to other forum members infact always quite polite. I think he is running out of material to post so is doing repeats with a difference ;D It takes a man to apologise lets see what he is made of.
-
We have a timber yard here in Copenhagen called Hammer og søn = Hammer and son. There are plenty of those - always funny! ;D
Now to something entirely different.
Steve:
This from a man who calls female members´ posts "vulgar". Steve, I find this post of yours extremely vulgar. Wiping off Julie Mugford´s tastelessness and lack of class on Anji Greaves in the most rude manner. You owe her an apology.
You also owe NGB an unconditional apology for your extreme and uncalled for rudeness towards him. Your tone has changed lately, and not for the better. You "talk down" to other posters here. Steve, you have no reason, right or cause to do that, and it looks stupid, because all you have is a love for the criminal, Julie Mugford + you have read a few true crime books, which always concist of a mixture of fact and fiction.
Had to get this off my chest.
Well said Alias!! I used to work with a couple of Hammer's when I worked off-shore but they were from the Faro Islands, it seems to be a popular surname in that neck of the woods.
-
Well said Alias!! I used to work with a couple of Hammer's when I worked off-shore but they were from the Faro Islands, it seems to be a popular surname in that neck of the woods.
Thanks.
I have never been on one of those offshore platforms, but I have drawn one (for advertizing), and I have sailed past them in the night - that was magical!
-
Steve_UK - I do not propose to respond in detail to your points because I would only be repeating myself and I see that other members have already challenged you on several points. However I have to respond to the paragraph above highlighted in blue. You are thoroughly insulting as well as inaccurate. For the record I am not a "public school type", I attended the local comprehensive and for most of my childhood lived in a council house. I have experience in different fields, including law, and I certainly never adopted a "lackadaisical attitude" to my cases. I take particular offence to your implication that I am xenophobic, homophobic and racist. I was for many years very politically active and opposition to such attitutes was fundamental to my beliefs and work. You know nothing about me but choose to denigrate me in effort to bolster your opposition to my arguments. I did not attack you, I simply gave an honest and I believe objective assessment in response to a question from a forum member. Your snide attack on me does you no credit, and certainly does not further your arguments.
No you put motives and actions into Julie which you cannot possibly know about under the pretense of speaking on behalf of the legal profession whose opinion is buttressed by your former social standing your job affords you in the community and for this I cannot forgive you. I apologize if I categorized you personally as a public school toff and you are not,but most of the legal profession at the level Jeremy hired are and they did a thoroughly bad job of defending him.
-
Hi ngb steve was obviously brought up without being taught manners and respect and even lads from tough Northern backgrounds have manners he has lost his on his way.He is quite arrogant and pompous with little or no knowledge on the Jeremy Bamber case. I would have to say he appears to have a large chip on his shoulder which is a shame really as I am sure he is quite an intelligent man underneath all his rudeness and nonsense. His defense of Julie coming from such a basic working class background his words not mine he seems to use this as an excuse for her not knowing right from wrong.
Susan on the other hand is a complete expert on the case..
-
Susan on the other hand is a complete expert on the case..
Susan isn´t pretending to be, so I see no problem there.
-
We have a timber yard here in Copenhagen called Hammer og søn = Hammer and son. There are plenty of those - always funny! ;D
Now to something entirely different.
Steve:
This from a man who calls female members´ posts "vulgar". Steve, I find this post of yours extremely vulgar. Wiping off Julie Mugford´s tastelessness and lack of class on Anji Greaves in the most rude manner. You owe her an apology.
You also owe NGB an unconditional apology for your extreme and uncalled for rudeness towards him. Your tone has changed lately, and not for the better. You "talk down" to other posters here. Steve, you have no reason, right or cause to do that, and it looks stupid, because all you have is a love for the criminal, Julie Mugford + you have read a few true crime books, which always concist of a mixture of fact and fiction.
Had to get this off my chest.
This is the poster of a pornographic post several days ago..
-
This is the poster of a pornographic post several days ago..
Please elaborate.
-
Please elaborate.
No,it made me blush.
-
No,it made me blush.
But Steve, I don´t recall writing a pornographic post - it would be so unlike me. I am curious. What did I say?
-
No,it made me blush.
Steve,,you're jesting,surely. A man,blush.? Have you had a sheltered life,dear.?
-
No,it made me blush.
Yet you can holdforth freely on the menstrual cycle.
-
Post 109 on the "Real reason it took Julie 1 month to come forward thread". Now can we get back to the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion. It's reply 142 on that thread.
-
I think it was something about "crown jewels" - LOL, that is very pornographic! I am sitting here red, no, make that blue in the face with embarrassment. ;)
-
steve might I add I have never professed to be an expert on the Jeremy Bamber case just the opposite actually. I had never heard of him until last March 2012 when a programme went out on the TV about him and I took an interest in it. I have to say I have gained so much knowledge from Mike and ngb and other posters like Grahame and Roch and Caroline who have a vast amount of knowledge. I would like to suggest to you in a nice manner that you take more notice of people like them and don't attack them just debate with them. I have not read one book on the case but I am looking forward to the book coming out this year by Mason Doyle which I feel will be a fair balanced view of the murders at WHF and I hope you too will enjoy the book. I would like to add I have the utmost respect for Mike for setting up the forum and collating the amount of information he has without him there would be no place to discuss the case and also ngb who supplies us with so many facts as he has been involved in the case for many years and has the advantage over me and you I suspect of being legally trained.
-
Steve,,you're jesting,surely. A man,blush.? Have you had a sheltered life,dear.?
Yes lookout for the most part I have,though I have achieved a modicum of success without resorting to central nervous system stimulants or gaining an excrescence on my person.
-
Post 109 on the "Real reason it took Julie 1 month to come forward thread". Now can we get back to the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion.
No, you cannot just fling insults at me without a reaction.
Post 109 is by april.
-
Alias I thought steve was referring to the nearly pornographic photo's Julie did for the mags. Silly me got it wrong again. ;D ;D ;D
-
No, you cannot just fling insults at me without a reaction.
Post 109 is by april.
Yes I changed the number. It's your 109th post. But I see from another post your memory is vaguely coming back.
-
Yes I changed the number. It's your 109th post. But I see from another post your memory is vaguely coming back.
OK, you call that pornographic! You are losing it, seems desperate to smear other posters like that, Steve.
What happened, you go out of your way to be rude to other posters?
-
Yes lookout for the most part I have,though I have achieved a modicum of success without resorting to central nervous system stimulants or gaining an excrescence on my person.
I thought so,Steve, and I won't hold that against you. Good for you for being successful as well,,though it usually has a high price to pay in achieving. Neverthless,if you're happy with that,,who am I to judge.?
-
Hello april most men I know would blush at having to talk about periods and stained underwear as a result of an accident with a monthly period no problem to steve is it makes me blush more than him but I have had a sheltered life too.
-
OK, you call that pornographic! You are losing it, seems desperate to smear other posters like that, Steve.
What happened, you go out of your way to be rude to other posters?
It also strikes me that Steve has a VERY long memory, harbours grudges and seems not to know what forgiveness means, unless it's of Julie. I had to scroll through 4 pages of threads to find the one he was referring to.
-
I thought so,Steve, and I won't hold that against you. Good for you for being successful as well,,though it usually has a high price to pay in achieving. Neverthless,if you're happy with that,,who am I to judge.?
I haven't resorted to stimulants,,but I've trodden in plenty of the other in my lifetime. ;D ;D ;D :-[
-
Hello april most men I know would blush at having to talk about periods and stained underwear as a result of an accident with a monthly period no problem to steve is it makes me blush more than him but I have had a sheltered life too.
Susan, after some of the conversations I've facilitated, that one is unlikely to make me blush, but I didn't think for one moment, when I joined this forum, that I would have to explain the logistics of the menstrual cycle to a adult male.
-
As far as I am concerned, I think I just made it to the long list of people Steve owes an apology.
-
Hello april honestly even now I am not comfortable discussing monthly periods and stained underwear with a male never have been. Think it is a private matter and really I feel it would be quite off putting for a man to have to listen to the details of such an event :'( call me old fashioned ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
As far as I am concerned, I think I just made it to the long list of people Steve owes an apology.
Alias,,it's the other way around for me,,as I haven't yet apologised to Steve for asking if he was the trampy man seen leaving in the direction over the fields from WHF at 3.40/5am.
I can bet he hasn't forgotten. No wonder his manner is a tad brusque at times.
-
Alias you are on the list but don't hold your breath for one ;D wont happen.
-
Alias you are on the list but don't hold your breath for one ;D wont happen.
I know. In a sense, Steve was successful with his insult: he diverted the attention away from his own very, very vulgar post.
-
Alias my own thoughts this was steve's way of diverting attention away from his own disgraceful behaviour and he has not been successful as such as we can see through him.
-
Its possible steve uk could be thinking from out the box as few it seems hold jm in any form of positive light steve has quoted much from books on the case i feel these playing cards are in short supply.
-
mertol steve posts what he believes and quite rightly so but he must allow other posters the same right even if their views are different than his.
-
mertol steve posts what he believes and quite rightly so but he must allow other posters the same right even if their views are different than his.
This is a pro Jeremy board, so that makes a lot of sense! I think Steve is beginning to realize that the whitewashing of Julie Mugford he has made his mission in life is falling on deaf ears here, and that frustrates him.
-
This is a pro Jeremy board, so that makes a lot of sense! I think Steve is beginning to realize that the whitewashing of Julie Mugford he has made his mission in life is falling on deaf ears here, and that frustrates him.
What Steve is practicing, although he wouldn't demean himself to acknowledge the fact, is very successful reverse psychology. The further down our throats he rams spotless Julie, the more we support Jeremy.
-
This is a pro Jeremy board, so that makes a lot of sense! I think Steve is beginning to realize that the whitewashing of Julie Mugford he has made his mission in life is falling on deaf ears here, and that frustrates him.
it looks that way alias a sort of barrier steve cant break down, with or without the newspaper of mugford posing it would alter little when you look in the news its almost daily a scandal surfaces perhaps the whf one is due.
-
What Steve is practicing, although he wouldn't demean himself to acknowledge the fact, is very successful reverse psychology. The further down our throats he rams spotless Julie, the more we support Jeremy.
I hope not? :-\
Although Steve's post contain a lot of creative license..... I've seen much worse be posted and go unchallenged.
Although I completely disagree with his comment towards Alias. ::)
-
I hope not? :-\
Although Steve's post contain a lot of creative license..... I've seen much worse be posted and go unchallenged.
Although I completely disagree with his comment towards Alias. ::)
Thanks, mat, but it isn´t just me Steve has been rude to lately, it is becoming a habit.
-
I'm not too bothered what is written about me here and we really should get back to the Jeremy Bamber case. I have apologized to ngb1066 whom it appears on this site is held up as some kind of eminence grise but I'm afraid I reserve the right to criticize him whatever his status in life may be:this is what democracy is all about.
Specifically two points I would object to whoever they came from but coming from a barrister it adds more credence to them. The most damning allegation which he dresses up in legal jargon as a fact but cannot possibly know for sure is that Julie gave Jeremy sleeping tablets to test out on his parents and connived in this procedure. This is fundamental to the case so you'll have to excuse the repetition but I will argue until I'm blue in the face(or blush) that Julie left these tablets lying around and there is no proof whatsoever that she was involved in any harm caused by them,which as it turned out there was none.
Secondly dressed up as fact is that Julie conspired to import cannabis from Amsterdam as if this was some kind of joint mission between her and Jeremy and therefore she is culpable in law. Julie could not possibly take the blame for tubes of toothpaste stuffed with drugs in Jeremy's suitcase carried by Jeremy and smuggled by Jeremy through customs at Dover. Several times I have accompanied schoolchildren on trips to France and if they did this kind of thing when my back was turned as has happened with smoke alarms,knives and so on it's regrettable but no way am I responsible in law for the actions of others in this regard.
As for the site in general I wouldn't like us to fall out,I count you all as friends and believe that we have far more in common than what divides us. We all want justice done and this will mean different things to different members. Some of the posts in recent days have raised eyebrows and I'd like to think that we can stick to the advertising code of legal,decent,honest and truthful as a guide so as to keep this site as a record where outside parties can look in and feel that we do have a sensible contribution to make.
-
If sleeping pills had been ingested,Steve,,they'd have shown up in tests,,,particularly when there weren't any stomach contents as well,,so you can cross those off your list.
The only one taking noxious substances was Sheila,,,cannabis,cocaine and amphetamines,along with her prescribed medication,,to which if she was indulging in the aforementioned,then my guess is that she wouldn't have also been taking her prescription medicine.
-
I'm not too bothered what is written about me here and we really should get back to the Jeremy Bamber case. I have apologized to ngb1066 whom it appears on this site is held up as some kind of eminence grise but I'm afraid I reserve the right to criticize him whatever his status in life may be:this is what democracy is all about.
Specifically two points I would object to whoever they came from but coming from a barrister it adds more credence to them. The most damning allegation which he dresses up in legal jargon as a fact but cannot possibly know for sure is that Julie gave Jeremy sleeping tablets to test out on his parents and connived in this procedure. This is fundamental to the case so you'll have to excuse the repetition but I will argue until I'm blue in the face(or blush) that Julie left these tablets lying around and there is no proof whatsoever that she was involved in any harm caused by them,which as it turned out there was none.
Secondly dressed up as fact is that Julie conspired to import cannabis from Amsterdam as if this was some kind of joint mission between her and Jeremy and therefore she is culpable in law. Julie could not possibly take the blame for tubes of toothpaste stuffed with drugs in Jeremy's suitcase carried by Jeremy and smuggled by Jeremy through customs at Dover. Several times I have accompanied schoolchildren on trips to France and if they did this kind of thing when my back was turned as has happened with smoke alarms,knives and so on it's regrettable but no way am I responsible in law for the actions of others in this regard.
As for the site in general I wouldn't like us to fall out,I count you all as friends and believe that we have far more in common than what divides us. We all want justice done and this will mean different things to different members. Some of the posts in recent days have raised eyebrows and I'd like to think that we can stick to the advertising code of legal,decent,honest and truthful as a guide so as to keep this site as a record where outside parties can look in and feel that we do have a sensible contribution to make.
He doesn't need to prove it because A, she admits he told her all about his plan to kill his family firstly by drugging them with sleeping pills and B, after finding this out, she turns up to his house with sleeping pills and allows him to take them (IF you believe her story anyway!).
-
If sleeping pills had been ingested,Steve,,they'd have shown up in tests,,,particularly when there weren't any stomach contents as well,,so you can cross those off your list.
The only one taking noxious substances was Sheila,,,cannabis,cocaine and amphetamines,along with her prescribed medication,,to which if she was indulging in the aforementioned,then my guess is that she wouldn't have also been taking her prescription medicine.
I'm not sure the sleeping pills were tried out on the Tuesday night lookout,rather it was suggested if I've read it correctly that Jeremy was doing some trial to see if he could make it look as if Nevill had dozed off with a gin and tonic in his hand(laced with Julie's pills) and inadvertently started a fire at the farm in which they all perished. I believe Jeremy noticed some burn marks on the settee made when Nevill had fallen asleep on a previous occasion with a cigarette in his hand which may have given him the idea.
-
He doesn't need to prove it because A, she admits he told her all about his plan to kill his family firstly by drugging them with sleeping pills and B, after finding this out, she turns up to his house with sleeping pills and allows him to take them (IF you believe her story anyway!).
But you don't have proof Caroline,only a suspicion that Julie willingly gave Jeremy her tablets as some kind of dummy run for the murders which to my mind is false. If Jeremy took the tablets from her bedroom without her knowledge she can't be blamed.
-
Don't forget that Sheila used cocaine frequently,,along with cannabis,,which would in effect cancel out the therapeutic effects of her prescription medication,exacerbating her already delicate state of schizophrenia ( initially caused by over-use of cannabis )
It was only in March of that same year that she'd been a patient at St Andrews hospital where she'd already displayed psychotic outbursts,,,and for someone who knew Sheila and saw one of these outbursts,left the person traumatised because it was so severe.
These outbursts are like a blind anger where the patient is completely out of control and doesn't see themselves doing it,,,but someone else,as their minds are so unbalanced.
You would have to see it to believe how irrational their behaviour is,,and they all seem to talk about the " devil " as if they're forced to obey a command. They're not in their right minds.
-
But you don't have proof Caroline,only a suspicion that Julie willingly gave Jeremy her tablets as some kind of dummy run for the murders which to my mind is false. If Jeremy took the tablets from her bedroom without her knowledge she can't be blamed.
Errrr, how did he know she had them?
-
Don't forget that Sheila used cocaine frequently,,along with cannabis,,which would in effect cancel out the therapeutic effects of her prescription medication,exacerbating her already delicate state of schizophrenia ( initially caused by over-use of cannabis )
It was only in March of that same year that she'd been a patient at St Andrews hospital where she'd already displayed psychotic outbursts,,,and for someone who knew Sheila and saw one of these outbursts,left the person traumatised because it was so severe.
These outbursts are like a blind anger where the patient is completely out of control and doesn't see themselves doing it,,,but someone else,as their minds are so unbalanced.
You would have to see it to believe how irrational their behaviour is,,and they all seem to talk about the " devil " as if they're forced to obey a command. They're not in their right minds.
All that is true lookout and nobody is arguing that Sheila wasn't a sick young woman. But there's a difference between banging fists and head on the wall however frightening that may appear to the untrained observer and physically harming others by picking up a gun,firing 25 rounds during which she has to keep running up and downstairs to the ammunition cache,defeating Nevill in a struggle,shooting herself once in the kitchen then evading Police before proceeding upstairs where the story continues in other veins depending on your point of view.
-
But you don't have proof Caroline,only a suspicion that Julie willingly gave Jeremy her tablets as some kind of dummy run for the murders which to my mind is false. If Jeremy took the tablets from her bedroom without her knowledge she can't be blamed.
The only proof we do have,is that of Sheila and her " acute " paranoid schizophrenia,,,which I believe that 40 to 60% of such patients,,commit suicide.
Unless such patients are kept under control with their medication,,,they are dangerous people.
-
Errrr, how did he know she had them?
They were an item for nearly two years Caroline and if Julie had had a bad day at school she would have discussed this with Jeremy and her need for some tablets from the doctor to help her sleep.
-
The only proof we do have,is that of Sheila and her " acute " paranoid schizophrenia,,,which I believe that 40 to 60% of such patients,,commit suicide.
Unless such patients are kept under control with their medication,,,they are dangerous people.
But Nevill had always calmed her down in the past(without Jeremy's help)and I can't believe the docile,vacant state Sheila was in was compatible with the bashing Nevill received. Far more likely with Sheila in such a compliant state she was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter whether you believe it was Jeremy or an accomplice as was raised again recently.
-
All that is true lookout and nobody is arguing that Sheila wasn't a sick young woman. But there's a difference between banging fists and head on the wall however frightening that may appear to the untrained observer and physically harming others by picking up a gun,firing 25 rounds during which she has to keep running up and downstairs to the ammunition cache,defeating Nevill in a struggle,shooting herself once in the kitchen then evading Police before proceeding upstairs where the story continues in other veins depending on your point of view.
Even if there'd been no guns in the house,,kitchen knives would have been used,,,except that Neville would probably have grappled it from her,,but even so,,not before doing harm of sorts.
Sheila didn't want to go to WHF the day Colin dropped her and the twins off,,,so she'd probably already made up her mind that the end was coming for all of them. She'd clearly had enough of the tortured life that was her existance.
-
But Nevill had always calmed her down in the past(without Jeremy's help)and I can't believe the docile,vacant state Sheila was in was compatible with the bashing Nevill received. Far more likely with Sheila in such a compliant state she was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter whether you believe it was Jeremy or an accomplice as was raised again recently.
Steve,,how easy is it to bash someone when they're looking down the barrel of a gun.? Sheila had the upper hand,not Neville. I don't doubt that Neville made a few moves to try and retrieve the rifle,,but warning shots held him back anyway,,and June was also powerless as she bore the brunt of the worst outburst of fire.
-
But Nevill had always calmed her down in the past(without Jeremy's help)and I can't believe the docile,vacant state Sheila was in was compatible with the bashing Nevill received. Far more likely with Sheila in such a compliant state she was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter whether you believe it was Jeremy or an accomplice as was raised again recently.
Steve her docile withdrawn state is typical warning that a psychotic episode is imminent. You refuse to accept this but it is fact.
-
But Nevill had always calmed her down in the past(without Jeremy's help)and I can't believe the docile,vacant state Sheila was in was compatible with the bashing Nevill received. Far more likely with Sheila in such a compliant state she was led to her death like a lamb to the slaughter whether you believe it was Jeremy or an accomplice as was raised again recently.
I would imagine that Neville tried to contact Jeremy in the earlier stages of the outburst,but was beaten back with further threats. Nevilles' final call was sadly in vain.
Sheila would not have been docile,,,vacant perhaps,because she'd have been mixed up as to " who she was ".
It was logged that when the police were inside the farmhouse,,that one of them heard a noise upstairs,,so they started using sign language amid whispering as they made their way upstairs.
What was the noise that they'd heard,,,and why the need to whisper orders.?
-
Steve her docile withdrawn state is typical warning that a psychotic episode is imminent. You refuse to accept this but it is fact.
Known as the calm before the storm,Maggie.
-
Even if there'd been no guns in the house,,kitchen knives would have been used,,,except that Neville would probably have grappled it from her,,but even so,,not before doing harm of sorts.
Sheila didn't want to go to WHF the day Colin dropped her and the twins off,,,so she'd probably already made up her mind that the end was coming for all of them. She'd clearly had enough of the tortured life that was her existance.
She was tired like many of us,all the more so for Sheila because her medication made her drowsy. She was tired on the Saturday night and asked to be taken home from the party early,she was tired during the journey to White House Farm and she had the added responsibility of the twins and the effort of keeping up appearances of a happy family in front of her parents which was for the most part beyond her. She didn't single her family out for some kind of special nasty treatment because in the store in Tiptree on Tuesday afternoon she was described by the shopkeeper as "vacant" which was her natural state under the influence of her medication.
We can argue about kitchen knives but suffice to say there was never any evidence she had used these implements in the past.
-
Steve,,how easy is it to bash someone when they're looking down the barrel of a gun.? Sheila had the upper hand,not Neville. I don't doubt that Neville made a few moves to try and retrieve the rifle,,but warning shots held him back anyway,,and June was also powerless as she bore the brunt of the worst outburst of fire.
She just didn't have the physical power to do it..
-
Steve her docile withdrawn state is typical warning that a psychotic episode is imminent. You refuse to accept this but it is fact.
No it's a side-effect of the Electroconvulsive Therapy which facilities such as St. Andrews' may well have offered. Strangely enough Jeremy referred to it in his statement and although it was copied down wrongly by the civilian Police it was evident what was meant. So we have a situation where Sheila may well have been given ECT and Jeremy was aware of it.
-
They were an item for nearly two years Caroline and if Julie had had a bad day at school she would have discussed this with Jeremy and her need for some tablets from the doctor to help her sleep.
And she brings sleeping tablets to the house of a man who stated he was planning to drug is family with sleeping pills before killing them. I have to say that your loyalty is admirable but completely misplaced.
-
I would imagine that Neville tried to contact Jeremy in the earlier stages of the outburst,but was beaten back with further threats. Nevilles' final call was sadly in vain.
Sheila would not have been docile,,,vacant perhaps,because she'd have been mixed up as to " who she was ".
It was logged that when the police were inside the farmhouse,,that one of them heard a noise upstairs,,so they started using sign language amid whispering as they made their way upstairs.
What was the noise that they'd heard,,,and why the need to whisper orders.?
That would mean Nevill leaving his wife and grandchildren alone upstairs defenceless which he would never have done. As for the Police,why on earth would they be in possession of a silencer to the anschutz rifle which allegedly discharged by accident and killed Sheila?
-
No it's a side-effect of the Electroconvulsive Therapy which facilities such as St. Andrews' may well have offered. Strangely enough Jeremy referred to it in his statement and although it was copied down wrongly by the civilian Police it was evident what was meant. So we have a situation where Sheila may well have been given ECT and Jeremy was aware of it.
She didn't have ECT t all - it was June who had it, it's in one of the statements! Jeremy was simply mixed up.
-
And she brings sleeping tablets to the house of a man who stated he was planning to drug is family with sleeping pills before killing them. I have to say that your loyalty is admirable but completely misplaced.
But the burning down the house plan had been abandoned and I assume Julie put it all to the back of her mind and got on with her busy life again.
-
No it's a side-effect of the Electroconvulsive Therapy which facilities such as St. Andrews' may well have offered. Strangely enough Jeremy referred to it in his statement and although it was copied down wrongly by the civilian Police it was evident what was meant. So we have a situation where Sheila may well have been given ECT and Jeremy was aware of it.
Steve,,Sheila didn't have ECT at the hospital,or at all,,as it's given to patients with severe depression such as June had when she suffered a breakdown.
-
She didn't have ECT t all - it was June who had it, it's in one of the statements! Jeremy was simply mixed up.
Yes June had it but you don't know what Jeremy knew about Sheila's medical history. He knew the difference between his mother and sister but since he despised them both and they both ended up dead I don't accept what you say.
-
No you put motives and actions into Julie which you cannot possibly know about under the pretense of speaking on behalf of the legal profession whose opinion is buttressed by your former social standing your job affords you in the community and for this I cannot forgive you. I apologize if I categorized you personally as a public school toff and you are not,but most of the legal profession at the level Jeremy hired are and they did a thoroughly bad job of defending him.
Unfortunately Steve you have revealed something about yourself in those things that you accused ngb of which you could not possible know about and that is that your mind is completely and utterly prejudiced in favour of Julie Mugford, in that you cannot possible hold a reasoned and logical argument. Therefore there is no point in holding any reasoned conversation with you. Because prejudice rather than truth is the only thing that will be seen in your posts.
-
Steve,,Sheila didn't have ECT at the hospital,or at all,,as it's given to patients with severe depression such as June had when she suffered a breakdown.
Yet it's in Jeremy's statement lookout. Of course if you want to pick and choose what you believe that's up to you.
-
Unfortunately Steve you have revealed something about yourself in those things that you accused ngb of which you could not possible know about and that is that your mind is completely and utterly prejudiced in favour of Julie Mugford, in that you cannot possible hold a reasoned and logical argument. Therefore there is no point in holding any reasoned conversation with you. Because prejudice rather than truth is the only thing that will be seen in your posts.
I have tried to reconcile with members Lugg but I suggest that both of us just go our separate ways..
-
Known as the calm before the storm,Maggie.
Exactly lookout
-
But the burning down the house plan had been abandoned and I assume Julie put it all to the back of her mind and got on with her busy life again.
Julie romanced a lot and made an awful lot of things up that weren't altogether true,,,but I notice that Jeremy hasn't told tales,,,in fact I think he's been very loyal to Julie all things considered,,because I'm sure there are heaps of things that he could say about her " odd " behaviour.
-
Yet it's in Jeremy's statement lookout. Of course if you want to pick and choose what you believe that's up to you.
It's you who is picking and choosing for your own ends!! Jeremy made a mistake!! Not one of her doctors nor anyone else mentions that she had ECT and neither does Colin or any of the other people you are fond of mentioning to back up your 'theories' - so, obviously she didn't have it!!
-
But the burning down the house plan had been abandoned and I assume Julie put it all to the back of her mind and got on with her busy life again.
yeah, that must be what happened ::) ::) ;D ;D
-
No it's a side-effect of the Electroconvulsive Therapy which facilities such as St. Andrews' may well have offered. Strangely enough Jeremy referred to it in his statement and although it was copied down wrongly by the civilian Police it was evident what was meant. So we have a situation where Sheila may well have been given ECT and Jeremy was aware of it.
Steve, I have cared for people who have had ECT, they are happy bright people after the treatment. They then manage to cope with life for a reasonable amount of time before they succumb again to depression. I would not think a paranoid schizophrenic would be treated with ECT in the 1980s, it was used for depression and not psychosis. imo
-
Julie romanced a lot and made an awful lot of things up that weren't altogether true,,,but I notice that Jeremy hasn't told tales,,,in fact I think he's been very loyal to Julie all things considered,,because I'm sure there are heaps of things that he could say about her " odd " behaviour.
The whole point about Jeremy is that he can't start talking about their relationship without incriminating himself. Does Julie ever resort to "don't know" or "no comment" in her statement? There is no reason whatsoever for a murder suspect to answer any question "no comment" unless they are looking ahead to the trial and believe that such answers will go against you in the minds of the jurors. I read a post today about Julie's use of language:I didn't agree with it but Jeremy knows what language to use to suit his audience,describing Sheila as a "paranoid schizophrenic" in his formal statements yet describes her as "a nutter" to the Police upon arrival at White House Farm in order to delay entry until he is sure Sheila has bled to death.
-
Yet it's in Jeremy's statement lookout. Of course if you want to pick and choose what you believe that's up to you.
Steve,,I know for sure that ECT isn't used on schizophrenic patients.It's of no use for that type of mental illness. It's used for severe depressives.
Nothing to do with this case,,,knowledge of having assisted in the past with patients who underwent the treatment for their depression. It wouldn't work with schizophrenics.
-
I'm not too bothered what is written about me here and we really should get back to the Jeremy Bamber case. I have apologized to ngb1066 whom it appears on this site is held up as some kind of eminence grise but I'm afraid I reserve the right to criticize him whatever his status in life may be:this is what democracy is all about.
Specifically two points I would object to whoever they came from but coming from a barrister it adds more credence to them. The most damning allegation which he dresses up in legal jargon as a fact but cannot possibly know for sure is that Julie gave Jeremy sleeping tablets to test out on his parents and connived in this procedure. This is fundamental to the case so you'll have to excuse the repetition but I will argue until I'm blue in the face(or blush) that Julie left these tablets lying around and there is no proof whatsoever that she was involved in any harm caused by them,which as it turned out there was none.
Secondly dressed up as fact is that Julie conspired to import cannabis from Amsterdam as if this was some kind of joint mission between her and Jeremy and therefore she is culpable in law. Julie could not possibly take the blame for tubes of toothpaste stuffed with drugs in Jeremy's suitcase carried by Jeremy and smuggled by Jeremy through customs at Dover. Several times I have accompanied schoolchildren on trips to France and if they did this kind of thing when my back was turned as has happened with smoke alarms,knives and so on it's regrettable but no way am I responsible in law for the actions of others in this regard.
As for the site in general I wouldn't like us to fall out,I count you all as friends and believe that we have far more in common than what divides us. We all want justice done and this will mean different things to different members. Some of the posts in recent days have raised eyebrows and I'd like to think that we can stick to the advertising code of legal,decent,honest and truthful as a guide so as to keep this site as a record where outside parties can look in and feel that we do have a sensible contribution to make.
Unfortunately Steve it appears that in your very first post to ngb was BECAUSE of his status and not WHATEVER his status. Your criticism was BECAUSE you thought he was a public school boy and not IN SPITE of his being a public school boy. That to my mind is not democracy. But PREJUDICE. And that is what guided your thoughts.
-
Unfortunately Steve it appears that in your very first post to ngb was BECAUSE of his status and not WHATEVER his status. Your criticism was BECAUSE you thought he was a public school boy and not IN SPITE of his being a public school boy. That to my mind is not democracy. But PREJUDICE. And that is what guided your thoughts.
Good post Lugg ;D ;D ;D
-
Steve, I have cared for people who have had ECT, they are happy bright people after the treatment. They then manage to cope with life for a reasonable amount of time before they succumb again to depression. I would not think a paranoid schizophrenic would be treated with ECT in the 1980s, it was used for depression and not psychosis. imo
Some patients experience the very symptoms of docility and vacant stare as Sheila.http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/ect/effects.htm
-
I have tried to reconcile with members Lugg but I suggest that both of us just go our separate ways..
Unfortunately Steve you have done absolutely nothing to reconcile to other members. And quite frankly you say this because I can see right through you and you don't like what you see. I suggest you learn a bit of humility ande then perhaps your apologies will be sincere, which they ain't at the moment. ;)
-
Unfortunately Steve it appears that in your very first post to ngb was BECAUSE of his status and not WHATEVER his status. Your criticism was BECAUSE you thought he was a public school boy and not IN SPITE of his being a public school boy. That to my mind is not democracy. But PREJUDICE. And that is what guided your thoughts.
Lugg you have no thoughts whatsoever in your stupid,ugly head. You're the kind of Year 11 pupil who will start the low humming on a teacher entering the class and then pretend that it's nothing at all to do with them. You do no schoolwork that final year of your life and manage a handful of low-grade qualifications whilst forever and a day blaming the teachers who taught you whilst you rot in the cesspit of your own making.
-
Lugg you have no thoughts whatsoever in your stupid,ugly head. You're the kind of Year 11 pupil who will start the low humming on a teacher entering the class and then pretend that it's nothing at all to do with them. You do no schoolwork that final year of your life and manage a handful of low-grade qualifications whilst forever and a day blaming the teachers who taught you whilst you rot in the cesspit of your own making.
What a silly statement Steve. Hit a nerve did we? ::)
-
Unfortunately Steve you have done absolutely nothing to reconcile to other members. And quite frankly you say this because I can see right through you and you don't like what you see. I suggest you learn a bit of humility ande then perhaps your apologies will be sincere, which they ain't at the moment. ;)
There was one apology to ngb1066 for calling him a public schoolboy toff when he is the product of a council house. There is no apology to him for the substance of what he wrote which is the most important thing,namely the allegation that Julie connived in the use of her pills to drug Jeremy's parents,and conspired to import drugs from the Netherlands,neither has there been an apology from me to you or any other member.
-
Lugg you have no thoughts whatsoever in your stupid,ugly head. You're the kind of Year 11 pupil who will start the low humming on a teacher entering the class and then pretend that it's nothing at all to do with them. You do no schoolwork that final year of your life and manage a handful of low-grade qualifications whilst forever and a day blaming the teachers who taught you whilst you rot in the cesspit of your own making.
What a nasty little piece of work you're turning into!!
-
The whole point about Jeremy is that he can't start talking about their relationship without incriminating himself. Does Julie ever resort to "don't know" or "no comment" in her statement? There is no reason whatsoever for a murder suspect to answer any question "no comment" unless they are looking ahead to the trial and believe that such answers will go against you in the minds of the jurors. I read a post today about Julie's use of language:I didn't agree with it but Jeremy knows what language to use to suit his audience,describing Sheila as a "paranoid schizophrenic" in his formal statements yet describes her as "a nutter" to the Police upon arrival at White House Farm in order to delay entry until he is sure Sheila has bled to death.
Steve,,what Jeremy did was to speak to the police using their language,i.e." nutter ".I wouldn't have thought that " paranoid schizophrenic " entered into many peoples' vocabulary in the mid 80's as it does now. Hence why people didn't understand or know of its existance when it was first reported as 4 murders and a suicide,,which was questioned and queried for a further 12 months until people were of the understanding that a " slip of a girl " couldn't murder her 6ft 4 father. Nobody was ever made fully aware of the type of illness,or the capabilities of the person who suffered it.
-
There was one apology to ngb1066 for calling him a public schoolboy toff when he is the product of a council house. There is no apology to him for the substance of what he wrote which is the most important thing,namely the allegation that Julie connived in the use of her pills to drug Jeremy's parents,and conspired to import drugs from the Netherlands,neither has there been an apology from me to you or any other member.
1. Still guided by prejudice then? 2. You haven't done anything at all to reconcile other members of the forum then?
-
There was one apology to ngb1066 for calling him a public schoolboy toff when he is the product of a council house. There is no apology to him for the substance of what he wrote which is the most important thing,namely the allegation that Julie connived in the use of her pills to drug Jeremy's parents,and conspired to import drugs from the Netherlands,neither has there been an apology from me to you or any other member.
An apology to you for what? The substance of what he wrote came from his experience in the legal profession - yours comes from a few ill written books!! I know who my money is on!!
-
Steve,,what Jeremy did was to speak to the police using their language,i.e." nutter ".I wouldn't have thought that " paranoid schizophrenic " entered into many peoples' vocabulary in the mid 80's as it does now. Hence why people didn't understand or know of its existance when it was first reported as 4 murders and a suicide,,which was questioned and queried for a further 12 months until people were of the understanding that a " slip of a girl " couldn't murder her 6ft 4 father. Nobody was ever made fully aware of the type of illness,or the capabilities of the person who suffered it.
But Sheila didn't store things up in her head with some kind of ulterior motive vengeance. She just wasn't that kind of girl. Jeremy hadn't a clue what went on inside women's heads which is why he told Julie of his murder plot albeit in code at the end after she'd told him she didn't want to hear any more and it's partly the reason why he's been in prison now for 28 years.
-
Lugg you have no thoughts whatsoever in your stupid,ugly head. You're the kind of Year 11 pupil who will start the low humming on a teacher entering the class and then pretend that it's nothing at all to do with them. You do no schoolwork that final year of your life and manage a handful of low-grade qualifications whilst forever and a day blaming the teachers who taught you whilst you rot in the cesspit of your own making.
Steve, that is totally unfair. You told me once I was out of order for little or nothing and I am telling you now, you are wholly and completely out of order and now you owe Lugg an apology as well as ngb.
-
An apology to you for what? The substance of what he wrote came from his experience in the legal profession - yours comes from a few ill written books!! I know who my money is on!!
It was dressed up in legal jargon but there was no proof of either of the allegations.
-
But Sheila didn't store things up in her head with some kind of ulterior motive vengeance. She just wasn't that kind of girl. Jeremy hadn't a clue what went on inside women's heads which is why he told Julie of his murder plot albeit in code at the end after she'd told him she didn't want to hear any more and it's partly the reason why he's been in prison now for 28 years.
How do you know what she did or didn't do? You didn't know these people - more flights of fancy and fantasy!!
-
Lugg you have no thoughts whatsoever in your stupid,ugly head. You're the kind of Year 11 pupil who will start the low humming on a teacher entering the class and then pretend that it's nothing at all to do with them. You do no schoolwork that final year of your life and manage a handful of low-grade qualifications whilst forever and a day blaming the teachers who taught you whilst you rot in the cesspit of your own making.
Steve, I fear that you're going too far. It's clear certain people have wound you up over the last few weeks - but attacking Grahame seems...just wrong. He isn't at the top of your detractors at all.
Trust me, I learned the hard way that there are people here that will never believe Bamber guilty - don't care about the true facts of the case and would rather gossip about relatives/JM/AE and adoption.
I'm not the biggest Grahame fan, nor is he of me, but like I said when someone gets attacked and it isn't fair.....it's only right to speak up.... you owe Grahame an apology. :-\
And then stop getting wound up by people.
As for the whole Steve/NGB thing, I think Steve has the right to pull NGB up on things he isn't happy that have been posted and vice versa. There are times I do wish NGB was a little more careful with what he accuses people in this case of, he is close to the defence so you'd think his words on the internet would be a little more thought out. IMO.
It was dressed up in legal jargon but there was no proof of either of the allegations.
I agreew, it was careless.
-
Maggie the only thing that would shut the psychotics up in the late 50's was a shot of paraldehyde. The stuff used to stink and sister would run like the clappers with her needle full and sink it into the offending patient,who was usually on the floor with half a dozen of us holding her down. They are violent.
-
What a nasty little piece of work you're turning into!!
I never liked you since you didn't ask my permission for disclosing something I wrote for another site. But I never attacked you personally until now and I didn't particularly want to,neither do I enjoy it. If the olive branch is rejected then so be it.
-
It was dressed up in legal jargon but there was no proof of either of the allegations.
No it wasn't, it was clearly written and easily understandable. There was of course no flowery prose which is why you might have had a problem with it - that and the fact that M's Mugford misdemeanour's were laid bare!!
-
Maggie the only thing that would shut the psychotics up in the late 50's was a shot of paraldehyde. The stuff used to stink and sister would run like the clappers with her needle full and sink it into the offending patient,who was usually on the floor with half a dozen of us holding her down. They are violent.
I remember paraldehyde lookout...horrible stuff and in my day the only thing given from glass syringes.
-
I never liked you since you didn't ask my permission for disclosing something I wrote for another site. But I never attacked you personally until now and I didn't particularly want to,neither do I enjoy it. If the olive branch is rejected then so be it.
You can't call people stupid and expect to get away with it - no one here has EVER spoken to you like that and Lugg has always been civil to you. I personally don't care if you like me or not but you are out of order and if you had anything about you at all, you would apologise!!
-
I remember paraldehyde lookout...horrible stuff and in my day the only thing given from glass syringes.
Yes,glass only syringes,,or plastic would have buckled I think.
-
You can't call people stupid and expect to get away with it - no one here has EVER spoken to you like that and Lugg has always been civil to you. I personally don't care if you like me or not but you are out of order and if you had anything about you at all, you would apologise!!
I have apologized to ngb1066 for one allegation I made and that's it. There is no justification for making Julie complicit in drugging Nevill or for her smuggling drugs. It was the cheque fraud which was dropped.
-
I have apologized to ngb1066 for one allegation I made and that's it. There is no justification for making Julie complicit in drugging Nevill or for her smuggling drugs. It was the cheque fraud which was dropped.
I'm not talking about NGB, I'm talking about Lugg
-
Steve, I fear that you're going too far. It's clear certain people have wound you up over the last few weeks - but attacking Grahame seems...just wrong. He isn't at the top of your detractors at all.
Trust me, I learned the hard way that there are people here that will never believe Bamber guilty - don't care about the true facts of the case and would rather gossip about relatives/JM/AE and adoption.
I'm not the biggest Grahame fan, nor is he of me, but like I said when someone gets attacked and it isn't fair.....it's only right to speak up.... you owe Grahame an apology. :-\
And then stop getting wound up by people.
As for the whole Steve/NGB thing, I think Steve has the right to pull NGB up on things he isn't happy that have been posted and vice versa. There are times I do wish NGB was a little more careful with what he accuses people in this case of, he is close to the defence so you'd think his words on the internet would be a little more thought out. IMO.
I agreew, it was careless.
Wow! erm.. Thanks Mat. I'm beginning to like you. ;D Steve doesn't have to apologise to me by the way. As you know I can usually give as good as I receive. A trait and a bad habit I wish I could control. ::)
-
Wow! erm.. Thanks Mat. I'm beginning to like you. ;D Steve doesn't have to apologise to me by the way. As you know I can usually give as good as I receive. A trait and a bad habit I wish I could control. ::)
:)
You're a little like me Lugg, someones gives you shit.....your brain just won't let you shut off until you've bitten back!
-
It was dressed up in legal jargon but there was no proof of either of the allegations.
Of course it wasn't. I understood him perfectly. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused004.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
I never liked you since you didn't ask my permission for disclosing something I wrote for another site. But I never attacked you personally until now and I didn't particularly want to,neither do I enjoy it. If the olive branch is rejected then so be it.
Alas an olive branch covered with cyanide. ::)
-
Alas an olive branch covered with cyanide. ::)
He would love me as much as Julie if he knew me!! :-* :-* ;)
-
I remember paraldehyde lookout...horrible stuff and in my day the only thing given from glass syringes.
You could glue an Airfix kit together with that stuff.
-
You could glue an Airfix kit together with that stuff.
It's used as embalming fluid isn't it?
-
:)
You're a little like me Lugg, someones gives you shit.....your brain just won't let you shut off until you've bitten back!
If you ever met me Mat I can assure you we would get on well. I am a really easy going guy. The only problem I have is a wicked sense of humour that isn't easily conveyed over the internet.
-
He would love me as much as Julie if he knew me!! :-* :-* ;)
Caz ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He would love me as much as Julie if he knew me!! :-* :-* ;)
Well, he is either her brother? Or he knew Nicolas Chauvin personally? ;D
-
Caz ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
http://www.nice.org.uk/TA059
-
Sorry Steve-uk. I'm only playing with your emotions. I've just taken you to the edge of your patience. ;)
-
http://www.nice.org.uk/TA059
And there was me thinking you had posted something 'nice' - however, she still didn't have ECT, it was June.
-
And there was me thinking you had posted something 'nice' - however, she still didn't have ECT, it was June.
Why is it I keep wanting to correct you?.....ETC. ;D
-
http://www.nice.org.uk/TA059
ECT would only be tried for severe and long term catatonia or mania these are symptoms of schizophrenia it is true but as you have repeatedly told us yourself, Sheila was not in long term mania or catatonia.
-
Why is it I keep wanting to correct you?.....ETC. ;D
Ha, ha!! Thanks Lugg, I always do that, I type too fast and don't reread until after I post it - often I have to modify to make it legible ;D ;D
-
Ha, ha!! Thanks Lugg, I always do that, I type too fast and don't reread until after I post it - often I have to modify to make it legible ;D ;D
Ignore the above - Gottcha now -I think I'm losing my mind, it's been a long day!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Ignore the above - Gottcha now -I think I'm losing my mind, it's been a long day!! ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D
-
Lugg you have no thoughts whatsoever in your stupid,ugly head. You're the kind of Year 11 pupil who will start the low humming on a teacher entering the class and then pretend that it's nothing at all to do with them. You do no schoolwork that final year of your life and manage a handful of low-grade qualifications whilst forever and a day blaming the teachers who taught you whilst you rot in the cesspit of your own making.
Talk about olive branch. ::) But why am I not surprised? Lugg needs an apology!!!
I can see that it must be stressful to basically be challenged for every single post you make, Steve, I appreciate that, but in no way is it acceptable to attack other members on such a personal level. Go after the posts, not the posters.
And don´t forget that this is a pro-Bamber board, you yourself have chosen to post here, no one is forcing you.
-
It's used as embalming fluid isn't it?
Formaldehyde is used in embalming,Maggie.
-
Talk about olive branch. ::) But why am I not surprised? Lugg needs an apology!!!
I can see that it must be stressful to basically be challenged for every single post you make, Steve, I appreciate that, but in no way is it acceptable to attack other members on such a personal level. Go after the posts, not the posters.
And don´t forget that this is a pro-Bamber board, you yourself have chosen to post here, no one is forcing you.
I think Steve enjoys the challenges Alias and expects them. I think however, that the attention he enjoys has perhaps created a monster and someone's boots are getting a tad too big. It was uncalled for but I have seen Steve apologise in the past so we can only hope that after time to think about things, he does the right thing!
-
I'm sure Steve will see the error of his ways,,,as he isn't afraid to apologise. I have my own reasons for " treading carefully " with issues involving Steve. It's a sixth sense that I have. I could well be wrong,,but I don't think so.
I don't mean to be patronising/condescending towards Steve,BTW. I either like a person,or I don't,,,and I don't get any bad vibes from him.
-
As for the whole Steve/NGB thing, I think Steve has the right to pull NGB up on things he isn't happy that have been posted and vice versa. There are times I do wish NGB was a little more careful with what he accuses people in this case of, he is close to the defence so you'd think his words on the internet would be a little more thought out. IMO.
I agreew, it was careless.
Mat
I accept that Steve has the same right any other member has to challenge anything I say, and I have no objection to robust challenge. However I do object to being attacked personally for expressing my views, being called dishonourable for suggesting what most objective students of this case would readily accept.
I am very careful about making accusations here and my contributions are always carefully considered before I post them. I am conscious of the need for great care in discussing family members in particular, and other witnesses in the trial still living. Because I have had some involvement with the defence I also have to be careful not to reveal confidential information. There is an element of pots and kettles here Mat. You have in the past posted confidential information you have claimed to obtain through your employment, including in relation to the CCRC decision and the medical records of two members of this forum. You have also personally attacked forum members in posts both here and elsewhere. I suggest that you might be a bit more careful in your own posts.
-
Lugg you have no thoughts whatsoever in your stupid,ugly head. You're the kind of Year 11 pupil who will start the low humming on a teacher entering the class and then pretend that it's nothing at all to do with them. You do no schoolwork that final year of your life and manage a handful of low-grade qualifications whilst forever and a day blaming the teachers who taught you whilst you rot in the cesspit of your own making.
Steve_UK - that is a truly appalling post and completely unjustified. It does you no credit whatsoever. I hope you reconsider and have the decency to withdraw it and apologise unreservedly to Lugg.
-
Another fair and very well executed post by this clever man by whom we should at times take note of how his debating technique comes across. I tend to be the proverbial bull in a china shop. :o
-
Sorry to drag this back up, but what do you make of this from the appeal?
The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.
As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.
Has further evidence turned up on that issue? If so, was it included in the last CCRC application?
Despite what was said at the appeal, my understanding is that immunity was granted. Further information has been discovered since the appeal in documents formerly held under PII and from other sources.
-
I'm sure Steve will see the error of his ways,,,as he isn't afraid to apologise. I have my own reasons for " treading carefully " with issues involving Steve. It's a sixth sense that I have. I could well be wrong,,but I don't think so.
I don't mean to be patronising/condescending towards Steve,BTW. I either like a person,or I don't,,,and I don't get any bad vibes from him.
Hi Lookout - I have no thoughts about him either way but he had neither right nor cause to speak to Lugg that way and there was no excuse. I hope your faith in him is justified - I guess we shall see.
-
Hi ngb steve uk is certainly showing his true colours now. He is behaving like a man who has lost the argument so has to revert to this type of nasty unprovoked attack on Lugg who has always be very civil to him. I am quite shocked to be honest at his behaviour.
-
I'm not too bothered what is written about me here and we really should get back to the Jeremy Bamber case. I have apologized to ngb1066 whom it appears on this site is held up as some kind of eminence grise but I'm afraid I reserve the right to criticize him whatever his status in life may be:this is what democracy is all about.Specifically two points I would object to whoever they came from but coming from a barrister it adds more credence to them. The most damning allegation which he dresses up in legal jargon as a fact but cannot possibly know for sure is that Julie gave Jeremy sleeping tablets to test out on his parents and connived in this procedure. This is fundamental to the case so you'll have to excuse the repetition but I will argue until I'm blue in the face(or blush) that Julie left these tablets lying around and there is no proof whatsoever that she was involved in any harm caused by them,which as it turned out there was none. Secondly dressed up as fact is that Julie conspired to import cannabis from Amsterdam as if this was some kind of joint mission between her and Jeremy and therefore she is culpable in law. Julie could not possibly take the blame for tubes of toothpaste stuffed with drugs in Jeremy's suitcase carried by Jeremy and smuggled by Jeremy through customs at Dover. Several times I have accompanied schoolchildren on trips to France and if they did this kind of thing when my back was turned as has happened with smoke alarms,knives and so on it's regrettable but no way am I responsible in law for the actions of others in this regard.As for the site in general I wouldn't like us to fall out,I count you all as friends and believe that we have far more in common than what divides us. We all want justice done and this will mean different things to different members. Some of the posts in recent days have raised eyebrows and I'd like to think that we can stick to the advertising code of legal,decent,honest and truthful as a guide so as to keep this site as a record where outside parties can look in and feel that we do have a sensible contribution to make.
Steve_UK - Thank you for your (limited) apology. I agree entirely that you, like all forum members, are free to challenge me on anything I say. I claim no status in life or on this forum. My views are no more valid than any other member. We all bring our own experiences of life to the case and form our own judgements. We all have our own particular areas of expertise, for example those members who are able to help us in relation to mental health issues and treatment. I have learned a lot from other members here. My own main area of expertise is the law (I also have some knowledge of firearms) and when I post on legal matters I try to be accurate, clear and objective.
We will just have to disagree on the question of Julie's role in supplying sleeping tablets to Jeremy and in relation to the Amsterdam drugs run. I have formed my view not upon conjecture but upon a consideration of Julie's own statements. Whether you like it or not Julie was guilty of importing and supplying drugs upon the basis of a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins. If charged she would have been advised to plead guilty, in order to receive a reduced prison sentence. Your analogy with you as a teacher in charge of a party of schoolchildren is not apposite. In that example you presumably had no knowledge of the contraband carried. Julie was present when the drugs were purchased, when they were concealed in toothpaste tubes and when they were smuggled into the country. She was also then undoubtedly involved in using and supplying part of the consignment.
On a final point, I avoid what you describe as "legal jargon". When asked I try to explain the relevant law in terms which are understandable.
-
Formaldehyde is used in embalming,Maggie.
Also used for psychosis and I have given such injections but cannot remember how it helps with psychosis???
-
I've just been reading the psychopathy results from Jeremys' representatives who were responsible in reporting 27 different aspects of his " mental ability,or not,,,and have come to the conclusion that the man is more sane and balanced than some individuals outside of prison.
No anger,,no psychopathy,,no viciousness,,,no intentions to harm/hurt,,,no mental disorder,,,no thought of violence.
If I'm being honest,,I wouldn't pass that test,,,along with thousands of others. It's a state of mind,,and one that you can't hide from. It's impossible to disguise when you're wracked in anger.
I'm not by my nature to be an angry person. It's others who create that anger within,,through incompetence and lack of common sense,red-tape and bureaucracy. Trying to control anger is trying to do the impossible.
Jeremy had no problem at all,because he didn't fit any of the categories mentioned,,and afterall,it's in the mind whether a person could,or could not murder another. 28 years of unchanged behaviour of this man should tell those in the know that the man isn't a danger at all,nor a murderer,and has been used to advantage by others. I think it's sinful and cruel beyond compare.
-
Hi ngb steve uk is certainly showing his true colours now. He is behaving like a man who has lost the argument so has to revert to this type of nasty unprovoked attack on Lugg who has always be very civil to him. I am quite shocked to be honest at his behaviour.
Susan, hi. I think we can all accept that we can become carried away when we are talking about/defending those things we feel passionately. It maybe that later we find we have given offence and have to apologize for something we have inadvertantly said. I have, in the past, been bought to task by Steve, who has objected to something I've said. It isn't my habit to deliberately give offence so I apologized. However, when I read what he had said to Neil, and later, to Lugg, there is NO doubt in my mind that the words were INTENDED to give offence. I have yet to witness a LESS gracious and begrudging apology than that which he offered Neil. Quite how he goes about apologizing to Lugg with true sincerity and humility remains to be seen.
-
I've just been reading the psychopathy results from Jeremys' representatives who were responsible in reporting 27 different aspects of his " mental ability,or not,,,and have come to the conclusion that the man is more sane and balanced than some individuals outside of prison.
No anger,,no psychopathy,,no viciousness,,,no intentions to harm/hurt,,,no mental disorder,,,no thought of violence.
If I'm being honest,,I wouldn't pass that test,,,along with thousands of others. It's a state of mind,,and one that you can't hide from. It's impossible to disguise when you're wracked in anger.
I'm not by my nature to be an angry person. It's others who create that anger within,,through incompetence and lack of common sense,red-tape and bureaucracy. Trying to control anger is trying to do the impossible.
Jeremy had no problem at all,because he didn't fit any of the categories mentioned,,and afterall,it's in the mind whether a person could,or could not murder another. 28 years of unchanged behaviour of this man should tell those in the know that the man isn't a danger at all,nor a murderer,and has been used to advantage by others. I think it's sinful and cruel beyond compare.
Hi Lookout, I've not read that, is it held on the forum?
-
Hi Lookout, I've not read that, is it held on the forum?
Hi Caroline,,you'll find it on the Bambertweets site.
-
I've just been reading the psychopathy results from Jeremys' representatives who were responsible in reporting 27 different aspects of his " mental ability,or not,,,and have come to the conclusion that the man is more sane and balanced than some individuals outside of prison.
No anger,,no psychopathy,,no viciousness,,,no intentions to harm/hurt,,,no mental disorder,,,no thought of violence.
If I'm being honest,,I wouldn't pass that test,,,along with thousands of others. It's a state of mind,,and one that you can't hide from. It's impossible to disguise when you're wracked in anger.
I'm not by my nature to be an angry person. It's others who create that anger within,,through incompetence and lack of common sense,red-tape and bureaucracy. Trying to control anger is trying to do the impossible.
Jeremy had no problem at all,because he didn't fit any of the categories mentioned,,and afterall,it's in the mind whether a person could,or could not murder another. 28 years of unchanged behaviour of this man should tell those in the know that the man isn't a danger at all,nor a murderer,and has been used to advantage by others. I think it's sinful and cruel beyond compare.
lookout, I fail to understand how any person who has read the psychiatric reports on Jeremy Bamber can claim he is a psychopath.
You don't have to be a psychopath to kill but a person surely has various violent instincts and anger and would be more likely to commit a spare of the moment emotional response rather than a cold and cunningly executed plan with the ability to turn up shortly after as cool as the proverbial cucumber?? In 28 years I think there is one incident of Jeremy Bamber threatening someone with a bottle, no doubt an immediate and emotional response many years ago, hardly surprising in the circumstances. I believe he meditates which keeps him grounded and able to cope. He is part of the tragedy not the cause of it imo.
-
Hello april I myself on occasions found it necessaey to apologise for maybe causing offence and it was done with sincerity and good grace. I have never seen you post anything that required an apology. steve's apology to ngb was worth nothing as it was not sincere. He owes Alias an apology and Lugg but I would be very surprised if they got one. I am very very disappointed in steve's behaviour and if he was my son I would be totally ashamed of him. We can debate issues without being aggressive and rude and arrogant. I have always thought that posters who revert to this type of behaviour are unsure of their own ground so become very defensive or they are trying to paint another in a very bad light on the forum.
-
I have apologized to ngb1066 for one allegation I made and that's it. There is no justification for making Julie complicit in drugging Nevill or for her smuggling drugs. It was the cheque fraud which was dropped.
It was not just the cheque fraud. It was also burglary, importing drugs, supplying drugs (not a single instance but a course of conduct over an extended period), and the various offences she could have been charged with arising out of the murders. At the very least this would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice or assisting an offender, at worst it could have been murder itself upon the basis of aiding and abetting Jeremy (both before and after). This was a major decision for the DPP and Julie was very lucky. She was in very serious trouble indeed, on any view. The decision was taken because it was felt to be essential to secure Julie's full cooperation and to be in a position to present her in the best possible light to the jury. This was an unusual course as the normal practice where someone agrees to "turn Queen's evidence" (as it is colloquially termed) is for the witness to be prosecuted but receive a substantial reduction in sentence as a reward for assisting the prosecution. Julie was not only given immunity but she did not receive a police caution, thus avoiding any criminal record and enabling her to pursue her chosen career.
-
Hello april I myself on occasions found it necessaey to apologise for maybe causing offence and it was done with sincerity and good grace. I have never seen you post anything that required an apology. steve's apology to ngb was worth nothing as it was not sincere. He owes Alias an apology and Lugg but I would be very surprised if they got one. I am very very disappointed in steve's behaviour and if he was my son I would be totally ashamed of him. We can debate issues without being aggressive and rude and arrogant. I have always thought that posters who revert to this type of behaviour are unsure of their own ground so become very defensive or they are trying to paint another in a very bad light on the forum.
Sad to say,Susan,,,he isn't the only one,,but I won't start anything. Or else---------------- ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
......... We can debate issues without being aggressive and rude and arrogant. I have always thought that posters who revert to this type of behaviour are unsure of their own ground so become very defensive or they are trying to paint another in a very bad light on the forum.
Susan, we can indeed debate on a level which is interesting, stimulating and informative. Posters who feel the need to revert to rude and arrogantly aggressive behaviours mayhave very little ground on which to stand if their only source of knowledge is taken, and treated as absolute truth, from books in which truth can't be verified.
-
It was not just the cheque fraud. It was also burglary, importing drugs, supplying drugs (not a single instance but a course of conduct over an extended period), and the various offences she could have been charged with arising out of the murders. At the very least this would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice or assisting an offender, at worst it could have been murder itself upon the basis of aiding and abetting Jeremy (both before and after). This was a major decision for the DPP and Julie was very lucky. She was in very serious trouble indeed, on any view. The decision was taken because it was felt to be essential to secure Julie's full cooperation and to be in a position to present her in the best possible light to the jury. This was an unusual course as the normal practice where someone agrees to "turn Queen's evidence" (as it is colloquially termed) is for the witness to be prosecuted but receive a substantial reduction in sentence as a reward for assisting the prosecution. Julie was not only given immunity but she did not receive a police caution, thus avoiding any criminal record and enabling her to pursue her chosen career.
Yes NGB, Susan Battesby claims in her wit stat that she was present when JM went to the bank to obtain some money bags for JB to enable him to bag up the cannabis ready for JM to distribute.
-
Yes NGB, Susan Battesby claims in her wit stat that she was present when JM went to the bank to obtain some money bags for JB to enable him to bag up the cannabis ready for JM to distribute.
NaNu Hello. I guess we can establish from that, that she went of her own volition and that Jeremy hadn't in any way threatened her safety or that of her family if she didn't comply with his wishes.
-
NaNu Hello. I guess we can establish from that, that she went of her own volition and that Jeremy hadn't in any way threatened her safety or that of her family if she didn't comply with his wishes.
Hello April. Yes absolutely, in the same way that JM asserted herself with JB over his continuing communication with Suzette Ford which in the end he put a stop to probably due to the relentless pressure. I think Anji Greaves was probably correct when she stated that JM was quite fond of giving JB what for a lot of the time!
-
Hello April. Yes absolutely, in the same way that JM asserted herself with JB over his continuing communication with Suzette Ford which in the end he put a stop to probably due to the relentless pressure. I think Anji Greaves was probably correct when she stated that JM was quite fond of giving JB what for a lot of the time!
Well in my experience, NaNu, people rarely move very far from their personality types as they get older, so perhaps what we see, when we look at Julie in her early 20's, is the embyonic stage of a woman who will achieve her goals by whatever means possible, whoever stands in her way. Such a person is never likely to be meek and compliant unless it suits them to act that way.
-
lookout, I fail to understand how any person who has read the psychiatric reports on Jeremy Bamber can claim he is a psychopath.
You don't have to be a psychopath to kill but a person surely has various violent instincts and anger and would be more likely to commit a spare of the moment emotional response rather than a cold and cunningly executed plan with the ability to turn up shortly after as cool as the proverbial cucumber?? In 28 years I think there is one incident of Jeremy Bamber threatening someone with a bottle, no doubt an immediate and emotional response many years ago, hardly surprising in the circumstances. I believe he meditates which keeps him grounded and able to cope. He is part of the tragedy not the cause of it imo.
Hi Maggie
If as much empahsis was given to the likelihood of SC having an attacment disorder rather than JB being a psychopath, especially when there's absolutely no evidence for the latter, then perhaps we could improve our understanding of the case :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6d1nAgBNI
-
It strikes me that poor Jeremy was,and became anyones" punchbag".A prize mug. 28 years for being a mug.That's some record.!
-
Well in my experience, NaNu, people rarely move very far from their personality types as they get older, so perhaps what we see, when we look at Julie in her early 20's, is the embyonic stage of a woman who will achieve her goals by whatever means possible, whoever stands in her way. Such a person is never likely to be meek and compliant unless it suits them to act that way.
I think you hit the nail right on the head april. Julie appears to have always known where she wanted to end up, one track minded. ;D
-
I think that people can change - but not after their 25th year. Julie COULD have changed, since she was so young. Not saying it happened 100%, but I believe it could have.
-
I think that people can change - but not after their 25th year. Julie COULD have changed, since she was so young. Not saying it happened 100%, but I believe it could have.
Hi Alias, he statement regards the cheque book fraud was taken in 2002 for JBs appeal.
-
Hi Maggie
If as much empahsis was given to the likelihood of SC having an attacment disorder rather than JB being a psychopath, especially when there's absolutely no evidence for the latter, then perhaps we could improve our understanding of the case :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6d1nAgBNI
I have to agree with you NN. Just been listening to your link again. What a tragedy for these kids, left untreated many of them end up with long term prison sentences and never find the love they crave. Poor Sheila had a really raw deal didn't she. Just goes to show money and status don't count for much in the scheme of things. :) :)
-
I think that people can change - but not after their 25th year. Julie COULD have changed, since she was so young. Not saying it happened 100%, but I believe it could have.
Julie had no choice but to change and alter her ways,,because she too would have been on a downward spiral of crime and would have had no compunction in blaming Jeremy.
She was your typical manipulative and cunning individual.
-
Hi Alias, he statement regards the cheque book fraud was taken in 2002 for JBs appeal.
Well, yes, I knew that actually. Sometimes I try to see the best in people - naively. :P
-
I have to agree with you NN. Just been listening to your link again. What a tragedy for these kids, left untreated many of them end up with long term prison sentences and never find the love they crave. Poor Sheila had a really raw deal didn't she. Just goes to show money and status don't count for much in the scheme of things. :) :)
I absolutely agree with the new discovery that babies remember. My eldest daughter was very, very young when we adopted her but also very alert. She was a total nightmare for about a year she screamed and screamed and never slept, I swear she was missing her Mum. :(
-
Julie had no choice but to change and alter her ways,,because she too would have been on a downward spiral of crime and would have had no compunction in blaming Jeremy.
She was your typical manipulative and cunning individual.
Indeed lookout, Julie was a criminal, lots of young people experiment with drugs and rebel but Julie certainly went for it, she had quite a list of achievements by the time the police needed to clean her up so as to be an acceptable witness.
-
Well, yes, I knew that actually. Sometimes I try to see the best in people - naively. :P
I don't think it's niaive to look for the best in people Alias. It's an admirable quality and nothing to be ashamed of. ;) ;) :)
-
I absolutely agree with the new discovery that babies remember. My eldest daughter was very, very young when we adopted her but also very alert. She was a total nightmare for about a year she screamed and screamed and never slept, I swear she was missing her Mum. :(
Awww, poor little thing. I bet she was lucky to get you for a mom though.
My half sister adopted two children from another country, the first one, a boy, six months old, was so very easy to deal with even though he came from an orphanage. He was alert with good eye comtact and a ready, genuine smile. He is doing very well, and is well liked too everywhere he goes. Then they adopted a girl, but there were some bureaucratic problems, so she had turned two years old when they finally got her. It was a different experience altogether. She couldn´t smile, but rather she mimicked the smiles she got - she had to learn such a basic thing. That poor girl had a set of difficulties to deal with. She is doing OK now, they are very loving parents. She has a couple of talents though: she sings and dances sooooo well! They are both precious children.
Sorry, got carried away.
-
Indeed lookout, Julie was a criminal, lots of young people experiment with drugs and rebel but Julie certainly went for it, she had quite a list of achievements by the time the police needed to clean her up so as to be an acceptable witness.
Totally unacceptable,Maggie,,and if the police couldn't see through her for what she was,,,it's no wonder they can't solve crimes properly and at times get the wrong ones.
-
Maggie I agree with you about Alias the best gift you can have is to try and see good in other people. What a sad/lovely story Alias about the two adopted children. well done to your half sister.
-
Julie had no choice but to change and alter her ways,,because she too would have been on a downward spiral of crime and would have had no compunction in blaming Jeremy.
She was your typical manipulative and cunning individual.
Lookout, hi. I believe we all have room to change, but only within the parameters of our own personality type. So she would perhaps stop being mouthy and bossy and hone her skills of manipulation so that her determination to achieve her aims wasn't as obvious. The element of surprise generally being more successful than the overt advertizing of intentions.
-
Awww, poor little thing. I bet she was lucky to get you for a mom though.
My half sister adopted two children from another country, the first one, a boy, six months old, was so very easy to deal with even though he came from an orphanage. He was alert with good eye comtact and a ready, genuine smile. He is doing very well, and is well liked too everywhere he goes. Then they adopted a girl, but there were some bureaucratic problems, so she had turned two years old when they finally got her. It was a different experience altogether. She couldn´t smile, but rather she mimicked the smiles she got - she had to learn such a basic thing. That poor girl had a set of difficulties to deal with. She is doing OK now, they are very loving parents. She has a couple of talents though: she sings and dances sooooo well! They are both precious children.
Sorry, got carried away.
Alias hello. I'm so sorry that I left you off Steve's "Posters I should apologize to" list. What a wonderful story about your half sister's children. It's so good to know that after such a shakey start they now have a loving family.
-
I absolutely agree with the new discovery that babies remember. My eldest daughter was very, very young when we adopted her but also very alert. She was a total nightmare for about a year she screamed and screamed and never slept, I swear she was missing her Mum. :(
Yes Maggie I think babies remember. According to my parents (adoptive) I was a perfect baby and very rarely cried :). A crying baby could be caused by loads of things not necessarily missing the birth mother. I know you have a penchant for all things from the West country - were you reading her poems by Pam Ayres? If you were then the crying would be perfectly understandable. Is her adoptive father a Morris dancer? If so I guess that wouldn't help either?
Anyway in Sheila's case I think it was June's mental illness circa 1959 which was the root cause of Sheila's problems. You will note in the video clip that circa 3.30 in neglect is deemed to be a particularly important contributory factor in the development of an attachment disorder. Whatever the cause of June's mental illness circa 1959 we have no idea of what went on, or didn't go on, in the lead up to her admission to hospital. Colin's book states that Sheila recalled being left alone in a pram in the garden crying for hours. So there was possibly severe neglect and then an absence. :(
-
Yes Maggie I think babies remember. According to my parents (adoptive) I was a perfect baby and very rarely cried :). A crying baby could be caused by loads of things not necessarily missing the birth mother. I know you have a penchant for all things from the West country - were you reading her poems by Pam Ayres? If you were then the crying would be perfectly understandable. Is her adoptive father a Morris dancer? If so I guess that wouldn't help either?
Anyway in Sheila's case I think it was June's mental illness circa 1959 which was the root cause of Sheila's problems. You will note in the video clip that circa 3.30 in neglect is deemed to be a particularly important contributory factor in the development of an attachment disorder. Whatever the cause of June's mental illness circa 1959 we have no idea of what went on, or didn't go on, in the lead up to her admission to hospital. Colin's book states that Sheila recalled being left alone in a pram in the garden crying for hours. So there was possibly severe neglect and then an absence. :(
We will/can never know the reason for June's first breakdown but on numerous occasions I've wondered if it was possible that she was unable to bond with Sheila and secretly wished she hadn't adopted her. It would certainly be a reason for her depression.
-
Changing the conversation somewhat.My grandsons' girlfriend comes from Holland.A place near Amster dam ( begins with an A,but can't pronounce it ) Anyway,,it's an hour from Rotterdam and 75 minutes from Schipol airport. Her dad was co-director of Hertz and is now living in Greece where they're going to fly out and stay with him on Tuesday. He's such a kind,generous man,,but saw very little of his daughter when she was a baby because of his business,and when the girl was three,the parents divorced and the child had a nanny who was American,so the girl is fluent Dutch with an American accent.
The consequence of the story is that she'd always craved family life as she grew up,rarely saw her father,didn't see her mother,so now lives here with my daughter and PLENTY of family. ;D
She attended uni in Holland and gained whatever it is that you gain there,,a diploma in child-minding as that's what she did out there,for an MP and a banker. To say they were sorry to see her go was an understatement,,,as they too were very kind to my grandson while he was staying there.He actually got Dutch citizenship as well.
-
Awww, poor little thing. I bet she was lucky to get you for a mom though.
My half sister adopted two children from another country, the first one, a boy, six months old, was so very easy to deal with even though he came from an orphanage. He was alert with good eye comtact and a ready, genuine smile. He is doing very well, and is well liked too everywhere he goes. Then they adopted a girl, but there were some bureaucratic problems, so she had turned two years old when they finally got her. It was a different experience altogether. She couldn´t smile, but rather she mimicked the smiles she got - she had to learn such a basic thing. That poor girl had a set of difficulties to deal with. She is doing OK now, they are very loving parents. She has a couple of talents though: she sings and dances sooooo well! They are both precious children.
Sorry, got carried away.
Poor little girl, bit lots of unconditional love will help her. ;D ;D
-
We will/can never know the reason for June's first breakdown but on numerous occasions I've wondered if it was possible that she was unable to bond with Sheila and secretly wished she hadn't adopted her. It would certainly be a reason for her depression.
Well I think it is fairly obvious based on Dr F's wit stats that it was all bound up with unresolved fertility issues/loss of birth children and possibly conflicts with her religious beliefs and adopting an illegitimate child, but I often come under hostile fire from all quarters when I mention this so I thought I would just toe the line today for a quiet life :)
-
Well I think it is fairly obvious based on Dr F's wit stats that it was all bound up with unresolved fertility issues/loss of birth children and possibly conflicts with her religious beliefs and adopting an illegitimate child, but I often come under hostile fire from all quarters when I mention this so I thought I would just toe the line today for a quiet life :)
Isn't there something about the riight answer usually being the most obvious ;D
-
Well, yes, I knew that actually. Sometimes I try to see the best in people - naively. :P
If only rose coloured specs could be fitted with microscope lenses!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes Maggie I think babies remember. According to my parents (adoptive) I was a perfect baby and very rarely cried :). A crying baby could be caused by loads of things not necessarily missing the birth mother. I know you have a penchant for all things from the West country - were you reading her poems by Pam Ayres? If you were then the crying would be perfectly understandable. Is her adoptive father a Morris dancer? If so I guess that wouldn't help either?
Anyway in Sheila's case I think it was June's mental illness circa 1959 which was the root cause of Sheila's problems. You will note in the video clip that circa 3.30 in neglect is deemed to be a particularly important contributory factor in the development of an attachment disorder. Whatever the cause of June's mental illness circa 1959 we have no idea of what went on, or didn't go on, in the lead up to her admission to hospital. Colin's book states that Sheila recalled being left alone in a pram in the garden crying for hours. So there was possibly severe neglect and then an absence. :(
Hey NN, Pam Ayres is not from the West Country, I think she's from Berkshire or Middlesex ?? and I am a loyal Liverpudlian if you don't mind. ;D ;D ;D ;D I know there could have been other reasons why she yelled apart from her father's Morris Dancing practice at bedtimes. However, I still think she missed the heat, the smell and the language and sounds so familiar to her while her mother was carrying her and for the first few weeks of her life. However, fortunately she has stopped balling most of the time and she quite likes me now. ;D ;D
Because of June's illness and hospitalisation, Sheila suffered loss of her natural mum and then we are told loss of a secure replacement as she was looked after by various people while June was in hospital suffering from a breakdown and then later I believe they had a nanny?. I'm not disagreeing with you per se but babies were put out in their prams at the top of the garden while the mother got on with her work back in the day, if they cried well it was tough luck I think! I don't believe that spawned loads of damaged children but I do accept your point and maybe she was left for much longer than was acceptable even in those days.. Sheila's early years were certainly disrupted, she didn't have good beginings but Jeremy states she was a happy child. Again we don't know what was going on deep in her psychie and how much she was damaged. She certainly seemed to suffer from the extreme sensitivity which is a personality trait in many people who develop the collection of symptoms which are necessary for the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. After puberty she seemed to stagger from one disaster to another but she had to have been an intelligent girl judging from the genes she must have inherited. Sheila was a part of the tragedy not the cause of it imo. :) :)
-
Hello Maggie do you share your husband's passion for Morris Dancing bet you find it so exciting watching him banging his little stick and his little bells ringing you are so blessed.
-
We will/can never know the reason for June's first breakdown but on numerous occasions I've wondered if it was possible that she was unable to bond with Sheila and secretly wished she hadn't adopted her. It would certainly be a reason for her depression.
Hi April, adopting a baby does have difficulties quite different from a natural mother. However much am adoptive mother may want a baby, her body and hormones just haven't prepared her for the big day when she finds herself all alone in charge of a screaming, demanding baby. Lacking the hormones released during child birth it can be an enormous shock. If an adoptive mother is dreaming of the perfect little baby who drinks its milk and then goes to sleep for 12 hours it could cause disappointment, depression and feelings of failure. For someone already struggling with mental health issues it could be the thing which tips them over the edge. A constant screamer makes it difficult enough for a natural mother to bond sometimes. I don't suppose June had any support and was no doubt just left to get on with it..... :-\ :-\
-
Hello Maggie do you share your husband's passion for Morris Dancing bet you find it so exciting watching him banging his little stick and his little bells ringing you are so blessed.
Susie, the man is a genius at the Morris dancing, I am indeed blessed. He can jingle his bells and bang his little stick for all it's worth. ;D ;D
-
Maggie not going to comment on your post as I could face a ban ;D and it would certainly upset steve ;D
-
Maggie not going to comment on your post as I could face a ban ;D and it would certainly upset steve ;D
That is a cop out Susie. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Good evening All
Are there 49 or 68 pages of this statement please?
-
Good evening All
Are there 49 or 68 pages of this statement please?
It ends at 49
-
It ends at 49
Evening Blodwynflower, hope you are well. ;D ;Dxx
-
Many thanks for your reply Caroline, but on page 49 it appears that there were more pages?
-
I am well, thank you Maggie xx
-
Many thanks for your reply Caroline, but on page 49 it appears that there were more pages?
I never noticed that - I'll check! :)
-
Many thanks for your reply Caroline, but on page 49 it appears that there were more pages?
Hi Blodwynflower, I'm not sure but all I can suggest is that it was initially written out and so there were more pages? Because page 49 contains the page numbers so if there were more, surely the last page would contain the page numbers?? (if that makes sense?)
-
That makes perfect sense Caroline, and I thought exactly the same!
-
I am reading Ann Eaton´s statement, and WOW, is that woman all business and money. At every twist and turn possible, she mentions money spent by June and Nevill Bamber on THEIR CHILDREN. Ann resents it sooooo much, it is sickening, really! For instance, she talks about the wedding between Sheila and Colin and mentions that it was all paid for by her uncle and aunt. It is like that all the way trough.
-
I am reading Ann Eaton´s statement, and WOW, is that woman all business and money. At every twist and turn possible, she mentions money spent by June and Nevill Bamber on THEIR CHILDREN. Ann resents it sooooo much, it is sickening, really! For instance, she talks about the wedding between Sheila and Colin and mentions that it was all paid for by her uncle and aunt. It is like that all the way trough.
Alias, I picked up the same thing. IMO, it comes from being bought up listening to her father moaning at every opportunity that every penny the Bambers spent on "those two" was money which SHOULD have come to them.
-
yes its quite heavy going isn't it. :(
-
Alias, I picked up the same thing. IMO, it comes from being bought up listening to her father moaning at every opportunity that every penny the Bambers spent on "those two" was money which SHOULD have come to them.
In some cases she even mentions the amount of money, which clearly shows that this was discussed within her family.
I am a bit disgusted to tell the truth. Have never heard anything like this in my family - we have NEVER discussed what amount of money my uncles and aunts have spent on THEIR children.
It is because Sheila and Jeremy were adopted - I am just saying it like it is, I don´t care!
-
In some cases she even mentions the amount of money, which clearly shows that this was discussed within her family.
I am a bit disgusted to tell the truth. Have never heard anything like this in my family - we have NEVER discussed what amount of money my uncles and aunts have spent on THEIR children.
It is because Sheila and Jeremy were adopted - I am just saying it like it is, I don´t care!
Alias, I can only tell you that from my own experience it's HORRIBLY true. I grew up hearing about all "they" had done for me, all the money "they" had spent on me, how "they" hadn't needed to, how "they" should have left me where I was and given the money to the family. It's because I've lived this scenario that I'm able to pick it up when I see it played out elsewhere.
-
Well they've all had a good run for their money up to now,,and I can bet that the conversation still surrounds finances,,though at the forefront of their minds will be the fact that Jeremy is no-way giving up his fight.
The minute there's any mention of progression regarding the application to CCRC,,the relatives will be at the ready,all guns blazing,,to block any further progress. We shall see what transpires now that their biggest influence is no longer around.
-
Alias sadly you are right had Sheila and Jeremy been the natural children of June and Ralph think the relatives would have thought differently about them I find this very sad and not a very Christian attitude to these two children who did not ask to be given away by their natural parents and I think Jeremy Bambers birth parents have much to answer for don't know the circumstances of Sheila's natural parents.
-
Alias, I can only tell you that from my own experience it's HORRIBLY true. I grew up hearing about all "they" had done for me, all the money "they" had spent on me, how "they" hadn't needed to, how "they" should have left me where I was and given the money to the family. It's because I've lived this scenario that I'm able to pick it up when I see it played out elsewhere.
How dare they! Makes me angry!!!
-
april no substitute for experience wonder if Sheila and Jeremy picked up on it I am sure they must have and it is sad as they had loving parents in Ralph and June who considered them their children and the extended family must have had no thought whatsoever for the children just money money money :'(
-
april no substitute for experience wonder if Sheila and Jeremy picked up on it I am sure they must have and it is sad as they had loving parents in Ralph and June who considered them their children and the extended family must have had no thought whatsoever for the children just money money money :'(
It must have hit them at the core of their being. April will know that.
-
Alias it is so hard for us to compehend that people can put money before innocent children. What Ralph and June did with THEIR money was their business.
-
It must have hit them at the core of their being. April will know that.
Alias, they will MOST certainly have known, as I knew of my mother, that they weren't liked. If they felt loved by Nevill and June, they will have wondered what they'd done wrong to make the relatives dislike them. For me, it was the reverse way round but the contrast is SO different, one can't help but notice.
-
I would think that Jeremy would have been well-briefed by his father. If so,,it will certainly have sunk well in now as far as Jeremy's concerned.He's no fool.
-
Alias sadly you are right had Sheila and Jeremy been the natural children of June and Ralph think the relatives would have thought differently about them I find this very sad and not a very Christian attitude to these two children who did not ask to be given away by their natural parents and I think Jeremy Bambers birth parents have much to answer for don't know the circumstances of Sheila's natural parents.
Susan, I don't think this is a straightforward as it may at first appear. When parents relinquish their child, unless they have the permission from the adopting parents, they will NEVER see that child again and the child will LEGALLY become a full member of its' new family. My parents insisted that there were many miles between them and my birth mother, "just in case." However, it works both ways, because the child can't make any claim on it's biological parents. I find it an irony that Jeremy was prevented from "bringing shame on the family" at the time of his birth by being given up for adoption, and then prevented from doing the same thing a second time by having his presence ignored.
-
April I understand that Jeremy's Mother was the daughter of a man of the cloth and his Father was a married man. IMO they created the child and should have accepted responsibilty for him as they did later marry and have more children. After Jeremy was found guilty of murdering his family they turned their backs on him again (think this would have been a decision by his Father more than the Mother) I don't know how they could do that to their son. :'(
-
April I understand that Jeremy's Mother was the daughter of a man of the cloth and his Father was a married man. IMO they created the child and should have accepted responsibilty for him as they did later marry and have more children. After Jeremy was found guilty of murdering his family they turned their backs on him again (think this would have been a decision by his Father more than the Mother) I don't know how they could do that to their son. :'(
Jeremy´s bio father even went out of his way to distance himself from his son with some nasty remarks. He was washing his hands, saying that the Bambers were an ideal family for adopting children. How come then, that one child ended up a drug addicted, depressed schizophrenic (sorry, but those are the facts) and the other (according to Jeremy´s father) a cold blooded mass murderer. How did that come out of an ideal adoptive family?
Maybe they were ideal, and it was just Sheila who unfortunately had a genetic defect and not a thing wrong with Jeremy.
Whenever I read about what June and Nevill did for their children, they seem very caring, very supportive and very giving parents; but if you assume Jeremy committed the murders, it sure is strange that BOTH adopted children turn out to be such trainwrecks.
-
Jeremy´s bio father even went out of his way to distance himself from his son with some nasty remarks. He was washing his hands, saying that the Bambers were an ideal family for adopting children. How come then, that one child ended up a drug addicted, depressed schizophrenic (sorry, but those are the facts) and the other (according to Jeremy´s father) a cold blooded mass murderer. How did that come out of an ideal adoptive family?
Maybe they were ideal, and it was just Sheila who unfortunately had a genetic defect and not a thing wrong with Jeremy.
Whenever I read about what June and Nevill did for their children, they seem very caring, very supportive and very giving parents; but if you assume Jeremy committed the murders, it sure is strange that BOTH adopted children turn out to be such trainwrecks.
Alias, according to my friends who were friends of the Bambers, Nevill was great fun and June was sweet, kind and gentle, but she had an obsession with religion, possibly as a result of her first psychological breakdown, and she was very firm and rigid in her expectations. My friend says June expected that her children had to be perfect, something I recognize from my own mother who was terrified that if I put a foot wrong, as she'd SUPPOSEDLY been assured by others that I would, it would reflect badly on her.
-
Alias, according to my friends who were friends of the Bambers, Nevill was great fun and June was sweet, kind and gentle, but she had an obsession with religion, possibly as a result of her first psychological breakdown, and she was very firm and rigid in her expectations. My friend says June expected that her children had to be perfect, something I recognize from my own mother who was terrified that if I put a foot wrong, as she'd SUPPOSEDLY been assured by others that I would, it would reflect badly on her.
So are you saying that June messed up both her adopted children?
-
Also interesting to notice from the Ann Eaton statement is that once when she went to Goldhanger and knocked on the door at Jeremy´s cottage, Julie opened the door and was upset that another female came a-knocking. Ann explained that she was Jeremy´s cousin, so Julie let her in.
Jealous Julie, possessive Julie. If I can´t have you, nobody else can-Julie...
-
So are you saying that June messed up both her adopted children?
Alias, I don't know if June was any harder on her children than she was on herself. She lived by what she believed to be very strong Christian and moral ethics and tried to instill them in her children. Sadly, her God appears NOT to have been a loving and forgiving God and she seems to have forgotten that His son supposedly said "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" Her God appears to have been harsh and unforgiving.
-
Also interesting to notice from the Ann Eaton statement is that once when she went to Goldhanger and knocked on the door at Jeremy´s cottage, Julie opened the door and was upset that another female came a-knocking. Ann explained that she was Jeremy´s cousin, so Julie let her in.
Jealous Julie, possessive Julie. If I can´t have you, nobody else can-Julie...
So after nearly two years of courtship, Julie wasn't exactly on intimate terms with Jeremy's family, was she?
-
Alias Jeremy's birth Father seems to have forgotten that Jeremy is carrying his genes and behaviour of children developes from upbringing and inherited genes :'(
-
Alias Jeremy's birth Father seems to have forgotten that Jeremy is carrying his genes and behaviour of children developes from upbringing and inherited genes :'(
Well, his father comes across as a cold human being. Aren´t people saying about Jeremy that he isn´t the nicest man on this planet? Makes sense....
-
Alias I have heard different reports about Jeremy Bamber. I think when he was young he was his own worst enemy and I am sure I would not have liked him. After serving all these years in prison fo a crime he knows he did not commit must have had an adverse effect on him. It is said he is a user of people but probably due to his situation he is not aware of this and he is merely taking advantage of people who are offering to help him but does not mean to cause them hurt. It would appear he is liked my his fellow inmates but I suspect he has this aloof attitude that he would have inherited from his birth Father and that is just part of Jeremy's makeup and the way he is.
-
I've just been going through AE's WS and it struck me for the first time just how great a gap there was in ages between her and Sheila. Ann was nearly 9 years Sheila's senior. That alone would have made difficult a relationship if they'd been siblings, 7 years being the cut off point beyond which they would have been referred to as "only" children. But Ann and Sheila weren't biological siblings, they were cousins by adoption, which I suspect, for all manner of reasons, made their relationship difficult almost to the point of non existence.
I have always said that I think Ann and her brother grew up hearing thir father whinge about the money the Bambers were "wasting" on Sheila and Jeremy. Money which he believed should have eventually have come to HIS children, but taking on board the HUGE age gap, I think they'd probably been told all their lives, long before the advent of their adopted cousins, that as the Bambers were childless, one day what they had would come to Ann and David. If this was so, I imagine that 9 year old Ann, when she first saw Sheila in a pram, looked on her without warmth.
IMO, it's now certain that Ann knew NOTHING of Sheila's life, save the snippets she had passed to her second hand. I can say this with total confidence because if ALL other variables are removed, there is still the 9 year age gap. When Sheila had no more than just started school, Ann was almost at the point of leaving school. Ann didn't have the luxury of modelling school, for her it was the graft of secretarial college. In Ann's eyes, even if she's been told that Sheila may not be quite well, I imagine that all she saw was Sheila wafting around and being supported by money, that was it not for her adoption, COULD have come her way. We hear it in almost every sentence where she speaks of Sheila. She speaks of the Bambers spending their OR might that be "THEIR" money on her as if they are giving it to a stranger rather than their own daughter.
But it seems she knew Sheila well enough to say of her that "she couldn't put beans on toast" but she didn't stop to think about, having received from her, but not bothered to reply to, the only letter which had ever passed between them, how Sheila had managed to hold the pen to write it.
I think as a small girl, Sheila may have liked to be friends with her big cousin and I believe that as an adult she went on trying. I find it very poignant when I hear Ann talk about how Sheila told her she looked pretty, and the times that Sheila wanted to talk but she, Ann, was too busy, had things to do. I find myself wondering if she ever once willingly spent time with Sheila and really listened to her but I suspect that the angry indoctrinations of her father deafened her.
-
I've just been going through AE's WS and it struck me for the first time just how great a gap there was in ages between her and Sheila. Ann was nearly 9 years Sheila's senior. That alone would have made difficult a relationship if they'd been siblings, 7 years being the cut off point beyond which they would have been referred to as "only" children. But Ann and Sheila weren't biological siblings, they were cousins by adoption, which I suspect, for all manner of reasons, made their relationship difficult almost to the point of non existence.
I have always said that I think Ann and her brother grew up hearing thir father whinge about the money the Bambers were "wasting" on Sheila and Jeremy. Money which he believed should have eventually have come to HIS children, but taking on board the HUGE age gap, I think they'd probably been told all their lives, long before the advent of their adopted cousins, that as the Bambers were childless, one day what they had would come to Ann and David. If this was so, I imagine that 9 year old Ann, when she first saw Sheila in a pram, looked on her without warmth.
IMO, it's now certain that Ann knew NOTHING of Sheila's life, save the snippets she had passed to her second hand. I can say this with total confidence because if ALL other variables are removed, there is still the 9 year age gap. When Sheila had no more than just started school, Ann was almost at the point of leaving school. Ann didn't have the luxury of modelling school, for her it was the graft of secretarial college. In Ann's eyes, even if she's been told that Sheila may not be quite well, I imagine that all she saw was Sheila wafting around and being supported by money, that was it not for her adoption, COULD have come her way. We hear it in almost every sentence where she speaks of Sheila. She speaks of the Bambers spending their OR might that be "THEIR" money on her as if they are giving it to a stranger rather than their own daughter.
But it seems she knew Sheila well enough to say of her that "she couldn't put beans on toast" but she didn't stop to think about, having received from her, but not bothered to reply to, the only letter which had ever passed between them, how Sheila had managed to hold the pen to write it.
I think as a small girl, Sheila may have liked to be friends with her big cousin and I believe that as an adult she went on trying. I find it very poignant when I hear Ann talk about how Sheila told her she looked pretty, and the times that Sheila wanted to talk but she, Ann, was too busy, had things to do. I find myself wondering if she ever once willingly spent time with Sheila and really listened to her but I suspect that the angry indoctrinations of her father deafened her.
Good post, April, I believe there is a lot of truth in this.
-
I can also recognise the resentment of the blood relations towards Sheila and Jeremy. The "cuckoos" in the nest would supplant them where wills are concerned. Who I wonder would have inherited the Bamber's fortune with both Sheila and Jeremy out of the way?
-
Grahame, wealth is relative and if RWB had bought Ann up with the knowledge that one day she'd be wealthy because her aunt and uncle had no one else to leave all their money to -he couldn't, of course be totally certain it would happen, but I feel sure a child would have clung to the dream- she would have felt HUGE jealousy, anger and resentment towards Sheila from the moment she first saw her. It MIGHT have been bad enough to make her pull wallpaper off the wall.
-
We are going to remove some old wallpaper soon. I think I´ll invite Ann over... :P
-
We are going to remove some old wallpaper soon. I think I´ll invite Ann over... :P
Think she's pretty good at it, Alias. ;) ;)
-
Think she's pretty good at it, Alias. ;) ;)
Maggie, a life time of internalized anger will have the energy of a nuclear bomb when it's released.
-
I've just been going through AE's WS and it struck me for the first time just how great a gap there was in ages between her and Sheila. Ann was nearly 9 years Sheila's senior. That alone would have made difficult a relationship if they'd been siblings, 7 years being the cut off point beyond which they would have been referred to as "only" children. But Ann and Sheila weren't biological siblings, they were cousins by adoption, which I suspect, for all manner of reasons, made their relationship difficult almost to the point of non existence.
I have always said that I think Ann and her brother grew up hearing thir father whinge about the money the Bambers were "wasting" on Sheila and Jeremy. Money which he believed should have eventually have come to HIS children, but taking on board the HUGE age gap, I think they'd probably been told all their lives, long before the advent of their adopted cousins, that as the Bambers were childless, one day what they had would come to Ann and David. If this was so, I imagine that 9 year old Ann, when she first saw Sheila in a pram, looked on her without warmth.
IMO, it's now certain that Ann knew NOTHING of Sheila's life, save the snippets she had passed to her second hand. I can say this with total confidence because if ALL other variables are removed, there is still the 9 year age gap. When Sheila had no more than just started school, Ann was almost at the point of leaving school. Ann didn't have the luxury of modelling school, for her it was the graft of secretarial college. In Ann's eyes, even if she's been told that Sheila may not be quite well, I imagine that all she saw was Sheila wafting around and being supported by money, that was it not for her adoption, COULD have come her way. We hear it in almost every sentence where she speaks of Sheila. She speaks of the Bambers spending their OR might that be "THEIR" money on her as if they are giving it to a stranger rather than their own daughter.
But it seems she knew Sheila well enough to say of her that "she couldn't put beans on toast" but she didn't stop to think about, having received from her, but not bothered to reply to, the only letter which had ever passed between them, how Sheila had managed to hold the pen to write it.
I think as a small girl, Sheila may have liked to be friends with her big cousin and I believe that as an adult she went on trying. I find it very poignant when I hear Ann talk about how Sheila told her she looked pretty, and the times that Sheila wanted to talk but she, Ann, was too busy, had things to do. I find myself wondering if she ever once willingly spent time with Sheila and really listened to her but I suspect that the angry indoctrinations of her father deafened her.
Well written and I do accept some of the cuckoo argument,even though I believe Robert Boutflour would have kept this feeling behind closed doors as befitted the period where appearance was everything. However with the development of the Osea Road caravan park the Boutflours were becoming wealthy in their own right,and Ann and David would also have received their mother's half share of Mabel Speakman's estate,which as we know was a considerable sum. As for Sheila, she was sent round to Oak Farm by June to char for Ann Eaton,which is how Ann would know Sheila couldn't put beans on toast if she were preparing meals for Ann's children,and one assumes that in hospital she would have been stabilized medically enough for her to have had the capacity to write to her cousin,an act of friendliness I would have thought and atypical of someone who was bearing a grudge.
-
Well written and I do accept some of the cuckoo argument,even though I believe Robert Boutflour would have kept this feeling behind closed doors as befitted the period where appearance was everything. However with the development of the Osea Road caravan park the Boutflours were becoming wealthy in their own right,and Ann and David would also have received their mother's half share of Mabel Speakman's estate,which as we know was a considerable sum. As for Sheila, she was sent round to Oak Farm by June to char for Ann Eaton,which is how Ann would know Sheila couldn't put beans on toast if she were preparing meals for Ann's children,and one assumes that in hospital she would have been stabilized medically enough for her to have had the capacity to write to her cousin,an act of friendliness I would have thought and atypical of someone who was bearing a grudge.
STEVE!!! Good Morning. Lovely to have you with us again and THANK YOU.
I hear what you say. Ann and David were never going to be on the breadline. They were assured of very generous funds but as I said to Grahame in a later post, wealth is relative and it's my opinion that RWB saw HIS family being deprived of something which was THEIRS. One can NEVER be too rich. I'm perfectly certain that these feelings didn't see the light of day beyond the four walls of his family home and even there, they may NOT have been overt but little ears hear things. Ann would have had to dredge very deep into her memory to recall that Sheila couldn't put beans on toast. It must have been 10 years, MORE, I believe it was in the school holidays, since she did char duties for her.
The letter she wrote from the hospital. Steve, did you really think I was suggesting that Sheila held some sort of grudge against Ann? I think Sheila sensed Ann's dislike but had no idea what caused it, she probably thought, because children do and it lasts through to adulthood, that SHE had caused it. The letter was about Sheila wanting Ann to be her friend. We can hear her saying that whatever it was she'd been in the past, she was different now. Sheila was asking Ann for understanding and, I think, forgiveness. Poor love, it had NEVER been her fault that she was going to inherit something her cousin believed should have been hers, but nonetheless I don't believe Ann ever forgave her for it.
-
Sheila was looking to AE as a " big sister ",aww,poor girlie. Looking for someone to confide in,,in her own way. How very sad.
-
Sheila was looking to AE as a " big sister ",aww,poor girlie. Looking for someone to confide in,,in her own way. How very sad.
It seems that June sometimes "dumped" Sheila at Ann´s. I am not blaming June by saying this, I believe she simply needed relief because Sheila was difficult/exhausting to be with because of her illness combined with them not really getting on well. Sheila may have felt that this was a betrayal and wanted to be closer to Ann as a replacement mother/big sister - which Ann didn´t want at all.
-
Alias, it's also possible that she thought if she had Ann on her side, her relationship with June may improve.
-
I have first hand knowledge of how Sheila must have felt,,because when I married ( years ago ) I took on two children from a previous marriage where the mother had simply abandoned them. The mother had signed a document for the court saying that she didn't want the children,or anything to do with them. That said,,neither child ever received a Birthday nor a Christmas card from her.
The boy didn't appear to be affected,,and wasn't so during his school years or adult years,,but the girl was deeply affected by this abandonment.
I didn't take over a mother-role,nor act as a surrogate,instead,more a big sister who was looking after them.
The children were well-behaved,well-mannered and a treat to take anywhere and my mother took them on as her " grandchildren " as they used to stay with her,and she enjoyed having them.
However,as time went on,,the girl started showing signs of violence,mistrust and a hatred towards her father,,for no reason. Because I realised that the girl,,in her teens,,wasn't well,,I made an appointment at the GP's,who in turn referred me to a psychiatrist,,and lo and behold,,,it was to do with the fact that her mother no longer wanted her,and she was blaming her father for not doing enough to " bring her back " .
Daughter had a spell in a clinic,,and was so violent through frustration and not because she was a violent child. Poor soul was drugged up to the hilt. We went through a terrible time,and she appeared to have changed,,it was awful. This is why I felt so much for Sheila,and wished I'd been there for her.
Like Sheila,,daughter started mixing with the wrong people,,out of revenge,I think and as a form of rebellion, to be noticed.
I had two daughters of my own,but didn't treat them any differently from the other two children,who were delighted anyway with their two little sisters.
It was certainly a battle over the years,,but we were a family and all stuck together no matter what,,but poor elder daughter did suffer with her demons,for years and periodically had spells in the clinic when she felt that she couldn't cope.
This daughter rings me every week,,,my own flesh and blood dont. ;D ;D
PS,,and yes,daughter did attempt suicide as well. We also had rellies that didn't know the half of it. Too busy counting their money !!
-
P.P.S. Daughter could move mountains when she was in one of her " moods ".The normally shy girl who wouldn't say boo to a goose ! Her strength knew no bounds.
-
I have first hand knowledge of how Sheila must have felt,,because when I married ( years ago ) I took on two children from a previous marriage where the mother had simply abandoned them. The mother had signed a document for the court saying that she didn't want the children,or anything to do with them. That said,,neither child ever received a Birthday nor a Christmas card from her.
The boy didn't appear to be affected,,and wasn't so during his school years or adult years,,but the girl was deeply affected by this abandonment.
I didn't take over a mother-role,nor act as a surrogate,instead,more a big sister who was looking after them.
The children were well-behaved,well-mannered and a treat to take anywhere and my mother took them on as her " grandchildren " as they used to stay with her,and she enjoyed having them.
However,as time went on,,the girl started showing signs of violence,mistrust and a hatred towards her father,,for no reason. Because I realised that the girl,,in her teens,,wasn't well,,I made an appointment at the GP's,who in turn referred me to a psychiatrist,,and lo and behold,,,it was to do with the fact that her mother no longer wanted her,and she was blaming her father for not doing enough to " bring her back " .
Daughter had a spell in a clinic,,and was so violent through frustration and not because she was a violent child. Poor soul was drugged up to the hilt. We went through a terrible time,and she appeared to have changed,,it was awful. This is why I felt so much for Sheila,and wished I'd been there for her.
Like Sheila,,daughter started mixing with the wrong people,,out of revenge,I think and as a form of rebellion, to be noticed.
I had two daughters of my own,but didn't treat them any differently from the other two children,who were delighted anyway with their two little sisters.
It was certainly a battle over the years,,but we were a family and all stuck together no matter what,,but poor elder daughter did suffer with her demons,for years and periodically had spells in the clinic when she felt that she couldn't cope.
This daughter rings me every week,,,my own flesh and blood dont. ;D ;D
PS,,and yes,daughter did attempt suicide as well. We also had rellies that didn't know the half of it. Too busy counting their money !!
Thanks for sharing this. I am glad the eldest daughter made it through in spite of all. I think you did the right thing by not trying to be their mother, because that is the honest thing to do - you are not their mother. That way you have been able to maintain a solid relationship with them, in my opinion.
-
That's right,Alias. I never did try and take over as their mother. Funnily enough though,,even in my case,the boy didn't appear to suffer in any way,,just " detached " himself from his sister,somehow,because he couldn't understand what was going on. I didn't make a big issue out of it either. He used to shout at her when she gave me cheek. ;D ;D Aww.
It was just that I felt I had to try and explain just a portion of what this sort of illness can do to your life----------if you allow it. Daughter was diagnosed with depression,,which,if gone unattended,could well have gone on to worse things as the cause was already there. However,it makes a world of difference when you have the understanding and can talk about it. Son was pretty indifferent,,and as long as he could go out with his pals,,he was happy. He took everything in his stride and was pretty well balanced.
-
When you think about it,,those poor souls who develop dementia,,and alzheimers,act out of character.
They could have been mild-mannered and placid at one time,,but because of their dreadful illness,their minds are affected to such an extent,that they can and do lash out,and this is the upsetting part about mental illness,it DOES change a person,sometimes dramatically. The same as it did to Sheila.
-
I was watching the programme junior paramedics this week and one of the students had to attend a house that was surrounded by armed police as a man had basically threatened everyone with a knife and then had cut himself on his arms and neck. She was petrified . They bought him in to the ambulance in handcuffs with armed police standing guard and she had to treat him
After a while he started talking and said that the voices had gone now and he began to calm down and let her do her obs etc.
Afterwards although she was the most scared she had ever been she also said he was one of the nicest patients that she had treated. She felt very helpless to treat his mental illness but it certainly was an eye opener for her.
-
I saw that programme too,jansus,,and try and catch it when it's on. That was so sad,,as a lot of it has been for those young trainees,,but it's all good training to be shoved in at the deep end and gives them the insight into various forms of mental illness. It would do the police good to go on such training,as they haven't got a clue when it comes to a mentally ill person.
-
Lookout, thank you so much for sharing your story with us. I was undoubtedly a very difficult time for you all. I agree entirely that the police should be trained to recognize the difference between criminals and the mentally ill.
I suspect that much of your success with your daughter lay in that you weren't trying to hide her away as an embarrassment and inconvenience and your support of her wasn't just financial. I imagine that whatever her anger at others, your daughter knew you loved and supported her.
-
The beauty of it was April,,she was always able to tell me how she felt,or how she was feeling and we used to talk for hours. Even now when she phones me up,,it's nearly always a good two hours that she's on the phone,,so really,the idea is to talk through the illness,and if she feels a bit dodgy ( even now ) I'll tell her to take a diazepam,if and when it's necessary. Even her GP told her that,,and it's surprising how that makes her feel tons better and able to cope with the odd panic attack,as now being older," things " still tend to rear their ugly heads,,and as you stated earlier in a post,this does continue into adult life.
I really felt for Sheila,,and I'll say it again,,I wished I'd known the girl. I'm no miracle worker,,but I'd have certainly done my best for her.
Like my daughter,,a good looking girl with everything before her,,even attending private school. The problem missed my" own" daughters,,but then repeated itself with one of my g/daughters,so the pattern started all over again,,at about 12/13 or thereabouts. Sad to say,g/daughter was more like Sheila in behaviour,,so I've certainly had my fare share and experiences of pre-menstrual girls.
-
Lookout, I'd like to hazard a guess that never once did you make her feel guilty about having the "feelings", indeed, there was never any reason why she should, but I've seen it written her, I can't recall by whom, that Sheila and Jeremy were lucky to have been adopted by people like June and Nevill!!!!!!!! When one has grown up having those words rammed down one's throat, they become like red rag to a bull. I see no reason for a child to have to feel gratitude to its' parents. The decision for the child's existence is the parents', NOT the child's. Life would have been much easier for me had I had someone in whom I could confide. I'm totally convinced the same was true for Sheila.
-
Lookout, I'd like to hazard a guess that never once did you make her feel guilty about having the "feelings", indeed, there was never any reason why she should, but I've seen it written her, I can't recall by whom, that Sheila and Jeremy were lucky to have been adopted by people like June and Nevill!!!!!!!! When one has grown up having those words rammed down one's throat, they become like red rag to a bull. I see no reason for a child to have to feel gratitude to its' parents. The decision for the child's existence is the parents', NOT the child's. Life would have been much easier for me had I had someone in whom I could confide. I'm totally convinced the same was true for Sheila.
Agree 100%!
-
Lookout, I'd like to hazard a guess that never once did you make her feel guilty about having the "feelings", indeed, there was never any reason why she should, but I've seen it written her, I can't recall by whom, that Sheila and Jeremy were lucky to have been adopted by people like June and Nevill!!!!!!!! When one has grown up having those words rammed down one's throat, they become like red rag to a bull. I see no reason for a child to have to feel gratitude to its' parents. The decision for the child's existence is the parents', NOT the child's. Life would have been much easier for me had I had someone in whom I could confide. I'm totally convinced the same was true for Sheila.
I fully agree with you,April.
-
The beauty of it was April,,she was always able to tell me how she felt,or how she was feeling and we used to talk for hours. Even now when she phones me up,,it's nearly always a good two hours that she's on the phone,,so really,the idea is to talk through the illness,and if she feels a bit dodgy ( even now ) I'll tell her to take a diazepam,if and when it's necessary. Even her GP told her that,,and it's surprising how that makes her feel tons better and able to cope with the odd panic attack,as now being older," things " still tend to rear their ugly heads,,and as you stated earlier in a post,this does continue into adult life.
I really felt for Sheila,,and I'll say it again,,I wished I'd known the girl. I'm no miracle worker,,but I'd have certainly done my best for her.
Like my daughter,,a good looking girl with everything before her,,even attending private school. The problem missed my" own" daughters,,but then repeated itself with one of my g/daughters,so the pattern started all over again,,at about 12/13 or thereabouts. Sad to say,g/daughter was more like Sheila in behaviour,,so I've certainly had my fare share and experiences of pre-menstrual girls.
Its nice when eventually you are appreciated. My niece went through a very bad patch and even her mum had given up on her - but I knew underneath it all she was a lovely girl and was just crying out for attention. she is through I all now and at Christmas wrote my husband and I a lovely letter thanking us for not giving up on her. It brought me to tears.
Sounds like you have been through much worse situation and I am really glad you are close now.