Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bridget on June 07, 2013, 04:53:PM
-
So are we now just banning people who disagree?
There can't be a single 'anti' who hasn't thought along the lines of what Jim said to Mike, and to be honest I can't see how any pro Bamber wouldn't be frustrated at someone who claims to have evidence which would potentially release Bamber tomorrow, and yet withholds it. But once again Mike throws his toys out of the pram, calls Jim all the names under the sun and then bans him.
Way to go Mike, if you can't persuade 'em, silence 'em right?
-
So are we now just banning people who disagree?
There can't be a single 'anti' who hasn't thought along the lines of what Jim said to Mike, and to be honest I can't see how any pro Bamber wouldn't be frustrated at someone who claims to have evidence which would potentially release Bamber tomorrow, and yet withholds it. But once again Mike throws his toys out of the pram, calls Jim all the names under the sun and then bans him.
Way to go Mike, if you can't persuade 'em, silence 'em right?
Hiya Bridget. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Mike's forum. Mike's rules. None of us are forced to believe ALL anyone says. We have a choice. Perhaps it's more important that we support what we hope he will help to achieve eventually.
-
Hiya Bridget. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. Mike's forum. Mike's rules. None of us are forced to believe ALL anyone says. We have a choice. Perhaps it's more important that we support what we hope he will help to achieve eventually.
No, and apparently we're not allowed to say so either. What do you think he'll achieve?
-
No, and apparently we're not allowed to say so either. What do you think he'll achieve?
Bridget, I'm sure that ultimately he hopes that at the very least there will be enough new evidence for a retrial which will eventually lead to release and I think he will want to feel that he has played a part in it.
-
So are we now just banning people who disagree?
There can't be a single 'anti' who hasn't thought along the lines of what Jim said to Mike, and to be honest I can't see how any pro Bamber wouldn't be frustrated at someone who claims to have evidence which would potentially release Bamber tomorrow, and yet withholds it. But once again Mike throws his toys out of the pram, calls Jim all the names under the sun and then bans him.
Way to go Mike, if you can't persuade 'em, silence 'em right?
Mike has not banned Jim.
-
Mike has not banned Jim.
Who did then?
-
Who did then?
Unless he's left of his own accord?
-
Unless he's left of his own accord?
Nope.
-
Nope.
I have no idea what has happened to Jim's account. All I know is that he is not in the members list and NGB has said Mike has not banned him.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Nope.
I can't find his account and his posts from that particular thread are missing? Very odd.
-
He dared to call mike out so he got banned? It really is becoming a bit North Korea round here!
-
I hate this, makes me so mad!
-
I have no idea what has happened to Jim's account. All I know is that he is not in the members list and NGB has said Mike has not banned him.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Well he's deleted Jim's account then, which is pretty much the same thing to me. I was in 'who's online' when it happened and Mike was in Jim's profile. Oh and this was just after Mike declared he was banning him.
-
Deleted account/ banned. Seems like the same thing to me to be honest.
-
I think we ought to wait and find out what has really happened.... :-\ :o
I'm quite shocked Jim in no longer with us.
Just a thought, if his account has been deleted, this might mean he can re-register...but would not be able to if he had a ban? Just a thought!
-
I think we ought to wait and find out what has really happened.... :-\ :o
I'm quite shocked Jim in no longer with us.
Just a thought, if his account has been deleted, this might mean he can re-register...but would not be able to if he had a ban? Just a thought!
I'm not sure which is worse, banning someone or deleting their account so they lose all their PMs and post history. Either way it sucks.
-
I'm not sure which is worse, banning someone or deleting their account so they lose all their PMs and post history. Either way it sucks.
I feel really sorry about what has happened.
-
I won't be posting for a while myself. I'll keep reading hopefully, but the forum has really descended into a bit of a farce now. Some posters are allowed to say whatever they want, however revolting or pious, whereas others are seemingly censored, usually after pushing mike on some of his more ridiculous theories. Added to that we have the forum owner expecting everyone to simply believe every word he utters, without any foundation whatsoever. This attitude is why I believe the numbers are so low now as its really not a very pleasurable experience listening to mike preach and watching some of you encourage him to tell further lies. That's all he has left now is his imagination. 10 years ago he had lots of unpublished docs, not seen outside the legal teams and he sought to find bamber a way out, in exchange for a share in the revenue from bamber's future fortune. When this and bamber's numerous legal attempts failed, he sought to invent informers and has stretched the truth to breaking point. Claiming to be withholding documents and images almost certain to help free bamber makes him a clown who even the most fervent supporter should be castigating, not telling him what a brilliant job he's doing! Because, almost certainly, Tesko has damaged both bamber's chances of release, as referred to by the CCRC, was directly responsible for the sacking of one of the countries leading MOJ lawyers (by telling lies), but is now directly contradicting bamber's own views on what might have happened and wants nothing more to do with him. Only in the wonderful world of bamber can you have a multiple convicted thief fighting for the release of a mass murderer and the mass murderer wants nothing to do with the thief! Even the solicitor before last is doing time! And he was the one who took mike most seriously! Mike recently described him as a genius!
But worst of all, particularly in recent years, mike has made the most vile lurid allegations against the relatives, both living and dead. Gross sexual details that bear no relation to the case and an addiction to posting up images of dead relatives at the drop of a hat. It's wrong, it's disrespectful and it's psychologically worrying. Even bamber has complained about it but mike takes no notice.
I've met some really lovely genuine people through this forum, so I thank mike for that and I'll try and keep in touch with you all. All the best, Vic.
-
I won't be posting for a while myself. I'll keep reading hopefully, but the forum has really descended into a bit of a farce now. Some posters are allowed to say whatever they want, however revolting or pious, whereas others are seemingly censored, usually after pushing mike on some of his more ridiculous theories. Added to that we have the forum owner expecting everyone to simply believe every word he utters, without any foundation whatsoever. This attitude is why I believe the numbers are so low now as its really not a very pleasurable experience listening to mike preach and watching some of you encourage him to tell further lies. That's all he has left now is his imagination. 10 years ago he had lots of unpublished docs, not seen outside the legal teams and he sought to find bamber a way out, in exchange for a share in the revenue from bamber's future fortune. When this and bamber's numerous legal attempts failed, he sought to invent informers and has stretched the truth to breaking point. Claiming to be withholding documents and images almost certain to help free bamber makes him a clown who even the most fervent supporter should be castigating, not telling him what a brilliant job he's doing! Because, almost certainly, Tesko has damaged both bamber's chances of release, as referred to by the CCRC, was directly responsible for the sacking of one of the countries leading MOJ lawyers (by telling lies), but is now directly contradicting bamber's own views on what might have happened and wants nothing more to do with him. Only in the wonderful world of bamber can you have a multiple convicted thief fighting for the release of a mass murderer and the mass murderer wants nothing to do with the thief! Even the solicitor before last is doing time! And he was the one who took mike most seriously! Mike recently described him as a genius!
But worst of all, particularly in recent years, mike has made the most vile lurid allegations against the relatives, both living and dead. Gross sexual details that bear no relation to the case and an addiction to posting up images of dead relatives at the drop of a hat. It's wrong, it's disrespectful and it's psychologically worrying. Even bamber has complained about it but mike takes no notice.
I've met some really lovely genuine people through this forum, so I thank mike for that and I'll try and keep in touch with you all. All the best, Vic.
Vic :'(
Puts me in a bit of a dilemma and I may get banned myself, but I agree with you. I know you are a good sort deep down. I have nothing more to add. Take care X
-
I won't be posting for a while myself. I'll keep reading hopefully,..........................
I've met some really lovely genuine people through this forum, so I thank mike for that and I'll try and keep in touch with you all. All the best, Vic.
Vic, thankyou for sharing your views and those kind words. :)
-
I won't be posting for a while myself. I'll keep reading hopefully, but the forum has really descended into a bit of a farce now. Some posters are allowed to say whatever they want, however revolting or pious, whereas others are seemingly censored, usually after pushing mike on some of his more ridiculous theories. Added to that we have the forum owner expecting everyone to simply believe every word he utters, without any foundation whatsoever. This attitude is why I believe the numbers are so low now as its really not a very pleasurable experience listening to mike preach and watching some of you encourage him to tell further lies. That's all he has left now is his imagination. 10 years ago he had lots of unpublished docs, not seen outside the legal teams and he sought to find bamber a way out, in exchange for a share in the revenue from bamber's future fortune. When this and bamber's numerous legal attempts failed, he sought to invent informers and has stretched the truth to breaking point. Claiming to be withholding documents and images almost certain to help free bamber makes him a clown who even the most fervent supporter should be castigating, not telling him what a brilliant job he's doing! Because, almost certainly, Tesko has damaged both bamber's chances of release, as referred to by the CCRC, was directly responsible for the sacking of one of the countries leading MOJ lawyers (by telling lies), but is now directly contradicting bamber's own views on what might have happened and wants nothing more to do with him. Only in the wonderful world of bamber can you have a multiple convicted thief fighting for the release of a mass murderer and the mass murderer wants nothing to do with the thief! Even the solicitor before last is doing time! And he was the one who took mike most seriously! Mike recently described him as a genius!
But worst of all, particularly in recent years, mike has made the most vile lurid allegations against the relatives, both living and dead. Gross sexual details that bear no relation to the case and an addiction to posting up images of dead relatives at the drop of a hat. It's wrong, it's disrespectful and it's psychologically worrying. Even bamber has complained about it but mike takes no notice.
I've met some really lovely genuine people through this forum, so I thank mike for that and I'll try and keep in touch with you all. All the best, Vic.
Sadly I completely agree. Don't be a stranger :) x
-
Ive not posted much as ive had priorities elsewhere , all i can say is members have in the past been banned and after a while re joined been under a ban for a while, mike does know he actually needs members input no matter what their take on the case i would say jim will return at some point , as to vics stance about what has been said about the relatives his view will not be shared by everyone there are issues as always to discuss ive just bought Roger Wilkes book so i will begin reading sometime, i sense with mike fustration or disdain of a unfair justice system, if so i do too, one last thought you may be suprised of how simple it is to frame someone for a crime from stealing a bicycle to murder.
-
Just get so fed up with this shit. I will take a break. Be well.
-
Oh dear,,and I have been out all day,,so thankfully whatever has gone on,,it wasn't me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
:-[ yeah I've caught the blowup between Jimmy and mike.
I've too had a blow up between another support on facebook, She kept snipering me in the back which pissed me off.
-
:-[ yeah I've caught the blowup between Jimmy and mike.
I've too had a blow up between another support on facebook, She kept snipering me in the back which pissed me off.
I know,PB,,I've been constantly attacked on the Yahoo news debate too,,and you're right,,it isn't nice at all.I don't know why folk are intent on hurting others,,it seems the vogue nowadays to release their own angst on the weak and unsuspecting.
-
And so to the demise of another intelligent,loyal member!
I saw Jim's post and personally thought it mild compared to some of the posts that vic has aimed at mike in the past.Particularly the ones that accused mike of masturbating over the crime scene photos :o and yet vic remains a member here. Doesn't seem logical to me.Not at all :(
-
Just get so fed up with this shit. I will take a break. Be well.
Alias, we need you, please don't go.xxxx
-
And so to the demise of another intelligent,loyal member!
I saw Jim's post and personally thought it mild compared to some of the posts that vic has aimed at mike in the past.Particularly the ones that accused mike of masturbating over the crime scene photos :o and yet vic remains a member here. Doesn't seem logical to me.Not at all :(
That post was quite sickening and below the belt,tyler,I agree with you there. Treading on eggshells springs to mind there,,though it shouldn't be that way. It depends who you are.!!!
-
I'd like to add my take on this, though it may be important to note that I did not witness the fall out from Jim's post.
I don't have a problem with Mike being repeatedly challenged regarding the three notorious claims... alleged 'itemised phone bill' / 'informant' / 'bed photo'.
What I do find frustrating is when members employ a really narrow approach. When members limit themselves almost entirely to this kind of challenging , displaying a breathless amount of negativity and dismissiveness towards other numerous aspects that they simply don't bother to debate or challenge at all.
The other thing I find frustrating are the repeated and deliberate attempts to get Mike Tesko to explode in anger, so that said members or others will then inevitably point out how wrong this is etc.
I'm not condoning Mike's excesses and am more than happy to see Mike challenged / moderated etc. Obviously I would like Mike to show more restraint. But a lack of restraint on the part of Mike shouldn't be a green card for others to bear bait.
That's my twopenneth...
-
I'd like to add my take on this, though it may be important to note that I did not witness the fall out from Jim's post.
I don't have a problem with Mike being repeatedly challenged regarding the three notorious claims... alleged 'itemised phone bill' / 'informant' / 'bed photo'.
What I do find frustrating is when members employ a really narrow approach. When members limit themselves almost entirely to this kind of challenging , displaying a breathless amount of negativity and dismissiveness towards other numerous aspects that they simply don't bother to debate or challenge at all.
The other thing I find frustrating are the repeated and deliberate attempts to get Mike Tesko to explode in anger, so that said members or others will then inevitably point out how wrong this is etc.
I'm not condoning Mike's excesses and am more than happy to see Mike challenged / moderated etc. Obviously I would like Mike to show more restraint. But a lack of restraint on the part of Mike shouldn't be a green card for others to bear bait.
That's my twopenneth...
Hi Roch, very well said, I totally agree with your post, for some it seems the main aim is to antagonise Mike and disrupt the forum.
-
Hi Roch, very well said, I totally agree with your post, for some it seems the main aim is to antagonise Mike and disrupt the forum.
Do you agree though maggie, that Mike may have backed him self in to a corner on these three claims?
While I would dearly love to see an 'informant' of PS Golding's ilk emerge, the fact remains he has not done so. Neither has any photograph. As for the bills, I could never quite get the 'metered' argument but it seems highly unlikely that an itemised bill exists.
For me, what is important is what has been outlined regarding ballistics tampering and the likely truth sorrounding AP's gun. There is absolutely no reason to tamper, destroy or conceal if Jeremy Bamber is guilty. For me that says it all.
-
I would also add, that I cant work out whether such tampering, destruction and concealment points towards police weapon/s having been discharged at some point during the incident...
Or a desperate need to cover up other elements of a botched raid / crime scene preservation....
Or both?
-
Do you agree though maggie, that Mike may have backed him self in to a corner on these three claims?
While I would dearly love to see an 'informant' of PS Golding's ilk emerge, the fact remains he has not done so. Neither has any photograph. As for the bills, I could never quite get the 'metered' argument but it seems highly unlikely that an itemised bill exists.
For me, what is important is what has been outlined regarding ballistics tampering and the likely truth sorrounding AP's gun. There is absolutely no reason to tamper, destroy or conceal if Jeremy Bamber is guilty. For me that says it all.
Hi Roch, I do agree that in some areas Mike is indeed suspect :-\ but as far as the ballistics tampering and APs gun he is on much firmer ground. I agree that concealment points to guilt of the police and innocence of Jeremy.
-
Maggie/Roch hello to you both. Just back from lunch. I agree emphatically with what you have both said. Leaving aside that I have felt bitterly disappointed, even cheated regarding some of Mike's claims which I have naively willed to be true, I am actually truly saddened that by making such claims, he leaves himself vulnerable and exposed to all whose sole aim in life is to goad him to the point of explosion and cause disruption to the forum.
-
I think we ought to wait and find out what has really happened.... :-\ :o
I'm quite shocked Jim in no longer with us.
Just a thought, if his account has been deleted, this might mean he can re-register...but would not be able to if he had a ban? Just a thought!
Jim's membership has been reinstated.
-
Jim's membership has been reinstated.
We must keep our fingers crossed that he likes the idea of reinstatement :)
-
Vic :'(
Puts me in a bit of a dilemma and I may get banned myself, but I agree with you. I know you are a good sort deep down. I have nothing more to add. Take care X
I hope you do not agree with everything in Vic's post Patti. I like and respect Vic but his post is extremely insulting towards Mike and I am not prepared to associate myself with that. Vic has also attacked the moderators/admins, which of course includes you as well as me.
I have not liked seeing the goading of Mike by some members, which in my view is only done in order to provoke Mike into a reaction, in the hope of showing him in a bad light. Mike does overreact at times, but he always calms down. We should remember that Mike's health is not good and should take that into consideration when forming judgements about his actions here.
Vic has applied to delete his account. I will not action that at present so that he is able to respond if he wishes.
-
Vic, thankyou for sharing your views and those kind words. :)
Vic is attacking you as well April.
-
I'd like to add my take on this, though it may be important to note that I did not witness the fall out from Jim's post.
I don't have a problem with Mike being repeatedly challenged regarding the three notorious claims... alleged 'itemised phone bill' / 'informant' / 'bed photo'.
What I do find frustrating is when members employ a really narrow approach. When members limit themselves almost entirely to this kind of challenging , displaying a breathless amount of negativity and dismissiveness towards other numerous aspects that they simply don't bother to debate or challenge at all.
The other thing I find frustrating are the repeated and deliberate attempts to get Mike Tesko to explode in anger, so that said members or others will then inevitably point out how wrong this is etc.
I'm not condoning Mike's excesses and am more than happy to see Mike challenged / moderated etc. Obviously I would like Mike to show more restraint. But a lack of restraint on the part of Mike shouldn't be a green card for others to bear bait.
That's my twopenneth...
Well said Roch.
-
Vic is attacking you as well April.
Neil, did you not see how I had condensed Vic's post in a way which enabled me to thank him for his views and his KIND words.
-
Neil, did you not see how I had condensed Vic's post in a way which enabled me to thank him for his views and his KIND words.
Yes, I understand now April. You have a clever way with words. ;D
-
I really have to admire both posts,Ngb and Roch who always manage to put things in perspective in a calm manner.
It also goes without saying that I have a fondness and also respect for Mike who must " struggle " at times, that when he has an off day,I'd prefer to ignore anything said" out of turn " rather than make a meal of it. I've actually said this privately on a few occasions,as one has to learn to make allowances at times.
He's done a sterling job and has worked tirelessly in his quest to see justice done.
-
I hope you do not agree with everything in Vic's post Patti. I like and respect Vic but his post is extremely insulting towards Mike and I am not prepared to associate myself with that. Vic has also attacked the moderators/admins, which of course includes you as well as me.
I have not liked seeing the goading of Mike by some members, which in my view is only done in order to provoke Mike into a reaction, in the hope of showing him in a bad light. Mike does overreact at times, but he always calms down. We should remember that Mike's health is not good and should take that into consideration when forming judgements about his actions here.
Vic has applied to delete his account. I will not action that at present so that he is able torespond if he wishes.
Very well put ngb, excellent post.
-
Brilliant posts,Maggie,I agree.
-
Very well put ngb, excellent post.
He certainly has lookout. Maybe some people should take a step back and consider how they would cope with Mike's condition
-
He certainly has lookout. Maybe some people should take a step back and consider how they would cope with Mike's condition
You're telling me,Maggie.
-
Yes, I understand now April. You have a clever way with words. ;D
Neil, you lovely man, how very kind :-* :-*
-
Lookout excellent post and as is yours ngb. We have to make allowances for Mike is it too much to ask to show him some humanity and respect that is the very least he can expect from members posting on HIS forum.
-
Jim's membership has been reinstated.
That doesn´t really help much, the damage is done. You have to agree with EVERYTHING, even the most absurd claims, otherwise you receive a sh##load of profanities (have been there myself) and /or get banned.
This is not a place where you can speak freely, and I resent that.
-
It would seem that jim has been reregistered under a slightly different name (Jim). There are still posts on the board by jim, but recent ones seem to have disappeared.
-
I won't be posting for a while myself. I'll keep reading hopefully, but the forum has really descended into a bit of a farce now. Some posters are allowed to say whatever they want, however revolting or pious, whereas others are seemingly censored, usually after pushing mike on some of his more ridiculous theories. Added to that we have the forum owner expecting everyone to simply believe every word he utters, without any foundation whatsoever. This attitude is why I believe the numbers are so low now as its really not a very pleasurable experience listening to mike preach and watching some of you encourage him to tell further lies. That's all he has left now is his imagination. 10 years ago he had lots of unpublished docs, not seen outside the legal teams and he sought to find bamber a way out, in exchange for a share in the revenue from bamber's future fortune. When this and bamber's numerous legal attempts failed, he sought to invent informers and has stretched the truth to breaking point. Claiming to be withholding documents and images almost certain to help free bamber makes him a clown who even the most fervent supporter should be castigating, not telling him what a brilliant job he's doing! Because, almost certainly, Tesko has damaged both bamber's chances of release, as referred to by the CCRC, was directly responsible for the sacking of one of the countries leading MOJ lawyers (by telling lies), but is now directly contradicting bamber's own views on what might have happened and wants nothing more to do with him. Only in the wonderful world of bamber can you have a multiple convicted thief fighting for the release of a mass murderer and the mass murderer wants nothing to do with the thief! Even the solicitor before last is doing time! And he was the one who took mike most seriously! Mike recently described him as a genius!
But worst of all, particularly in recent years, mike has made the most vile lurid allegations against the relatives, both living and dead. Gross sexual details that bear no relation to the case and an addiction to posting up images of dead relatives at the drop of a hat. It's wrong, it's disrespectful and it's psychologically worrying. Even bamber has complained about it but mike takes no notice.
I've met some really lovely genuine people through this forum, so I thank mike for that and I'll try and keep in touch with you all. All the best, Vic.
Well said
Something not mentioned - Mike relentlessly floods the board with repetitive threads and relentlessly floods each of his threads, flooding at a maniacal fever pitch that shuts down discourse. And he's not using flooding simply to bury one or two threads that devolved badly or made him look bad, he's using flooding as a weapon to categorically block all discourse.
-
And that in English means what exactly? If you don't like what you read on this forum then don't read it...simples!
-
And that in English means what exactly? If you don't like what you read on this forum then don't read it...simples!
Tyler, forgive me for interjecting at this point, but that's a rather banal and incredibly unproductive response. People come to this thread to debate and read others threads and learn, if this is not what is happening, then clearly there is a problem. Just saying 'dont read it' is like saying you can watch this TV channel but some content within is put out by the programme owners, don't watch it.
It's easy to say what you did, that seem sto be the standard trumpet blast sounded out by shoulder shruggers the world over, but many deeply care what is written and the accuracy od what's being posted. People are obviously deeply concerned, being incredibly dismissive and fillipant about wahat they should do really doesn't help.
-
Well,first of all I don't recall asking for your opinion,and secondly - the poster sirsimon, whoever he or she is,does not come here to debate,only to make snide comments every now and again.
-
I hope you do not agree with everything in Vic's post Patti. I like and respect Vic but his post is extremely insulting towards Mike and I am not prepared to associate myself with that. Vic has also attacked the moderators/admins, which of course includes you as well as me.
I have not liked seeing the goading of Mike by some members, which in my view is only done in order to provoke Mike into a reaction, in the hope of showing him in a bad light. Mike does overreact at times, but he always calms down. We should remember that Mike's health is not good and should take that into consideration when forming judgements about his actions here.
Vic has applied to delete his account. I will not action that at present so that he is able to respond if he wishes.
Hi Neil :)
No I don't agree with everything that Vic says and I think Vic knows this, but on the other hand I don't agree with everything that Mike says either. What I strongly oppose to is the foul language used and Mike knows I don't like it. I don't have to agree with what everyone says and no doubt most of the time people don't agree with me, but I don't swear at them and tell them to fuck off and call them cunts on a public forum either.
Normally I try to remain impartial and sometimes I let things go, but when it gets heavy I ask for restraint, this was ignored the other night and I did say that this was a pro Bamber forum and for those that don't like what they read, then the door is open for them to leave. We all have a choice of who's posts we read and we are all responsible for what we post.
Sorry I have rushed this post I have my family over, will be back later. Patti :) :) :) :)
-
It's Mike's forum and it is his to destroy if he wants. All I can say on the matter is that I got on quite well with Jim and think that he just got fed up with Mikes stretching of the truth into something else. And promising things that just don't happen? Jim usually made good arguments. He wasn't here as a troll. I for one think that deleting his account was very unfortunate. But as I said before, it is Mikes forum to destroy if he wants. I just think that what he did was very unwise. Tell you the truth there's nothing much on here now anyway and we are have become like vultures, posting the same old pictures of this unfortunate murdered family and picking over the same old dry bones of these victims.
-
i think its very unfair to say that we haven't got free speech on this forum.
i mean if that was true this thread wouldn't be here.
-
Mike isn't bothered about people disagreeing, I don't agree with quite a few of his theories and i haven't been sworn at (yet). What he objects to is being called a liar.
-
I hope you do not agree with everything in Vic's post Patti. I like and respect Vic but his post is extremely insulting towards Mike and I am not prepared to associate myself with that. Vic has also attacked the moderators/admins, which of course includes you as well as me.
I have not liked seeing the goading of Mike by some members, which in my view is only done in order to provoke Mike into a reaction, in the hope of showing him in a bad light. Mike does overreact at times, but he always calms down. We should remember that Mike's health is not good and should take that into consideration when forming judgements about his actions here.
Vic has applied to delete his account. I will not action that at present so that he is able to respond if he wishes.
Well said Neil, people are free to agree or disagree with Mike's theories but certain points are continually brought up in order to wind him up. I agree that the swearing is out of order but people here knno how to push his buttons and do so frequently, then they complain about his behaviour. I PM'd Mike about Jim but he has obviously realised in the cold hard light of day that he over reacted. I must also add that I hope Vic doesn't leave!! I guess it's all a case of if you don't want a fire, don't strike a match!!
-
Mike isn't bothered about people disagreeing, I don't agree with quite a few of his theories and i haven't been sworn at (yet). What he objects to is being called a liar.
You have hit the nail on the head...
-
You have hit the nail on the head...
And yet there you are in another thread calling Anthony Pargeter, the relatives and the police liars based on nothing more than your own convoluted theories. Hypocrite. If you don't want to be called a liar don't lie. Simples.
-
hes not the only one calling them liars a lot of people are.
given the track record of the uk police for telling lies its hardly an unreasonable thing to say.
-
And yet there you are in another thread calling Anthony Pargeter, the relatives and the police liars based on nothing more than your own convoluted theories. Hypocrite. If you don't want to be called a liar don't lie. Simples.
You liar...
-
So, when Anthony Pargeter made that statement to COLP saying he took his rifle home with him before the day of the shootings, and yet a withheld police photograph shows it to be in the gun cupboard, there are those amongst us, who do not think that Pargeter told any lies..
-
anyone would think mike was the only person to say this you wouldn't think several barristers and mps had said exactly the same thing.
-
As i said in a earlier post to lie and sell a lie is almost an artform, if you want lies pick any MOJ case and take your pick this case is full of lies been told .
-
Well,first of all I don't recall asking for your opinion,and secondly - the poster sirsimon, whoever he or she is,does not come here to debate,only to make snide comments every now and again.
Erm excuse me Tyler, but this is an open forum and if I want to reply to something you have posted onto it I will. You seem no stranger to making snide comments yourself, or had you conveniently forgotten that?
-
i think mike pts up with a lot more than most other forum owners would do this is also true of the mods.
-
Hello nugnug I agree Mike is very tolerant and only gets really angry when he is pushed too far :(
-
Hello nugnug I agree Mike is very tolerant and only gets really angry when he is pushed too far :(
Come to think of it that is true. I can name several forums that wouldn't tolerate what he has had to tolerate.
-
DanielDay,as I said,I'm not interested in your opinions with regards to the case or otherwise,so it might be better for you to put me on ignore? And btw,I am not snidy and you do not know anything about me in order to judge me!
-
DanielDay,as I said,I'm not interested in your opinions with regards to the case or otherwise,so it might be better for you to put me on ignore? And btw,I am not snidy and you do not know anything about me in order to judge me!
Hi tyler, have never seen any sign of you being 'snidey', I have always found you very straight forward and honest in your posts. You're certainly one of our most knowledgeable posters. ;D ;D
-
Aww thank you Maggie xx Its just I'm peed off that DD is attacking me on a personal level over a comment I made to somebody else,that wasn't case related and also wasn't anything to do with him. If he keeps it up I may have to make my very first complaint to a moderator!
-
Aww thank you Maggie xx Its just I'm peed off that DD is attacking me on a personal level over a comment I made to somebody else,that wasn't case related and also wasn't anything to do with him. If he keeps it up I may have to make my very first complaint to a moderator!
Hi Tyler, I agree with Maggie, you're one of the most knowledgeable posters on the forum and I would never describe you as snidy.
-
Morning tyler
must say you are one of the best posters on this forum you are knowledgeable always polite and post with respect for others and we all love youxx
-
Morning tyler
must say you are one of the best posters on this forum you are knowledgeable always polite and post with respect for others and we all love youxx
Morning Susan,,I fully agree with you about tyler and I too find her very knowledgeable and polite too. To my knowledge,she has never said anything out of place at any time.
In my case,,if one person had pm'd me and pulled me up over something they'd objected to,then I'd have had the greatest respect for them,,but instead,it's been bubbling under the surface and I've remained a target as a reminder for future disagreements on the forum, which usually have no relevence to the present debate. Why this should happen,I don't know,,but it doesn't make for an enjoyable time for myself.
There has been,in the past,,some terrible remarks made against me,by a few people,,but I've let it go. I've also been a target for discussion on the red forum,,and not in a nice way either,,,by the very ones who have been on this forum complaining about my posts on here.!
To also say that I've been responsible for someone leaving the forum is a downright lie,,because if it's the person who also posts on the red forum,,they're not even posting there either,,so that's something else which is unfounded.
Also,,I don't get any preferential treatment as far as the mods are concerned. I don't e-mail anyone off this forum at all only a friend from another site, who I wouldn't dream of saying anything to her because she wouldn't be interested, and who is also a staunch " guilty " supporter of Jeremy anyway,,,,nor do I do tittle-tattle or historical verbal abuse.!
-
Morning lookout
I have on many occasions felt so sorry for you. I know you are a tough lady but you like other people have feelings too. The post that has been referred to that was posted by lebaleb I read it once then anything after that must have been deleted. I have read some horrendous posts on here that went unchallenged but I will not quote them as better to let sleeping dogs lie other than dragging past posts onto the forum. I know you to be a very honest lady that does not gossip in any shape or form and I myself have the utmost respect for you. You say it as it is and I agree if posters found your posts to "strong" they should pm you and I know you would apologise. You have of course come under attack as you are a great and loyal supporter of Mike(quite rightly so) and if posters have a problem with that I feel they should look within themselves and ask why that should bother them. You contribute so much to the forum and all I can say is rise above any attacks and carry on being the nice honest lady you are.xx
-
Morning lookout
I have on many occasions felt so sorry for you. I know you are a tough lady but you like other people have feelings too. The post that has been referred to that was posted by lebaleb I read it once then anything after that must have been deleted. I have read some horrendous posts on here that went unchallenged but I will not quote them as better to let sleeping dogs lie other than dragging past posts onto the forum. I know you to be a very honest lady that does not gossip in any shape or form and I myself have the utmost respect for you. You say it as it is and I agree if posters found your posts to "strong" they should pm you and I know you would apologise. You have of course come under attack as you are a great and loyal supporter of Mike(quite rightly so) and if posters have a problem with that I feel they should look within themselves and ask why that should bother them. You contribute so much to the forum and all I can say is rise above any attacks and carry on being the nice honest lady you are.xx
Aww,Susan,,what would this forum do without you.? You come up with the right words for any given situation in such a way as to be fair for both sides as it were. You're also very sharp-witted and many a time I've sat here laughing at what you've posted. You're a breath of fresh air,girl. xxxx
I would rather things fade into oblivion than to be dug up just to release anger,and always prefer to be told by pm rather than make a meal of it for others to join in the fray.That's bullying and should have been left behind in the schoolyard. It just shows up peoples inadequecies,and we don't want that.
-
Morning Susan,,I fully agree with you about tyler and I too find her very knowledgeable and polite too. To my knowledge,she has never said anything out of place at any time.
In my case,,if one person had pm'd me and pulled me up over something they'd objected to,then I'd have had the greatest respect for them,,but instead,it's been bubbling under the surface and I've remained a target as a reminder for future disagreements on the forum, which usually have no relevence to the present debate. Why this should happen,I don't know,,but it doesn't make for an enjoyable time for myself.
There has been,in the past,,some terrible remarks made against me,by a few people,,but I've let it go. I've also been a target for discussion on the red forum,,and not in a nice way either,,,by the very ones who have been on this forum complaining about my posts on here.!
To also say that I've been responsible for someone leaving the forum is a downright lie,,because if it's the person who also posts on the red forum,,they're not even posting there either,,so that's something else which is unfounded.
Also,,I don't get any preferential treatment as far as the mods are concerned. I don't e-mail anyone off this forum at all only a friend from another site, who I wouldn't dream of saying anything to her because she wouldn't be interested, and who is also a staunch " guilty " supporter of Jeremy anyway,,,,nor do I do tittle-tattle or historical verbal abuse.!
It appears that the dead get more respect than the living these days lookout? One thing I have never been able to understand is the fact that Sheila gets sympathy for her mental disorders. Yet there are those who believe Jeremy to be guilty of murder and then categorize him as a psychopath have no sympathy for him? Yet according to them he is mentally derranged? Psychopathy is a personality or mental disorder characterized partly by antisocial behavior, a diminished capacity for remorse, and poor behavioral controls. As a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychopathy has been replaced by antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).
I wonder, is it because Sheila appears to be a "helpless" beautiful young lady who looks as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth? And Jeremy isn't? Surely if as some think Jeremy is mentally ill, then why don't these people have sympathy for him. After all even RWB referred to Sheila as a nut case, or similar and according to her boyfriend her behaviour could be quite frightening at times. None describe Jeremy in those terms. But for some reason among the guilty group Sheila must be enshrined in respect, yet Jeremy who they term a psychopath and therefore mentally sick does not deserve such pity. Or are we like those humans who like cuddly animals and hate ugly ones, just because the animal is cuddly and pleasant to look at? I think it is our own souls we should search in this matter rather than Sheila and Jeremy's mental incapacity.
-
Hi lookout
my aim in life is to create happiness if I can not misery (not sure my other half would agree with that ;D) You are quite right lookout everything should be left in the past and the forum should become a nice place to be this last while back I have gone off quite depressed at the way one human being can treat another. Hey Ho upwards and onwards and thank you for your nice compliments much appreciatedxxx
-
It appears that the dead get more respect than the living these days lookout? One thing I have never been able to understand is the fact that Sheila gets sympathy for her mental disorders. Yet there are those who believe Jeremy to be guilty of murder and then categorize him as a psychopath have no sympathy for him? Yet according to them he is mentally derranged? I wonder, is it because Sheila appears to be a "helpless" beautiful young lady who looks as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth? And Jeremy isn't? Surely if as some think Jeremy is mentally ill, then why don't these people have sympathy for him. After all even RWB referred to Sheila as a nut case, or similar and according to her boyfriend her behaviour could be quite frightening at times. None describe Jeremy in those terms. But for some reason among the guilty group Sheila must be enshrined in respect, yet Jeremy who they term a psychopath and therefore mentally sick does not deserve such pity. Or are we like those humans who like cuddly animals and hate ugly ones, just because the animal is cuddly and pleasant to look at? I think it is our own souls we should search in this matter rather than Sheila and Jeremy's mental incapacity.
Hi Lugg, Good post,,,I've thought that many a time about the sheer differences in someone deceased and the other alive and incarcerated,,and inside,I've objected strongly at Jeremy having been called a psychopath/murderer and other things... I do have every sympathy for the mentally ill,,having had a belly-full of it last week off the forum where I had a spell of fearing for my life,,but that's another story. I shall be looking at mental illness in a different light. Those poor Bambers,June and Neville suffered every time Sheila was present. I couldn't cope with that,Lugg,,never knowing the minute,it's scary.
My main thoughts are for the living,in this case,,,and my annoyance that people can't see impending violence in those who have schizophrenia. Jeremy has been dealt the worse blow of all and I feel more than utterly sorry for him being caged up for something,( to my mind ) that he took no part in.
-
Morning Lugg
that is an excellent post you have just made and I have thought so often what is actually going on you can't make rules for one and different ones for another and that is what is happening sad to say :(
-
Hi Lugg I agree that is an excellent post. Of course Jeremy has to be psychopathic/sociopathic for all the guilty theories to hold water. Without that belief their theories fall apart. I agree, Sheila was mentally ill and dead therefore is harmless enough while Jeremy, alive is a threat and therefore a good target.
I do find it an insult to Sheila to deny her right to be mentally ill but rather make her into some sort of incapable bimbo who 'couldn't put beans on toast'. If she had cancer or something she would be brave to cope. Whats the difference, only the stigma of mental illness imo
Sheila was seriously mentally ill, she never had recognition of her struggles in spite of psychosis to look after her sons. She wasn't a failure but she was failed by the system as were June, Neville and Jeremy.
Sheila, fairy princess Jeremy with his 'cruel handsomness' as the big bad wolf.
If you open your eyes and look at all the facts not just the ones that suit your personal theory it's very hard to believe Jeremy Bamber could have carried out these killings.
-
Hi Lugg I agree that is an excellent post. Of course Jeremy has to be psychopathic/sociopathic for all the guilty theories to hold water. Without that belief their theories fall apart. I agree, Sheila was mentally ill and dead therefore is harmless enough while Jeremy, alive is a threat and therefore a good target.
I do find it an insult to Sheila to deny her right to be mentally ill but rather make her into some sort of incapable bimbo who 'couldn't put beans on toast'. If she had cancer or something she would be brave to cope. Whats the difference, only the stigma of mental illness imo
Sheila was seriously mentally ill, she never had recognition of her struggles in spite of psychosis to look after her sons. She wasn't a failure but she was failed by the system as were June, Neville and Jeremy.
Sheila, fairy princess Jeremy with his 'cruel handsomness' as the big bad wolf.
If you open your eyes and look at all the facts not just the ones that suit your personal theory it's very hard to believe Jeremy Bamber could have carried out these killings.
An interesting debate, but one that is, in my opinion way off the mark. I have researched this and found that Psychopathy is a VERY different condition to mental illness. Psychopathy is a personality trait NOT a mental illness. Someone with schizophenia who has become psychotic, does not know the difference between right and wrong. A psychopath KNOWS the difference between right and wrong, but simply does not care. Psychopaths are rarely psychotic.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder whereas schizophrenia is a brain disorder with a distinct medical cause and they are NOT the same thing at all and therefore have to be treated and judged differently.
A schizophrenic is a mental illness. They have emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, etc. This can be treated with medication.
A psychopath however, cannot be treated. There is no cure for psychopathy, the condition can only best be contained and managed if possible. Psychopathy, unlike untreated schizophenic individuals can function in polite society extremely well. They can appear charming, full of life and attractive to many. However, under the surface they are callous, superficial and totally without conscience, empathy or remorse. They rarely, if ever admit culpability for their crimes and are considered generally incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions unless it further their own ends.
In short the two are NOT the same, and it is morally and scientifically incorrect to judge them as such.
-
I know they are not the same, i wasnt saying they were Daniel. My point about Sheila is that she has been almost denied the right to be ill because of the stigma attached.
To all intents and purposes however the guilty brigade want him to be Jeremy Bamber is not a pdychopath and has no other personality didorder. He passed a polygraph test you cannot take such a test if you're a psychpath. The test would have been abandoned.
-
Hi Lugg I agree that is an excellent post. Of course Jeremy has to be psychopathic/sociopathic for all the guilty theories to hold water. Without that belief their theories fall apart. I agree, Sheila was mentally ill and dead therefore is harmless enough while Jeremy, alive is a threat and therefore a good target.
I do find it an insult to Sheila to deny her right to be mentally ill but rather make her into some sort of incapable bimbo who 'couldn't put beans on toast'. If she had cancer or something she would be brave to cope. Whats the difference, only the stigma of mental illness imo
Sheila was seriously mentally ill, she never had recognition of her struggles in spite of psychosis to look after her sons. She wasn't a failure but she was failed by the system as were June, Neville and Jeremy.
Sheila, fairy princess Jeremy with his 'cruel handsomness' as the big bad wolf.
If you open your eyes and look at all the facts not just the ones that suit your personal theory it's very hard to believe Jeremy Bamber could have carried out these killings.
Well that's exactly what we are here to find out Maggie. I do find some of you words slightly self-serving 'couldnt put beans on toast' you used as evidence of people thinking her some sort of 'incapable bimbo' I dont think anyone has EVER said this. What has been said is that the effects of her medication made her at times very uncoordinated, certainly not a bimbo as you have tried imply people have used. Come to think of it, I don't remember anyone saying that Sheila was a 'fairy princess or Bamber the 'big, bad wolf either? May I ask where you got this from?
Please read up on two distinct conditions schizophrenia and psychopthy- one a mental illness and the other a personality disorder. One treatable the other not.
You last sentence may need reviewing in light of what has been said maggie
"If you open your eyes and look at all the facts not just the ones that suit your personal theory it's very hard to believe Jeremy Bamber could have carried out these killings"
Hmmm...
-
I know they are not the same, i wasnt saying they were Daniel. My point about Sheila is that she has been almost denied the right to be ill because of the stigma attached.
To all intents and purposes however the guilty brigade want him to be Jeremy Bamber is not a pdychopath and has no other personality didorder. He passed a polygraph test you cannot take such a test if you're a psychpath. The test would have been abandoned.
An incorrect statement Maggie. Many psychopaths have taken and passed lie detector tests. Famously serial killer and psychopath Ted Bundy took and passed with flying colours several lie detector tests. The lie detector relies on reactions and emotions (i.e. stress from lying, fear, increases skin conductivity and heart rate) and as psychopaths have flattened affect (less strong emotions, especially less guilt/shame) then they have a far, far better chance of fooling a lie detector. Mind you, non-psychopaths have been known to easily pass them, they are not very reliable.
In short, the responses that psychopaths with exhib during a polygraph test are minimal compared to a non-psychopath. Normal responses to guilt, shame and embarassment are usually not present as the psychopath does not feel them in the first place.
-
i see now evidence that sheila was uncoordinated other than the rather dubious word of the relatives.
he husband never mentioned this and he was the one that really knew her.
her illness would not of made her uncoordinated.
-
An interesting debate, but one that is, in my opinion way off the mark. I have researched this and found that Psychopathy is a VERY different condition to mental illness. Psychopathy is a personality trait NOT a mental illness. Someone with schizophenia who has become psychotic, does not know the difference between right and wrong. A psychopath KNOWS the difference between right and wrong, but simply does not care. Psychopaths are rarely psychotic.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder whereas schizophrenia is a brain disorder with a distinct medical cause and they are NOT the same thing at all and therefore have to be treated and judged differently.
A schizophrenic is a mental illness. They have emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, etc. This can be treated with medication.
A psychopath however, cannot be treated. There is no cure for psychopathy, the condition can only best be contained and managed if possible. Psychopathy, unlike untreated schizophenic individuals can function in polite society extremely well. They can appear charming, full of life and attractive to many. However, under the surface they are callous, superficial and totally without conscience, empathy or remorse. They rarely, if ever admit culpability for their crimes and are considered generally incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions unless it further their own ends.
In short the two are NOT the same, and it is morally and scientifically incorrect to judge them as such.
Hi DD
I think you will find that it is now generally accepted within professional circles that the main component of psychopathy is a lack of empathy. If you're interested the following post contains some relevant info.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4287.msg177928.html#msg177928
However interestingly those with autistic spectrum disorders tend to suffer a distinct lack of empathy and yet are rarely violent.
I believe also there's evidence to suggest that those responsible for the financial crisis may have suffered from psychopathic traits ie lack of empathy for others in terms of customers, staff, shareholders and wider community.
I think the stereotypical psychopath eg Ian Brady is just part of the picture.
-
Hello Daniel
do you actually think Jeremy Bamber was a psychopath I thought he had been assessed 27 times and concluded he was not. So the polygraph test could have been correct if the assessment was correct.
-
i see now evidence that sheila was uncoordinated other than the rather dubious word of the relatives.
he husband never mentioned this and he was the one that really knew her.
her illness would not of made her uncoordinated.
No but her medication certainly would. Did you actually read my last statement? Just because Colin didn't mention it is not proof that she wasnt uncoordinated. May I ask why you use the word 'dubious' when speaking of the word of the relatives? I am intrigued.
Please point me to the evidence that makes their word 'dubious, as opposed to a self-confessed thief, drug peddler and convicted mass murderer? I would like to see it. Thanks
-
the word of anyone with a vested financial interest in the outcome of a criminal trial is dubious.
i as i said her husband never mentioned it.
her medication would not necessarily of affected her coordination.
-
the word of anyone with a vested financial interest in the outcome of a criminal trial is dubious.
i as i said her husband never mentioned it.
her medication would not necessarily of affected her coordination.
How right you are,nugs.
-
An interesting debate, but one that is, in my opinion way off the mark. I have researched this and found that Psychopathy is a VERY different condition to mental illness. Psychopathy is a personality trait NOT a mental illness. Someone with schizophenia who has become psychotic, does not know the difference between right and wrong. A psychopath KNOWS the difference between right and wrong, but simply does not care. Psychopaths are rarely psychotic.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder whereas schizophrenia is a brain disorder with a distinct medical cause and they are NOT the same thing at all and therefore have to be treated and judged differently.
A schizophrenic is a mental illness. They have emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, etc. This can be treated with medication.
A psychopath however, cannot be treated. There is no cure for psychopathy, the condition can only best be contained and managed if possible. Psychopathy, unlike untreated schizophenic individuals can function in polite society extremely well. They can appear charming, full of life and attractive to many. However, under the surface they are callous, superficial and totally without conscience, empathy or remorse. They rarely, if ever admit culpability for their crimes and are considered generally incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions unless it further their own ends.
In short the two are NOT the same, and it is morally and scientifically incorrect to judge them as such.
Hi Daniel. Does this mean that a psychopath is to be blamed for his/her own condition. Or is it something that he/she cannot control?
-
No but her medication certainly would. Did you actually read my last statement? Just because Colin didn't mention it is not proof that she wasnt uncoordinated. May I ask why you use the word 'dubious' when speaking of the word of the relatives? I am intrigued.
Please point me to the evidence that makes their word 'dubious, as opposed to a self-confessed thief, drug peddler and convicted mass murderer? I would like to see it. Thanks
Hi DD
According to Dr F he states "The drug has no noticeable effects ie slow movement, speech difficulties". Had SC's prescribed drugs have caused uncoordination I would have expected Dr F to have stated so.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=6196
-
An incorrect statement Maggie. Many psychopaths have taken and passed lie detector tests. Famously serial killer and psychopath Ted Bundy took and passed with flying colours several lie detector tests. The lie detector relies on reactions and emotions (i.e. stress from lying, fear, increases skin conductivity and heart rate) and as psychopaths have flattened affect (less strong emotions, especially less guilt/shame) then they have a far, far better chance of fooling a lie detector. Mind you, non-psychopaths have been known to easily pass them, they are not very reliable.
In short, the responses that psychopaths with exhib during a polygraph test are minimal compared to a non-psychopath. Normal responses to guilt, shame and embarassment are usually not present as the psychopath does not feel them in the first place.
Daniel, I do know about psychopaths, have read quite a lot about the subject and I know I hve read my statement that such tests have to be abandoned because of no reaction with a psychopath. I shall try and find the relevant link.
-
I know they are not the same, i wasnt saying they were Daniel. My point about Sheila is that she has been almost denied the right to be ill because of the stigma attached.
To all intents and purposes however the guilty brigade want him to be Jeremy Bamber is not a pdychopath and has no other personality didorder. He passed a polygraph test you cannot take such a test if you're a psychpath. The test would have been abandoned.
I have known two schitzophrenics and unfortunately I find it very difficult not to hold them responsible for their actions. The two that I have known were entirely selfish, self centred and did not care one iota about others. Also they were frequently violent as their medication became ineffective. We can of course read books about the subject. But take it from me that you will never understand the people who have schitzophrenia until you have lived with them. They can be sometimes very frightening and you cannot rely upon their honesty and good humour at all. It gives an entirely false impression of schitzophenia to say that they are continually away with the fairies. They, at least the ones I knew/know were very cold and calculating at times. They certainly do not walk around in a daze.
-
the illness affect's different people in different ways its very hard to genralise some are away with the fairy's some arnt.
weather there selfish or unselsish has nothing to do with illness.
it would depend what they were like before were ill.
-
I have known two schitzophrenics and unfortunately I find it very difficult not to hold them responsible for their actions. The two that I have known were entirely selfish, self centred and did not care one iota about others. Also they were frequently violent as their medication became ineffective. We can of course read books about the subject. But take it from me that you will never understand the people who have schitzophrenia until you have lived with them. They can be sometimes very frightening and you cannot rely upon their honesty and good humour at all. It gives an entirely false impression of schitzophenia to say that they are continually away with the fairies. They, at least the ones I knew/know were very cold and calculating at times. They certainly do not walk around in a daze.
Lugg,,I actually know one of what you've described. Calculating is right.
-
Hello Daniel
do you actually think Jeremy Bamber was a psychopath I thought he had been assessed 27 times and concluded he was not. So the polygraph test could have been correct if the assessment was correct.
Thank you for your question Susan. A highly interesting one. I think it really depends on your viewpoint. If you take the view that he is guilty, then he is almost certainly a psychopath.
You mention that he has been 'assessed 27 times'. How do we know that the test was specifically for psychopathy? and not the normal battery of standard issue prison tests given out to most, if not all inmates that are Category A? or for any mental health issue? We must ask; who took the tests? what were they for specifically? who conducted them? Were they sanctioned by the prison or were they 'private tests'? was Dr Robert Hare's psychopathy check list (A useful diagnostic tool and now in general use) adhered to? Under what conditions were the tests undertaken?
The test for psychopathy is a very structured examination conducted over a series of interviews. The psychologist must ask a series of questions relating to emotional responses Were you aware that at his orginal trial, his own defense called in a psychologist to examine Bamber in the hope that he would show Bamber to be a perfectly normal individual and were somewhat proturbed to find out that the psychologist whom they had hired had actually thought Bamber was a textbook psychopath? According to Roger Wilkes in his book 'Blood Relations' a book on the case, the eminent psychologist went on record as saying "If ever there was a psychopath, Jeremy Bamber is it"
Now read into that what you will, but it is the only examination by a non-prison psychologist that I know about. The others may have been conducted by prison councillors or run-of-the-mill young, untrained prison psychologists. We do not know what conditions these 'tests were carried out and for what criteria. These prison psychologists in assuming to be ‘expert witnesses’ in their preparation of risk assessment reports there are often so many references to, ‘it seems’, ‘what seems’, ‘I think’, ‘it appears’, ‘he appears to be’, ‘if’, ‘but’, ‘should he feel this or that’, ‘in the long term’, ‘research has shown’ (without reference to what that research is), ‘in the opinion of’, ‘in my opinion’ and so forth that one could be forgiven for thinking that many reports could well have been written by a clairvoyant or astrologer and at worst a betting man. These are NOT scientific tests, but merely an opinion. Psychopathy is extremely difficult to diagnose, due to the very nature of the individual under question. Psychopaths are extremely adept at manipulation, cunning and deceipt. Young, well-meaning or even hardened psychologists I would argue are often fooled by them.
Maggie I do believe that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath.I do not say this from a psychological standpoint as I am not qualified and would not like to guess, but merely from a criminal one. If he is guility, and my interpretation of the evidence leads me tot hsi conclusion, I believe he is, then it stands to reason that he is also psychopathic.
-
the word of anyone with a vested financial interest in the outcome of a criminal trial is dubious.
i as i said her husband never mentioned it.
her medication would not necessarily of affected her coordination.
Wait a minute, lets turn that on it's head. Didnt Bamber have a vested financial interest too?
Just because someone may have financial interests int he outcome does NOT question their validity nugnug. Many such examples can be found in any trial of what you are referring to if you examine it close enough. Just because they can profit, doesnt mean they want to profit - dont confuse the two.
-
An incorrect statement Maggie. Many psychopaths have taken and passed lie detector tests. Famously serial killer and psychopath Ted Bundy took and passed with flying colours several lie detector tests. The lie detector relies on reactions and emotions (i.e. stress from lying, fear, increases skin conductivity and heart rate) and as psychopaths have flattened affect (less strong emotions, especially less guilt/shame) then they have a far, far better chance of fooling a lie detector. Mind you, non-psychopaths have been known to easily pass them, they are not very reliable.
In short, the responses that psychopaths with exhib during a polygraph test are minimal compared to a non-psychopath. Normal responses to guilt, shame and embarassment are usually not present as the psychopath does not feel them in the first place.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/lie-detector
Particularly paras 4 and 12 up from notes at bottom of page.
-
it still means there word should not be excepted on its own unless there is evidence to confirm it.
and in the case of what they said about sheila there is not.
-
Hi DD
According to Dr F he states "The drug has no noticeable effects ie slow movement, speech difficulties". Had SC's prescribed drugs have caused uncoordination I would have expected Dr F to have stated so.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=6196
Thank you for that NN, but you failed conveniently to include the paragraph directly written underneath. Sheila had smoked marijuana sometime before her death and she may of taken sedation medication; this would have made her slow, deliberate and uncoordinated. In fact Pamela Boutflour who spoke with Sheila on the phone the evening before certainly thought she was.
-
I have known two schitzophrenics and unfortunately I find it very difficult not to hold them responsible for their actions. The two that I have known were entirely selfish, self centred and did not care one iota about others. Also they were frequently violent as their medication became ineffective. We can of course read books about the subject. But take it from me that you will never understand the people who have schitzophrenia until you have lived with them. They can be sometimes very frightening and you cannot rely upon their honesty and good humour at all. It gives an entirely false impression of schitzophenia to say that they are continually away with the fairies. They, at least the ones I knew/know were very cold and calculating at times. They certainly do not walk around in a daze.
They are often confused and find it difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality. This is very frightening for them an its this section that can make them violent or unpredictable. But I agree with Nug Nug, to a certain extent, it's hard to generalise.
-
Thank you for that NN, but you failed conveniently to include the paragraph directly written underneath. Sheila had smoked marijuana sometime before her death and she may of taken sedation medication; this would have made her slow, deliberate and uncoordinated. In fact Pamela Boutflour who spoke with Sheila on the phone the evening before certainly thought she was.
There was no trace of any sedation in Sheila at post mortem Daniel. There was a trace of cannabis....causes psychosis in schizophrenics but the main thing about Sheila's meds at her pm was that there was so little medication in her system. Some evidence of Halperidol, she was due for her next dose and the previous dose had been massively reduce. Haloperidol is taken to control psychosis.
-
Hi Daniel. Does this mean that a psychopath is to be blamed for his/her own condition. Or is it something that he/she cannot control?
Unfortunately yes, they know the difference between right and wrong, and know the consequences. This created the McNaughton Rule (1843) I'll try my best to eplain it as best I can.
Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court acquitted McNaughton "by reason of insanity," and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity.
The "McNaughton rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." This is the key phrase Lugg "did not know"
However, adversely, there are many individuals who commit crimes who understand perfectly well what they do and its illegality but who have no obvious mental problems. They are lucid and coherent with no signs of any learning disability or psychotic symptoms. Some of them can be superficially charming and are intelligent enough to be very plausible on first acquaintance. They do not hear voices or think that they are commanded by forces beyond their power to commit crimes. What they do lack is empathy, remorse and a conscience. These individuals are categorised as being apart from the McNaughton Rule, in that they understand the difference between right and wrong and are acting of their own accord.
In the eyes of the law Lugg, this makes them culpable for their actions and can therefore be punished accordingly.
Thanks for the great question Lugg. It is quite a moral dilemma. But you can see the law clearly has distinctions between the two.
-
Hi Daniel
thanks for your reply. I don't know who examined Jeremy Bamber I just read he had been assessed 27 times and found not to be a psychopath. If indeed he is a psychopath is this a condition a person is born with and if so we therefore should show some sympathy towards him as he would not have been responsible for his actions. Do you know if Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper was a psychopath or can a person just be plain evil I have often wondered if a person can be born evil. Same with the two lads who murdered Jamie Bulger just for a laugh and something to do :( :( :( were they born evil and can such behaviour be cured. I would appreciate your comments on this Daniel as I am totally in the dark on this subject.
-
They are often confused and find it difficult to distinguish fantasy from reality. This is very frightening for them an its this section that can make them violent or unpredictable. But I agree with Nug Nug, to a certain extent, it's hard to generalise.
Perhaps you failed to see what I said. This is no "generalisation". I knew/know these people and both were the same.
-
Unfortunately yes, they know the difference between right and wrong, and know the consequences. This created the McNaughton Rule (1843) I'll try my best to eplain it as best I can.
Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court acquitted McNaughton "by reason of insanity," and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity.
The "McNaughton rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." This is the key phrase Lugg "did not know"
However, adversely, there are many individuals who commit crimes who understand perfectly well what they do and its illegality but who have no obvious mental problems. They are lucid and coherent with no signs of any learning disability or psychotic symptoms. Some of them can be superficially charming and are intelligent enough to be very plausible on first acquaintance. They do not hear voices or think that they are commanded by forces beyond their power to commit crimes. What they do lack is empathy, remorse and a conscience. These individuals are categorised as being apart from the McNaughton Rule, in that they understand the difference between right and wrong and are acting of their own accord.
In the eyes of the law Lugg, this makes them culpable for their actions and can therefore be punished accordingly.
Thanks for the great question Lugg. It is quite a moral dilemma. But you can see the law clearly has distinctions between the two.
Oh right. I can see the difference now. Thank you for explaining that Daniel.
-
There was no trace of any sedation in Sheila at post mortem Daniel. There was a trace of cannabis....causes psychosis in schizophrenics but the main thing about Sheila's meds at her pm was that there was so little medication in her system. Some evidence of Halperidol, she was due for her next dose and the previous dose had been massively reduce. Haloperidol is taken to control psychosis.
I do not believe that she was not sedated maggie. Colin Caffell often refered to Sheila taking sleeping pills as she was a poor sleeper. These may of been flushed through her system by the time the post mortem took place. We have to remember that Pamela phoned at 9:30 or so, and she said that Sheila was noticably 'quiet and unresponsive' she may have taken sedation medication hours earlier. Jeremy even mentioned the point that she was really 'quiet' that evening. I suspect that she was sedated and uncoordinated by these same pills. These 'drug' tests are notoriously unreliable. In 1985 drug testing was still in the stone age. Olympic athletes were taking all kinds of medication that was not being detected. They had just learned to spot sterioids in the system and this was directly afterwards, much less many hours like Sheila's
Sadly, I really don't think that at this distance in time it can now ever be proven one way or another.
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/lie-detector
Particularly paras 4 and 12 up from notes at bottom of page.
Daniel, if you read the above link on the Official website it has an explanation about the lie detector test and Jeremy Bamber's tests for psychopathy.
-
so if drug tests werei think a drug test could of picked up wether she had taken sleeping tablets or not even in those days.
what about who killed themselves with sleeping tablets the tests manage to work out they had killed themselves useing sleeping tablets even in those days.
is there any evedence that her doctor had given her sleeping tablets at the time.
-
I do not believe that she was not sedated maggie. Colin Caffell often refered to Sheila taking sleeping pills as she was a poor sleeper. These may of been flushed through her system by the time the post mortem took place. We have to remember that Pamela phoned at 9:30 or so, and she said that Sheila was noticably 'quiet and unresponsive' she may have taken sedation medication hours earlier. Jeremy even mentioned the point that she was really 'quiet' that evening. I suspect that she was sedated and uncoordinated by these same pills. These 'drug' tests are notoriously unreliable. In 1985 drug testing was still in the stone age. Olympic athletes were taking all kinds of medication that was not being detected. They had just learned to spot sterioids in the system and this was directly afterwards, much less many hours like Sheila's
Sadly, I really don't think that at this distance in time it can now ever be proven one way or another.
That is the problem, anything which doesn't fit with your own particular theory must be wrong.
I do assure you that in 1985, medicine practiced in this country was NOT in the stone age. Of course we know more now but a common sleeping pill would be easily detected in the liver. Sheila's behaviour had been strange for a few days enough to worry June to mention it to Pamela Boutflour, her sister and probably the only person apart from Nevill that she spoke to about Sheila's condition.
We know it is common to be catatonic before an extroverted psychotic episode, this is medical fact, we know Sheila's Haloperidol, her antipsychotic drug was very low in her system. These are facts.
We have no evidence at all that Sheila was taking sleeping tablets and none were found in her system. For her to be that dopey all day long from sleeping pills she must have been taking a huge dose which couldn't possibly have completely left her system by the time she was killed. Remember after she was killed nothing changes and nothing else is processed. Now it's my turn to say to you, you are wrong unless you show evidence to the contrary..
-
Hi nugnug I agree with you if Sheila had taken sleeping pills on the night of the shootings they would have shown up in her body during the pm. Stuff like valium stays in the body for days after you stop taking it.
-
Hi Lugg, Good post,,,I've thought that many a time about the sheer differences in someone deceased and the other alive and incarcerated,,and inside,I've objected strongly at Jeremy having been called a psychopath/murderer and other things... I do have every sympathy for the mentally ill,,having had a belly-full of it last week off the forum where I had a spell of fearing for my life,,but that's another story. I shall be looking at mental illness in a different light. Those poor Bambers,June and Neville suffered every time Sheila was present. I couldn't cope with that,Lugg,,never knowing the minute,it's scary.
My main thoughts are for the living,in this case,,,and my annoyance that people can't see impending violence in those who have schizophrenia. Jeremy has been dealt the worse blow of all and I feel more than utterly sorry for him being caged up for something,( to my mind ) that he took no part in.
Hi Lookout
There's much evidence to suggest that SC also suffered in June's presence. The following are some examples:
Dr F's wit stats
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6191
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1199.0;attach=6193
"She said she felt as if she was caught up in a "coven of evil". These feelings appeared to be involved with her relationship with her adoptive mother and her standards of good and evil".
"She did see that Mrs Bamber was a threat to her, and did not want to visit the BAMBERS at their farm in Essex. Sheila felt that Mrs Bamber had been over-protective towards her and found it difficult to express warm feelings towards her".
"In hindsight I believe that Sheila would have relapsed into a state of psychosis, probably having a firmly held belief or delusion involving concepts of good and evil, and certainly paranoid, possibly involving her mother."
"Both June and Sheila suffered dillusional states of religion and Sheila's illness was influenced by her mother although I do not think the illnesses were caused by the same problem."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=6197
"I also treated Sheila's adopted mother, Mrs June BAMBER at St Andrew's Hospital, Northants. I can say that June after sufferingt a long period of childlessness was examined and eventually an ovarian cyst was removed. She made a decision to adopt and having done this suffered severe depressions. This was around 1959. She required ECT as an in-patient and made a full recover.
Farhad Emani (Freddie) wit stats:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=214
"She also had a deep dislike of her stepmother who apparently kept quoting religion at her. This would upset Sheila and annoy her".
"She would not discuss all her problems, although whenever she visited her father, she would return even more depressed because of her stepmother. Apparently the stepmother would preach to her about her boyfriends and how it was wrong that she should make love with them and Sheila should remember GOD. She gradually detoriated until about three weeks before her first breakdown, Nicholas fell out of a taxi when she was returning from her parents. She blamed herself for this because she was not concentrating on what the children were doing only on Mother's religious rantings".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=216
"Whilst I was there she telephoned Tara, a close friend. She was apologising to Tara for a Religious book that her step mother had dropped off at Tara's house a couple of days previously".
"She kept talking about the Devil and God, and stated that God was sitting opposite her and unlike what her stepmother said he in fact loved her".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=218
"Had it just been her Stepmother who had been killed I could accept it as she disliked her intensely but to think she has killed her father and children is difficult to comprehend".
CC's Letter Intended For NB
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1482.0;attach=7232
"I will not allow her to fuck up the minds of my children in the way I suspect she has your daughters. I am sorry to be so blunt but that is restrained compared to how I really feel".
Excerpt From Claire Powell's book
Sheila made it clear to her friends that her precarious state of her personal equilibrium stemmed largely from her peculiar relationship with June. She was morbidly sensitive to any hint of disapproval from her mother. It was a theme she reverted to constantly. 'She talked about her mother and her background' said Sonja. 'She told me that she and her mother didn't get on. Sheila told me many times that she could not talk to her mother at all, that there was no form of communication between them. She said her mother was never happy with her or with what she did.
-
had she actully been proscribed sleeping tablets that would be a clue.
-
Hi Daniel
thanks for your reply. I don't know who examined Jeremy Bamber I just read he had been assessed 27 times and found not to be a psychopath. If indeed he is a psychopath is this a condition a person is born with and if so we therefore should show some sympathy towards him as he would not have been responsible for his actions. Do you know if Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper was a psychopath or can a person just be plain evil I have often wondered if a person can be born evil. Same with the two lads who murdered Jamie Bulger just for a laugh and something to do :( :( :( were they born evil and can such behaviour be cured. I would appreciate your comments on this Daniel as I am totally in the dark on this subject.
Wow! so many interesting questions tonight!. I can see Susan that you have a real thirst for knowledge. I really respect that.
OK I'll try to answer best I can. I am no expert, I have only learned a little on my course. Psychopathy is a lifelong condition although most seem to 'mellow' with age. There is a debate raging at the moment as to whether psychopaths are made and not born and vice versa. Most agree that psychopaths exhib a series of disturbances during their childhood, which may cause them to shut off their emotions completely. For example; American serial killer John Wayne Gacy said that he was 'beaten every day of his childhood by his drunken father and switched off emotionally" This had the effect of him closing of his emotions so he would 'hurt anymore or feel emotional shame' However, some cite that there are many examples of psychopaths having a perfectly normal childhood in terms of a stable, loving family and environment. Serial murderer and psychopath Jeffery Dahmer said that he had 'an idyllic childhood where his parents loved him" but Dahmer developed psychopathic tendencies from a very young age. I think, Susan the answer to your question lies somewhere in between these two examples. Yes some are born, but also, some, with the right triggers do become psychopaths due to childhood emotional trauma. Once it has developed, it cannot be reversed. It is a bit like saying, "change your entire personality and stop being you" we know that it is virtually impossible. We are what we are. I hope I have in some way answered you question.
Great question again and thanks for asking.
-
Daniel thanks for answering my questions it would appear that the two boys who murdered 2 year Jamie Bulger one of them had a good childhood the other did not so the fact they were both released from prison the Authorities must think they can be cured as it is not normal behaviour to torture and kill an innocent child as they did for fun he was only 2 years old .Peter Sutcliffe I fear was inadequate as a man and that made him commit the crimes he did don't think he heard voices at all. The mind is a very interesting thing to study and I can fully understand why you are doing so.
-
Hi Nugnug I have never read that she was prescribed sleeping pills. Probably N/N would know or Patti.
-
That is the problem, anything which doesn't fit with your own particular theory must be wrong.
I do assure you that in 1985, medicine practiced in this country was NOT in the stone age. Of course we know more now but a common sleeping pill would be easily detected in the liver. Sheila's behaviour had been strange for a few days enough to worry June to mention it to Pamela Boutflour, her sister and probably the only person apart from Nevill that she spoke to about Sheila's condition.
We know it is common to be catatonic before an extroverted psychotic episode, this is medical fact, we know Sheila's Haloperidol, her antipsychotic drug was very low in her system. These are facts.
We have no evidence at all that Sheila was taking sleeping tablets and none were found in her system. For her to be that dopey all day long from sleeping pills she must have been taking a huge dose which couldn't possibly have completely left her system by the time she was killed. Remember after she was killed nothing changes and nothing else is processed. Now it's my turn to say to you, you are wrong unless you show evidence to the contrary..
Again maggie you are headed down the road of no evidence. You have zero evidence that she had a psychotic episode. It could have happened but you have NO evidence that one did. In fact you have NO evidence that Sheila did anything that night at all- zero. Yet you make all kind of assumptions. How many times before this episode was Sheila's behaviour 'worrying'? You can argue the toss about what was found in her system it doesnt change anything at all. Drug testing in 1985 was nothing like it is today. Drugscope a body that offers advice on drugs stated that "Unfortunately, the majority of drug testing was poorly done and plagued with unreliable information"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.
-
Again maggie you are headed down the road of no evidence. You have zero evidence that she had a psychotic episode. It could have happened but you have NO evidence that one did. In fact you have NO evidence that Sheila did anything that night at all- zero. Yet you make all kind of assumptions. How many times before this episode was Sheila's behaviour 'worrying'? You can argue the toss about what was found in her system it doesnt change anything at all. Drug testing in 1985 was nothing like it is today. Drugscope a body that offers advice on drugs stated that "Unfortunately, the majority of drug testing was poorly done and plagued with unreliable information"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.
Daniel,,have you got any evidence/proof to say that it wasn't Sheila.?
-
Daniel,,have you got any evidence/proof to say that it wasn't Sheila.?
Yes Lookout........since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards? Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?
Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?
Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?
Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice and the last time with the very last bullet? Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
I have heard all the theories surrounding the points above and I am NOT convinced one iota by them. They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.
It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
This is without the circumstantial evidence of Bamber's culpability. Bamber made the phone call to police, effectively making it a two-horse race. It was either him or Sheila, with NO possibility of third party involvement.
Now considering the above I think we can effectively discount Sheila as being the culprit. This leaves only one possible suspect remaining - Jeremy Bamber.
Now Lookout perhaps you could show me the evidence that it WASNT Jeremy?.
-
Hi Daniel I'm back with more questions. If Jeremy Bamber had murdered his entire family and shot Sheila with a silencer on the gun why would he either not clean it or remove it from the premises. Had Jeremy had this terrible fight with his Father why did he not have any marks on him. Most importantly why would he confide in his girl friend before and after the murders then dump her not a clever move at all. I am also of the opinion had Jeremy carried out these horrendous murders he would have gone home made sure he had no incriminating evidence on his body get rid of the clothes then retire to bed and wait why invent these phone calls. He would not have allowed anyone into the house without him being present never mind hand over the keys he would not have informed the police he often used windows to enter the house he had no reason at all to talk about taking the gun outside to shoot rabbits. I understand guns were easy to access at the farm so he did not have to pretend he left one out I gather his attitude in Court was one of maybe arrogance and he did nothing to help himself because he knew he was innocent and did not have to try and convince anyone he was. The silencer now that is another thing. Why did the Police not take the silencer and bag it and test it. What were the relatives doing searching deep into the back of a gun cupboard taking the silencer home with them and when it was finally handed to the police it was at some stage I understand used as a paper weight what contamination that silencer was subjected to. The crime scene was not treated as such 4 murders one suicide how do we know what forensic evidence was destroyed none was presented at Trial to incriminate Jeremy Bamber. During the mayhem the two dogs one inside one out were barking why did Jeremy hang around purposely burning Ralph Bamber's back with the three circular burn marks which has been suggested were done by the end of the rifle being heated in the Aga. Jeremy using his Mother's bike to cycle to and from the farm I would have expected at least one person to have had a sighting of him. Daniel I could go on and on but I feel enough is enough for now.
-
Yes Lookout........since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards? Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?
Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?
Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?
Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice and the last time with the very last bullet? Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
I have heard all the theories surrounding the points above and I am NOT convinced one iota by them. They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.
It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
This is without the circumstantial evidence of Bamber's culpability. Bamber made the phone call to police, effectively making it a two-horse race. It was either him or Sheila, with NO possibility of third party involvement.
Now considering the above I think we can effectively discount Sheila as being the culprit. This leaves only one possible suspect remaining - Jeremy Bamber.
Now Lookout perhaps you could show me the evidence that it WASNT Jeremy?.
1) The silencer wasn't used,,it may have been handled downstairs,but proved too difficult to attach.
2) Size doesn't come into it when a 6footer is faced, and threatened with the barrel of a gun to his head.
3) No need to batter anyone unconscious with a rifle pressed to the skull.He wasn't battered.
4) There are over 400 negatives, some showing blood on the hands and feet of Sheila,,before washing her. Why are Essex police hanging on to them.? They're saying it's a copyright issue.!
5) No silencer in use,,there's virtually no difference in sound without one anyway.
6) It isn't unusual for a suicide to shoot themselves more than once.
7) My opinion is that there were two loaded rifles in use,so no need to re-load.( Anshutz and Bruno.)
8) JM,,had suggested a hitman.It was a lie that she retracted.
9 Blood was a mixture of June and Nevilles',with animal blood ( rabbit ) as they have the AK1 component
10) Jeremys' fingerprint was on the rifle as well as other male prints of unknown origin.?
11) Neville did make a phonecall to Jeremy,,who in turn phoned Chelmsford police at 03.26 after not being able to get back to his father because the WHF phone was engaged,,which I reckon was Neville phoning the police because Nevilles' call brought out a car which reached the farmhouse before the call that Jeremy made to them.
1) There is no forensic evidence whatsoever to say it was Jeremy.
2) The sniffer alsation didn't detect any sign of gunpowder on Jeremy at all.No positive results.
3) The house was locked all round from the inside.
4) There was no sign that Jeremys' car had been driven that night.
5) There wasn't any sign of a struggle,i.e bruising,cuts,etc on Jeremys' body as JM saw his body 24 hours later and if anyone had anything to report,it would have been her.
6) Who thought there'd be six bodies,as six body bags were sent.? Was the phone-call from the farm to lure him there.?
7) Jeremy was seen by 27 different psychiatrists and none of them detected any violence or any mental problems. He also passed the polygraph test.
8) Myall reported a " male " figure at the window,,,while Jeremy was outside the farmhouse.This conveniently turned into " a trick of the light ", yet Myall was adamant it was a figure.
9 ) The gun in the window which " vanished " into the undisclosed material basket. That was logged as having been seen by Jeapes. Again when Jeremy was outside.
10) Prior to the murders,Neville had received threats which both Barbara Wilson and Pamela Boutflour knew of,,but not the nature of them,they knew that Neville was bothered by them. Nothing to do with Jeremy and whether he knew about what was going on I don't know.
11 ) Again,prior to the murders,Neville was involved in a scuffle which rendered him a black eye.This was done by one of the relatives for reasons we don't know,,but for a young man to punch an elderly man is the pits in my book,,whatever it was about.
12) That in 1991,police admitted that the mess in the kitchen was caused by all the officers stampeding through the kitchen after 07.40am.
13) How did that second shot to Sheila occur if she,herself didn't do it,and Jeremy was outside,,because presumably,Sheila had suffered a cardiac arrest after the first shot.? According to Vanezis.
There is something very unsettling about this case the more I look into it,,like the police insisting that it was 4 murders and a suicide. Some officers apparently disagreed,but were told in no uncertain terms that's how it was.
Everyone was suspicious of the lad simply because nobody liked him,not even the police. Certainly not grounds in which to arrest him and lock him away for all these years. They'll like him even less seeing that he's protested his innocence non-stop for the length of time he's been imprisoned.I don't know of anyone else who's protested for this long,,do you.?
-
Again maggie you are headed down the road of no evidence. You have zero evidence that she had a psychotic episode. It could have happened but you have NO evidence that one did. In fact you have NO evidence that Sheila did anything that night at all- zero. Yet you make all kind of assumptions. How many times before this episode was Sheila's behaviour 'worrying'? You can argue the toss about what was found in her system it doesnt change anything at all. Drug testing in 1985 was nothing like it is today. Drugscope a body that offers advice on drugs stated that "Unfortunately, the majority of drug testing was poorly done and plagued with unreliable information"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.
Sorry DD but most of your posts are filled with assumption, you are the one insisting Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath when he is proven to not be. I find your post very offensive dd.
I am not 'arguing the toss' about the pm results concerning drugs in her body as you put it I am stating facts. I might add I don't need a lecture from you on psychopathy or drug testing in the 1980s, thank you You are also making huge assumptions about every part of this case.
-
"
I find it rather odd that you have questioned the validity of everything to do with this case - all apart from what suits your theory.
What are you trying to infer DD?
I have not questioned the validity of everything to do with this case and I do not have theories about the case as no one knows what happened that night and there is little or no evidence except that 5 people died violently.
I have as much right as anyone else to point out possibilities and I am always open to suggestions from either side of the argument. However you just dismiss everything that doesn't suit you and therefore you are the one who is following their own 'theory' changing the facts of evidence to fit your belief that Jeremy Bamber is guilty imo
-
Thank you for that NN, but you failed conveniently to include the paragraph directly written underneath. Sheila had smoked marijuana sometime before her death and she may of taken sedation medication; this would have made her slow, deliberate and uncoordinated. In fact Pamela Boutflour who spoke with Sheila on the phone the evening before certainly thought she was.
Hi DD
What para written directly underneath?
SC's blood etc was tested for a wide range of substances and I'm afraid you are wrong unless of course you want to dispute the forensic scientist who carried out the toxicological analysis.
-
1) The silencer wasn't used,,it may have been handled downstairs,but proved too difficult to attach.
2) Size doesn't come into it when a 6footer is faced, and threatened with the barrel of a gun to his head.
3) No need to batter anyone unconscious with a rifle pressed to the skull.He wasn't battered.
4) There are over 400 negatives, some showing blood on the hands and feet of Sheila,,before washing her. Why are Essex police hanging on to them.? They're saying it's a copyright issue.!
5) No silencer in use,,there's virtually no difference in sound without one anyway.
6) It isn't unusual for a suicide to shoot themselves more than once.
7) My opinion is that there were two loaded rifles in use,so no need to re-load.( Anshutz and Bruno.)
8) JM,,had suggested a hitman.It was a lie that she retracted.
9 Blood was a mixture of June and Nevilles',with animal blood ( rabbit ) as they have the AK1 component
10) Jeremys' fingerprint was on the rifle as well as other male prints of unknown origin.?
11) Neville did make a phonecall to Jeremy,,who in turn phoned Chelmsford police at 03.26 after not being able to get back to his father because the WHF phone was engaged,,which I reckon was Neville phoning the police because Nevilles' call brought out a car which reached the farmhouse before the call that Jeremy made to them.
1) There is no forensic evidence whatsoever to say it was Jeremy.
2) The sniffer alsation didn't detect any sign of gunpowder on Jeremy at all.No positive results.
3) The house was locked all round from the inside.
4) There was no sign that Jeremys' car had been driven that night.
5) There wasn't any sign of a struggle,i.e bruising,cuts,etc on Jeremys' body as JM saw his body 24 hours later and if anyone had anything to report,it would have been her.
6) Who thought there'd be six bodies,as six body bags were sent.? Was the phone-call from the farm to lure him there.?
7) Jeremy was seen by 27 different psychiatrists and none of them detected any violence or any mental problems. He also passed the polygraph test.
8) Myall reported a " male " figure at the window,,,while Jeremy was outside the farmhouse.This conveniently turned into " a trick of the light ", yet Myall was adamant it was a figure.
9 ) The gun in the window which " vanished " into the undisclosed material basket. That was logged as having been seen by Jeapes. Again when Jeremy was outside.
10) Prior to the murders,Neville had received threats which both Barbara Wilson and Pamela Boutflour knew of,,but not the nature of them,they knew that Neville was bothered by them. Nothing to do with Jeremy and whether he knew about what was going on I don't know.
11 ) Again,prior to the murders,Neville was involved in a scuffle which rendered him a black eye.This was done by one of the relatives for reasons we don't know,,but for a young man to punch an elderly man is the pits in my book,,whatever it was about.
12) That in 1991,police admitted that the mess in the kitchen was caused by all the officers stampeding through the kitchen after 07.40am.
13) How did that second shot to Sheila occur if she,herself didn't do it,and Jeremy was outside,,because presumably,Sheila had suffered a cardiac arrest after the first shot.? According to Vanezis.
There is something very unsettling about this case the more I look into it,,like the police insisting that it was 4 murders and a suicide. Some officers apparently disagreed,but were told in no uncertain terms that's how it was.
Everyone was suspicious of the lad simply because nobody liked him,not even the police. Certainly not grounds in which to arrest him and lock him away for all these years. They'll like him even less seeing that he's protested his innocence non-stop for the length of time he's been imprisoned.I don't know of anyone else who's protested for this long,,do you.?
A good write up of the incident lookout. I too am of the opinion that things are not as obvious as they appear to be at first glance. They can't even find out the order of the killings and I too am not convinced by the so called silencer evidence. Indeed I personally suspect that it was entirely compromised by contamination and therefore should never have been used in court and certainly the judge should not have put his seal of approval on it. I believe the silencer was accepted aas evidence unlawfully.
-
Wow lookout that is some post so much I did not know and now I am starting to understand things better. Well done you must have studied all the documents in depth to come up with all that information. Think the fight in the pub was to do with land being bought by Ralph and maybe the other guy some relative wanted it something to that effect.
-
A good write up of the incident lookout. I too am of the opinion that things are not as obvious as they appear to be at first glance. They can't even find out the order of the killings and I too am not convinced by the so called silencer evidence. Indeed I personally suspect that it was entirely compromised by contamination and therefore should never have been used in court and certainly the judge should not have put his seal of approval on it. I believe the silencer was accepted aas evidence unlawfully.
Lugg I would think by now that the majority of the public have been well and truly brainwashed into thinking that Jeremy murdered for the inheritance.
What we don't know,and never will,,is the order in which each one of them died,,in order for the estate to have been dictated by order of death. That was a question put to the police by Jeremy,,,to which there was nothing sinister in him having asked,,,as he too was trying to work it out,,,not for financial gain himself,but the way his fathers' will was written.
I've said all along that it was vital from the start to have given appx. times of death of each individual.
If that had been done,properly,you'd have seen the fun and games alright, along with the proof who was the greedy one/s. That at least would have seen fairness in its distribution,,as there were beneficiaries of beneficiaries per capita in that will.
Even without Jeremy having been imprisoned,,there'd have been arguments and bitterness galore,,but not coming from Jeremy. As things stood,,there were still bitter battles,,,and Jeremy was nowhere near.
Do you think Jeremy would have asked the order in which everyone died,if he'd have committed them.?
Because I don't. Stan Jones and the relatives have got a lot to answer for. If the relatives were intelligent,,why were they swayed by Stan Jones.? The answer is in the question.!
It's ironic to think that the police blamed Jeremy for the murders on account of the financial gain,,yet it was the relatives who've done well. The jury weren't told of that.!
-
Hi Lugg
I think the silencer evidence was dodgy and would not be accepted in a Court of Law today as it was not found by EP and it was days before it was handed to them and it was never protected and highly contaminated. Disgrace I call it as is the statement made by Julie. No real concrete evidence to convict how it happened I will never know. Had Jeremy been guilty he would have put on some act after the murders instead he did himself no favours by his behaviour.
-
Well,first of all I don't recall asking for your opinion,and secondly - the poster sirsimon, whoever he or she is,does not come here to debate,only to make snide comments every now and again.
Pointing out in two sentences or less the ironic contradiction of people who simultaneously persecute Julie Mugford and defend Jeremy Bamber (if she's guilty.....then he's guilty! can't have it both ways!) is not defined as "making snide comments" and ad hominem retorts such as yours negate your credibility.
-
Pointing out in two sentences or less the ironic contradiction of people who simultaneously persecute Julie Mugford and defend Jeremy Bamber (if she's guilty.....then he's guilty! can't have it both ways!) is not defined as "making snide comments" and ad hominem retorts such as yours negate your credibility.
Not really. People don;t like her, not because she;s guilty of murder. But of purgery.
-
Tbh I couldn't care less what you think of my "credibility",so jog on!
-
Yes Lookout........since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards? Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?
Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?
Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?
Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice and the last time with the very last bullet? Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
I have heard all the theories surrounding the points above and I am NOT convinced one iota by them. They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.
It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
This is without the circumstantial evidence of Bamber's culpability. Bamber made the phone call to police, effectively making it a two-horse race. It was either him or Sheila, with NO possibility of third party involvement.
Now considering the above I think we can effectively discount Sheila as being the culprit. This leaves only one possible suspect remaining - Jeremy Bamber.
Now Lookout perhaps you could show me the evidence that it WASNT Jeremy?.
Hi Daniel. I agree with you that all what you have stated and is believed by many as to what happened on that fateful day. Although on the surface it looks plain and logical. But in reality it may not have happened like that at all? It's a bit like those games of joining the dots to create a picture. Only we haven't got the numbers to go buy. So in a sense anyone can create any senario that they think looks logical to them.
But I don't think like that. I don't really like senarios, because to me they are all just guesswork in the end. When I first looked at this case 28 years ago I immediately saw that something was wrong with the verdict. I had listened to the case and I quite frankly thought that something didn't run true. I thought to myself how could this man be convicted on such shallow and circumstantial evidence such as this?
Basically all we have as evidence is (1) the silencer "found by the relatives" and kept for a few days and then allegedly used as a paperweight by Taff Jones. In fact I believe that this was the reason he was disciplined and replaced by someone else to lead the investigation? And (2) the evidence of his "ex" girlfriend, who apparently waited until their relationship was ended to go to the police and report him. Even the judge himself threw doubt upon her testimony.
So basically that is all the evidence that we have. None of which in themselves could convict Jeremy Bamber. They were reliant upon each other in order to obtain a conviction. Now all your other questions, although seemingly ver logical are really only one of several conclusions we can come to.
For instance you say, (1) "since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards?" But this is based upon your and other people's assumption that a silencer was used. There are of course indications that it was used, ie the blood in it and what looks like a the mark of a silencer on one of the wounds on Sheila's neck. But with no actiual fingerprints found on the silencer it is still debatable that it was used?
(2) You ask, "Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?" Well here again it may not have happened the way you assume that it did. There are several possibilities as to how it did and others have aired their opinions on this. But my opinion, for what it's worth is that Ralph had been incapacitated before he was beaten? Question: Was there any blood on either the butt of the rifle where the break took place or the spinter that was chipped off? Also was this chip on the rifle butt created by hitting Ralph or did it happen by some other means?
(3) You ask, "Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?" Here again the same thing could be applied to Jeremy. No marks on him to suggest that any fight took place between him and Ralph. But you did in fact answer this question yourself didn't you? When you said that there did not have to be any contact between Jeremy and Ralph. Well there again the same rule could be applied to Sheila?
(4) You ask, "Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?" I too would ask the same question. I do not believe (even if this was demonstrated by a model girl as to how it could have been done) that this is what Sheila did? But I must mention what was proposed by some, that as Sheila rested the gun on the ground the kick-back wehen the gun went off it chipped a piece off the rifle butt. Personally I don't adhere to this theory.
(5) You ask, "Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice and the last time with the very last bullet?" Fair point and well worth questioning. But of course equally logical that that is in fact what could have happened?
(6) You ask, "Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?" Again all fair questions and your logic is not at fault. I can't criticise you for your logic. It is what anyone would ask. But then again it could have happened the way police first said? And of course here as well as elsewhere there are many variables, ie the radio reports of police surgeon needed for two bodies etc. So the Sheila shooting may not have happened where she was found? But of course we get into all sorts of senarios if we take that stand. But the radio reports nevertheless are to be questioned in my humble opinion?
(7) You state, "They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.". I agree with you on this one. You would need to tie things in knots in order to arrive at these suggestions. Plus of course as you rightly say, the phone call by Ralph to Bamber puts him squarely in the frame. Whatever theories we have this one thing is definite and is the one thing that connects Bamber to the crime. The phone call. But here again, he may be telling the truth? Unless police are holding back the fact that they had the technology to find out whether such a phone call actually took place we have only got Bamber's word for it. Whether we believe him or not is entirely up to the individual and his/her opinion. We can say no more than that.
( 8 ) Your statement, it could only be Jeremy or Sheila I agree with. But we must also take into consideration Julie Mugford's statement that Jeremy told her that he paid Matthew Macdonald to commit the crime. She a prosecultion witness is introducing a third person. What do we do? Accept her statement as true and just reject those things in her statement that are not true? Or do we believe in the truth of her statement but blame Jeremy for her lies? Here again it is only our opinions as to what we believe?
-
Hi Daniel. I agree with you that all what you have stated and is believed by many as to what happened on that fateful day. Although on the surface it looks plain and logical. But in reality it may not have happened like that at all? It's a bit like those games of joining the dots to create a picture. Only we haven't got the numbers to go buy. So in a sense anyone can create any senario that they think looks logical to them.
But I don't think like that. I don't really like senarios, because to me they are all just guesswork in the end. When I first looked at this case 28 years ago I immediately saw that something was wrong with the verdict. I had listened to the case and I quite frankly thought that something didn't run true. I thought to myself how could this man be convicted on such shallow and circumstantial evidence such as this?
Basically all we have as evidence is (1) the silencer "found by the relatives" and kept for a few days and then allegedly used as a paperweight by Taff Jones. In fact I believe that this was the reason he was disciplined and replaced by someone else to lead the investigation? And (2) the evidence of his "ex" girlfriend, who apparently waited until their relationship was ended to go to the police and report him. Even the judge himself threw doubt upon her testimony.
So basically that is all the evidence that we have. None of which in themselves could convict Jeremy Bamber. They were reliant upon each other in order to obtain a conviction. Now all your other questions, although seemingly ver logical are really only one of several conclusions we can come to.
For instance you say, (1) "since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards?" But this is based upon your and other people's assumption that a silencer was used. There are of course indications that it was used, ie the blood in it and what looks like a the mark of a silencer on one of the wounds on Sheila's neck. But with no actiual fingerprints found on the silencer it is still debatable that it was used?
(2) You ask, "Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?" Well here again it may not have happened the way you assume that it did. There are several possibilities as to how it did and others have aired their opinions on this. But my opinion, for what it's worth is that Ralph had been incapacitated before he was beaten? Question: Was there any blood on either the butt of the rifle where the break took place or the spinter that was chipped off? Also was this chip on the rifle butt created by hitting Ralph or did it happen by some other means?
(3) You ask, "Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?" Here again the same thing could be applied to Jeremy. No marks on him to suggest that any fight took place between him and Ralph. But you did in fact answer this question yourself didn't you? When you said that there did not have to be any contact between Jeremy and Ralph. Well there again the same rule could be applied to Sheila?
(4) You ask, "Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?" I too would ask the same question. I do not believe (even if this was demonstrated by a model girl as to how it could have been done) that this is what Sheila did? But I must mention what was proposed by some, that as Sheila rested the gun on the ground the kick-back wehen the gun went off it chipped a piece off the rifle butt. Personally I don't adhere to this theory.
(5) You ask, "Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice and the last time with the very last bullet?" Fair point and well worth questioning. But of course equally logical that that is in fact what could have happened?
(6) You ask, "Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?" Again all fair questions and your logic is not at fault. I can't criticise you for your logic. It is what anyone would ask. But then again it could have happened the way police first said? And of course here as well as elsewhere there are many variables, ie the radio reports of police surgeon needed for two bodies etc. So the Sheila shooting may not have happened where she was found? But of course we get into all sorts of senarios if we take that stand. But the radio reports nevertheless are to be questioned in my humble opinion?
(7) You state, "They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.". I agree with you on this one. You would need to tie things in knots in order to arrive at these suggestions. Plus of course as you rightly say, the phone call by Ralph to Bamber puts him squarely in the frame. Whatever theories we have this one thing is definite and is the one thing that connects Bamber to the crime. The phone call. But here again, he may be telling the truth? Unless police are holding back the fact that they had the technology to find out whether such a phone call actually took place we have only got Bamber's word for it. Whether we believe him or not is entirely up to the individual and his/her opinion. We can say no more than that.
( 8 ) Your statement, it could only be Jeremy or Sheila I agree with. But we must also take into consideration Julie Mugford's statement that Jeremy told her that he paid Matthew Macdonald to commit the crime. She a prosecultion witness is introducing a third person. What do we do? Accept her statement as true and just reject those things in her statement that are not true? Or do we believe in the truth of her statement but blame Jeremy for her lies? Here again it is only our opinions as to what we believe?
A well considered, first rate post, Lugg :)
-
Hi Daniel. I agree with you that all what you have stated and is believed by many as to what happened on that fateful day. Although on the surface it looks plain and logical. But in reality it may not have happened like that at all? It's a bit like those games of joining the dots to create a picture. Only we haven't got the numbers to go buy. So in a sense anyone can create any senario that they think looks logical to them.
But I don't think like that. I don't really like senarios, because to me they are all just guesswork in the end. When I first looked at this case 28 years ago I immediately saw that something was wrong with the verdict. I had listened to the case and I quite frankly thought that something didn't run true. I thought to myself how could this man be convicted on such shallow and circumstantial evidence such as this?
Basically all we have as evidence is (1) the silencer "found by the relatives" and kept for a few days and then allegedly used as a paperweight by Taff Jones. In fact I believe that this was the reason he was disciplined and replaced by someone else to lead the investigation? And (2) the evidence of his "ex" girlfriend, who apparently waited until their relationship was ended to go to the police and report him. Even the judge himself threw doubt upon her testimony.
So basically that is all the evidence that we have. None of which in themselves could convict Jeremy Bamber. They were reliant upon each other in order to obtain a conviction. Now all your other questions, although seemingly ver logical are really only one of several conclusions we can come to.
For instance you say, (1) "since when do dead people put silencers back into cupboards?" But this is based upon your and other people's assumption that a silencer was used. There are of course indications that it was used, ie the blood in it and what looks like a the mark of a silencer on one of the wounds on Sheila's neck. But with no actiual fingerprints found on the silencer it is still debatable that it was used?
(2) You ask, "Since when do 8.5 stone women batter 15 stone 6ft 4" physically fit men into unconsciousness with the butt of a rifle?" Well here again it may not have happened the way you assume that it did. There are several possibilities as to how it did and others have aired their opinions on this. But my opinion, for what it's worth is that Ralph had been incapacitated before he was beaten? Question: Was there any blood on either the butt of the rifle where the break took place or the spinter that was chipped off? Also was this chip on the rifle butt created by hitting Ralph or did it happen by some other means?
(3) You ask, "Since when do people who shoot 5 other people in a bloody massacre and leave absolutely NO trace upon themselves?" Here again the same thing could be applied to Jeremy. No marks on him to suggest that any fight took place between him and Ralph. But you did in fact answer this question yourself didn't you? When you said that there did not have to be any contact between Jeremy and Ralph. Well there again the same rule could be applied to Sheila?
(4) You ask, "Since when do young women grow arms long enough to put a rifle under their chin complete with a silencer which would have made the overall length of the rifle too long?" I too would ask the same question. I do not believe (even if this was demonstrated by a model girl as to how it could have been done) that this is what Sheila did? But I must mention what was proposed by some, that as Sheila rested the gun on the ground the kick-back wehen the gun went off it chipped a piece off the rifle butt. Personally I don't adhere to this theory.
(5) You ask, "Since when do suicides shoot themselves twice and the last time with the very last bullet?" Fair point and well worth questioning. But of course equally logical that that is in fact what could have happened?
(6) You ask, "Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?" Again all fair questions and your logic is not at fault. I can't criticise you for your logic. It is what anyone would ask. But then again it could have happened the way police first said? And of course here as well as elsewhere there are many variables, ie the radio reports of police surgeon needed for two bodies etc. So the Sheila shooting may not have happened where she was found? But of course we get into all sorts of senarios if we take that stand. But the radio reports nevertheless are to be questioned in my humble opinion?
(7) You state, "They are not plausible and some border on the absurd- The police, a hit man, MI5, The SAS, drug dealers- anyone but Bamber.". I agree with you on this one. You would need to tie things in knots in order to arrive at these suggestions. Plus of course as you rightly say, the phone call by Ralph to Bamber puts him squarely in the frame. Whatever theories we have this one thing is definite and is the one thing that connects Bamber to the crime. The phone call. But here again, he may be telling the truth? Unless police are holding back the fact that they had the technology to find out whether such a phone call actually took place we have only got Bamber's word for it. Whether we believe him or not is entirely up to the individual and his/her opinion. We can say no more than that.
( 8 ) Your statement, it could only be Jeremy or Sheila I agree with. But we must also take into consideration Julie Mugford's statement that Jeremy told her that he paid Matthew Macdonald to commit the crime. She a prosecultion witness is introducing a third person. What do we do? Accept her statement as true and just reject those things in her statement that are not true? Or do we believe in the truth of her statement but blame Jeremy for her lies? Here again it is only our opinions as to what we believe?
An excellent,personal take on the subject,Lugg.Well done.
-
Tbh I couldn't care less what you think of my "credibility",so jog on!
Even the majority of guilty posters have a great deal of respect for you Tyler, you are certainly a valued member!!
-
Even the majority of guilty posters have a great deal of respect for you Tyler, you are certainly a valued member!!
I WILL SECOND THAT :)
-
april I will TRIPLE that tyler is the tops.
-
I too quadruple that!
-
Hi packagebuilder trust you to go one better than me ;D ;D ;D and you're my top man :-*
-
Aaah,thank you,I feel the same about all of you! :) :-*
-
Aaah,thank you,I feel the same about all of you! :) :-*
Personally Tyler I think that you are a very intelligent and discerning poster on the forum. Furthermore you have a husband who is ready punch anyone's lights out if they insulted you. ;D
-
What is in need Lugg is a return to facts and a common sense approach to this, i hear all the time jeremy a madma, insane , evil, i assume those who say thatknow him and have diagnosed these features, if so please show me your findings , on the forum or on a pm, i used to think a full life term would decay and destroy anyones mind and the will to go on, but with jeremy this has not been the case there is more but we have not found it yet.
-
What is in need Lugg is a return to facts and a common sense approach to this, i hear all the time jeremy a madma, insane , evil, i assume those who say thatknow him and have diagnosed these features, if so please show me your findings , on the forum or on a pm, i used to think a full life term would decay and destroy anyones mind and the will to go on, but with jeremy this has not been the case there is more but we have not found it yet.
Hi Mertol Have you read Jeremy's latest blog. He seems to think they have found plenty at last. Fingers crossed. ;D
-
Hi Mertol Have you read Jeremy's latest blog. He seems to think they have found plenty at last. Fingers crossed. ;D
Indeed it is excellent news,Maggie. 3.5 million pages of documents transferred into pdf with unseen material which Jeremy can't say for the time being,,but it looks as though it's going to prove the injustices of many.
-
Hi Mertol Have you read Jeremy's latest blog. He seems to think they have found plenty at last. Fingers crossed. ;D
hello maggie, i will take a look thanks for the news.
-
Indeed it is excellent news,Maggie. 3.5 million pages of documents transferred into pdf with unseen material which Jeremy can't say for the time being,,but it looks as though it's going to prove the injustices of many.
It certainly looks hopeful lookout. Some stuff will be put on the official site but there"s much which can't be shown. Goodness knows how long the powers that be will take to pontificate on it. years and years probably we must hooe for the best. What a massive job they've done.
-
hello maggie, i will take a look thanks for the news.
Hi Mertol, hope you are well and happy. ;D
-
im fine maggie if NN is around hi NN i will be visiting some Nuns shortly.
-
. . . I reckon was Neville phoning the police because Nevilles' call brought out a car which reached the farmhouse before the call that Jeremy made to them.
I've not read any evidence that a police car reached the farm before Jeremy called the police. Pc West's log indicated Jeremy's call occurred at 3:36am, whereas Malcolm Bonnett's log shows 03:35 as the time when the first police car was sent (not arrived). Note that "Neville" should be "Nevill".
-
I've not read any evidence that a police car reached the farm before Jeremy called the police. Pc West's log indicated Jeremy's call occurred at 3:36am, whereas Malcolm Bonnett's log shows 03:35 as the time when the first police car was sent (not arrived). Note that "Neville" should be "Nevill".
It was when Jeremy was on hold after phoning the police that they eventually told him that a car was on its way after Nevill ( without an e ) had previously rang them.A patrol car had arrived at WHF minutes earlier than the one that Jeremy requested.
It's force of habit that I add an e to Nevill,because I have a cousin of the same name,,,with an e.
-
The first police car arrived over half an hour before the next (not just minutes) because it came from Witham, whereas the next came from Chelmsford (or near Chelmsford). It doesn't follow that the police received two calls. You need the information in the logs to draw that conclusion, and some oddities remain in regard to the early communications. For example, there doesn't seem to be any evidence from the person at Witham who was contacted prior to the car being sent from there.
-
It was when Jeremy was on hold after phoning the police that they eventually told him that a car was on its way after Nevill ( without an e ) had previously rang them.A patrol car had arrived at WHF minutes earlier than the one that Jeremy requested.
It's force of habit that I add an e to Nevill,because I have a cousin of the same name,,,with an e.
Lookout,
I'm unsure if you're making things up or if the information you're being given is just very, very wrong. I think it's important to be careful what you post when there is so much that shows it as false.
-
Reader,IIRC NB's name is spelt with an "E" on his headstone? I will check when I have time just to make sure.
-
The spelling "Nevill" is used in Jeremy's official blog and in the 2002 appeal judgement document.
-
Lookout,
I'm unsure if you're making things up or if the information you're being given is just very, very wrong. I think it's important to be careful what you post when there is so much that shows it as false.
Mat,,,I'll thank you not to tell me what to post. Be careful.? What.? False or not,,this is a forum which debates what is false or the truth depending on which side of the fence you're on. Surely this is what it's all about,,or haven't you noticed.?
I'm not in a habit of making things up either,,,what you might think is wrong,,doesn't give you the right to tell me,,or anyone else to be careful. If you think you can intimidate me,,think again.!
-
Morning lookout
I know you to be one of the most honest posters on this forum and anything you post you believe is true. We all do this on the forum that is what the forum is about debating. ;D
-
Morning lookout
I know you to be one of the most honest posters on this forum and anything you post you believe is true. We all do this on the forum that is what the forum is about debating. ;D
Morning Susan,,it's just an excuse to take a pop at me again. Not to worry,,people like that are to be pitied really. :(
I wouldn't dream of posting anything out of line,,the same as I don't speak out of turn in " real life " either.
I have to thank you again,Susan for believing in me,you're a star. :-* :-* :-*
-
The first police car arrived over half an hour before the next (not just minutes) because it came from Witham, whereas the next came from Chelmsford (or near Chelmsford). It doesn't follow that the police received two calls. You need the information in the logs to draw that conclusion, and some oddities remain in regard to the early communications. For example, there doesn't seem to be any evidence from the person at Witham who was contacted prior to the car being sent from there.
According to AA route planner from Witham it takes 26 minutes. From Chelmsford it takes 38 minutes.
-
The telephone call was put through to Chelmsford from Witham,hence the reason why Jeremy was put on hold,as Witham wasn't manned that night.
Jeremy was stated as having said " Christ,what took you so long ",as he waited for an answer.
Meanwhile,a car was already on its way to WHF.
-
Morning Susan,,it's just an excuse to take a pop at me again. Not to worry,,people like that are to be pitied really. :(
I wouldn't dream of posting anything out of line,,the same as I don't speak out of turn in " real life " either.
I have to thank you again,Susan for believing in me,you're a star. :-* :-* :-*
Good Morning Lookout
Is is possible that you can reply to the following please?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4383.msg180520.html#msg180520
I also specifically provided the following info for you which you have not acknowledged along with my pm. If you no longer with to communicate with me perhaps you could let me know on the forum or via pm. Thank you :)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4372.msg180296.html#msg180296
-
lookout I thought Mat's post to you was a tad condescending and patronizing which really surprised me as he is such a nice guy maybe he misread the meaning of your post. Shall we forgive him ;D
-
It was when Jeremy was on hold after phoning the police that they eventually told him that a car was on its way after Nevill ( without an e ) had previously rang them.A patrol car had arrived at WHF minutes earlier than the one that Jeremy requested.
It's force of habit that I add an e to Nevill,because I have a cousin of the same name,,,with an e.
well if they did turn up before Jeremy call that would prove that nevil had phoned them as well
did you get this from one of Jeremy blogs.
-
Hi nugnug I agree I was always under the understanding two police cars were sent from different stations as if two phone calls had been received by different people.
-
well jeremy dident phone 2 different police stations so that have to mean 2 phone calls from 2 different people
-
nugnug exactly trying to prove it is another matter.
-
though i suppose i does not necasrrly prove nevile called them.
one police could of phoned another police station.
though if that was true the police would have no reason not to admit to it.
-
though i suppose i does not necasrrly prove nevile called them.
one police could of phoned another police station.
though if that was true the police would have no reason not to admit to it.
Hi nugs,,if I can get this right,here goes-------Jeremy had rang Witham police station after Neville had rang him. There was no joy from Witham,so Jeremy was put through to Chelmsford ( after having been agitated waiting for a reply ) via radio link and told police there that his father had rang him, stating what his father told him,and how he'd tried to ring back his father but the line was engaged. During the time that the line was engaged would have been when Neville was phoning the police. Two cars were then sent to WHF,both from different directions, with one arriving minutes before the other.
Whilst phoning the police,Jeremy had said that Sheila went mad at anything and had done this before,,meaning that on occasion,Neville had rang Jeremy for assistance to help calm her down.
It's been said that Jeremy drove slowly to meet the officers at the farmhouse,,but from Goldhanger to WHF would have been pretty dark,and the winding roads would have made it dangerous to go at any speed. I can't imagine at that point that Jeremy would,or could have known how serious the situation really was.
If he'd sped to the farmhouse,that would have been wrong too,so he couldn't win. Anyway,,young men the age he was at the time,,don't exactly rush into anything anyway.
Jeremy had been involved in a car accident in 1984,as one of the officers knew him from then,,so another reason for Jeremy not driving like a bat out of Hell. The officer was PC Saxby,who was in car CA7.
However,,back to Nevilles' call,which was logged,but didn't appear some years later as it had been rolled into Jeremys' call. There were two separate calls made from two people.
Both Jeremy and his father could well have been trying to phone each other and that's the reason for the engaged tone.Nothing sinister going on at all.It just needs some thought of what could have happened.
-
so if nevile made a call to the police that would mean Jeremy was telling the truth.
and if a police car was heading there before jeremys phone call that can only mean that Nevile must of phoned them.
-
so if nevile made a call to the police that would mean Jeremy was telling the truth.
and if a police was heading there before jeremys phone call that can only mean that Nevile must of phoned them.
That's how I see it,nugs.
-
well someone else could of phoned them i suppose but i cant see who that would be.
-
well someone else could of phoned them i suppose but i cant see who that would be.
They could well have done,nugs,,but I see it as only involving the immediate family,,leaving Jeremy out of it. A " domestic " that went horribly wrong.
-
Hi NugNug/Susan
Although I firmly believe in JB's innocence, I remain open-minded about the log/two police cars/NB's 2nd call. Perhaps other posters can help me out here?
I certainly believe NB made the first call to JB. RB states in his wit stat "he (NB) commented that if they were like the police at Witham they were no more good than Dad's Army"...
bottom of 1st stat, top of 2nd:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1651
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1652
The above is part of the reason I believe NB did not call the police initially. Plus he/June were very private people as per CC's book:
Excerpt From Colin Caffell'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".
If NB called JB then I think it must have been prior to entering the kitchen at WHF for what was to be the last time :(
The above also stacks up with JB's claim that NB was not the sort to get the authorities involved.
-
well there must of when the car was sent out.
-
well there must of when the car was sent out.
Possibly but it may have been as a result of JB's initial call :)
-
well if theres a record of when jeremy made the call and when the cars was sent out it should be very simple to work out waether they were sent out before or after the call.
-
Hi N/N you know me I am just a sheep and follow the majority flock especially when we have a woman of the cloth amongst them ;D ;D ;D
-
i think it would be highly suspicious if theirs a record of jeremys call but not a record of when the cars where sent out.
-
lookout I thought Mat's post to you was a tad condescending and patronizing which really surprised me as he is such a nice guy maybe he misread the meaning of your post. Shall we forgive him ;D
Hi Susan
I agree with you Mat is a nice guy and an asset to the forum. You will recall in a previous life I had a word with Mat about referring to you as 'Ingham' but we are now all forum friends :) :) :)
It appears the forum has lost many 'guilty camp' posters: Bridget, Hartley, Vidvic and Jim. Not sure of the reasons or whether they will be returning but they're not currently posting. Can it afford to lose anymore?
I have on a couple of occasions had words with Lookout over what I consider her insensitivity re comments directed at the late SC. We have also engaged in some heated debates and petty name calling but it now appears that I'm to be ignored. Hey ho.
-
well if theres a record of when jeremy made the call and when the cars was sent out it should be very simple to work out waether they were sent out before or after the call.
I think the suggestion is that NB phoned the police after JB but I'm not convinced. I think if a second car was sent it was on the back of JB's first call. It's not an area of the case I'm familiar with so I'll have to look into it.
-
Hi NugNug/Susan
I certainly believe NB made the first call to JB............................
.................If NB called JB then I think it must have been prior to entering the kitchen at WHF for what was to be the last time :(
NaNu, do you mean that NBs call was made from somewhere other than the kitchen OR was made FROM the kitchen, prior to him going (back) upstairs and receiving the first of his injuries before returning to the kitchen.
-
Yes I agree N/N Mat is a super guy and has a very kind nature and is a great asset to the forum hope we don't loose him. We have not lost Bridget she is just having time out but still reads the forum and will be back she cannot stay away from us as how much she tries. Mat behaves so differently now as if he is a different person but the reason he was so horrible to me is because he thought I was Jackie Preece and must admit I ended up in tears nearly every night and I was so thankful to you for coming to my defence as did our dear Bridget and dear Maggie who ended up more of a nervous wreck than me defending me. I am sure you and lookout will be friends you both have strong views and have your own ways of putting it across but I know you both to be kind lovely people. I know lookout does not intentionally mean to be insensitive it is just the way it can come across you would not have anyone on this forum more passionate re: the Jeremy Bamber case and she is a tremendous asset to the forum as are you.
I will go on my knees again and say a little prayer for you I feel a song coming on ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Susan
I agree with you Mat is a nice guy and an asset to the forum. You will recall in a previous life I had a word with Mat about referring to you as 'Ingham' but we are now all forum friends :) :) :)
It appears the forum has lost many 'guilty camp' posters: Bridget, Hartley, Vidvic and Jim. Not sure of the reasons or whether they will be returning but they're not currently posting. Can it afford to lose anymore?
I have on a couple of occasions had words with Lookout over what I consider her insensitivity re comments directed at the late SC. We have also engaged in some heated debates and petty name calling but it now appears that I'm to be ignored. Hey ho.
NaNu, how can we ignore you? Who else is there to locate/bombard us with ;D all those interesting links :)
-
I think the suggestion is that NB phoned the police after JB but I'm not convinced. I think if a second car was sent it was on the back of JB's first call. It's not an area of the case I'm familiar with so I'll have to look into it.
i think it should be easily provable or disprovable.
-
NaNu, do you mean that NBs call was made from somewhere other than the kitchen OR was made FROM the kitchen, prior to him going (back) upstairs and receiving the first of his injuries before returning to the kitchen.
Either.
I get the feeling that some doubt the phone call as they think it was made after NB entered the kitchen for the last time. The patholgist seems to think it would not have been possible for NB to engage in purposeful talk having received the lip and jaw shot which appear to have taken place in the bedroom. Also I think it extremely unlikely that NB would have phoned JB had he have been shot.
-
Nugs,,I believe an audio/video called Timecode Sound Visuals actually records the police logs,giving an account of a 999 call by Neville,lasting from 2,24 to 2.31 minutes,and zooms in to show the recorded logs.
This is one of many unseen that's going to prove Jeremys' innocence.
-
Nugs,,I believe an audio/video called Timecode Sound Visuals actually records the police logs,giving an account of a 999 call by Neville,lasting from 2,24 to 2.31 minutes,and zooms in to show the recorded logs.
This is one of many unseen that's going to prove Jeremys' innocence.
If the audio tapes helped the police to secure a conviction you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have been used in court. Come to think of it, why were they NOT used in court anyway?
-
Nugs,,I believe an audio/video called Timecode Sound Visuals actually records the police logs,giving an account of a 999 call by Neville,lasting from 2,24 to 2.31 minutes,and zooms in to show the recorded logs.
This is one of many unseen that's going to prove Jeremys' innocence.
Hi Lookout
If NB made a 999 call at 2.24 what happened then to the emergency services and why would NB call JB about an hour later?
-
you would think they would of been used in court.
in most murder cases thats the first piece of evidence the prosecution use.
-
Hi Lookout
If NB made a 999 call at 2.24 what happened then to the emergency services and why would NB call JB about an hour later?
maybe he wanted jeremy there as well as the police or the maybe the police were takeing to long.
-
Yes I agree N/N Mat is a super guy and has a very kind nature and is a great asset to the forum hope we don't loose him. We have not lost Bridget she is just having time out but still reads the forum and will be back she cannot stay away from us as how much she tries. Mat behaves so differently now as if he is a different person but the reason he was so horrible to me is because he thought I was Jackie Preece and must admit I ended up in tears nearly every night and I was so thankful to you for coming to my defence as did our dear Bridget. I am sure you and lookout will be friends you both have strong views and have your own ways of putting it across but I know you both to be kind lovely people. I know lookout does not intentionally mean to be insensitive it is just the way it can come across you would not have anyone on this forum more passionate re: the Jeremy Bamber case and she is a tremendous asset to the forum as are you.
I will go on my knees again and say a little prayer for you I feel a song coming on ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susan
Yes I agree with all you've said.
I bet Bridget is observing and will suddenly pounce with her pussy and show us all the errors in our thinking :-[
-
NaNu, how can we ignore you? Who else is there to locate/bombard us with ;D all those interesting links :)
;D ;D ;D I just love copying and pasting ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes I agree N/N Mat is a super guy and has a very kind nature and is a great asset to the forum hope we don't loose him. We have not lost Bridget she is just having time out but still reads the forum and will be back she cannot stay away from us as how much she tries. Mat behaves so differently now as if he is a different person but the reason he was so horrible to me is because he thought I was Jackie Preece and must admit I ended up in tears nearly every night and I was so thankful to you for coming to my defence as did our dear Bridget and dear Maggie who ended up more of a nervous wreck than me defending me. I am sure you and lookout will be friends you both have strong views and have your own ways of putting it across but I know you both to be kind lovely people. I know lookout does not intentionally mean to be insensitive it is just the way it can come across you would not have anyone on this forum more passionate re: the Jeremy Bamber case and she is a tremendous asset to the forum as are you.
I will go on my knees again and say a little prayer for you I feel a song coming on ;D ;D ;D ;D
Don't go too far on your knees, Susan. They become very painful when the skin is scraped off.
-
Hi Lookout
If NB made a 999 call at 2.24 what happened then to the emergency services and why would NB call JB about an hour later?
That 2.24 was the start of the call in minutes,not the time of the morning. It's an audio tape-recording starting from zero to 14 minutes,,and somewhere,there are 5 more of these tapes.
-
N/N Bridget will be making notes and I think I will be in hot water when she comes back/may go on a Retreat do you often take the vow of silence. ;D ;D ;D
-
april I have spent so much of my young life on my knees they are as tough as old boots ;D ;D ;D
-
april I have spent so much of my young life on my knees they are as tough as old boots ;D ;D ;D
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe ;D
-
april the main problem of going on my knees now is getting up again ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That 2.24 was the start of the call in minutes,not the time of the morning. It's an audio tape-recording starting from zero to 14 minutes,,and somewhere,there are 5 more of these tapes.
Hi Lookout
Thank you. I see what you mean I misunderstood. The telephone calls are an area of the case that I'm not that familiar with so I think I'll spend some time getting to grips with it.
-
N/N Bridget will be making notes and I think I will be in hot water when she comes back/may go on a Retreat do you often take the vow of silence. ;D ;D ;D
What do you think judging by the lengths of my posts? ;D ;D ;D I think I feel a first coming on though if Ms B pounces with her pussy and notes :)
-
N/N after Bridget has dealt with you you may be glad to take a vow of silence ;D ;D ;D
-
According to AA route planner from Witham it takes 26 minutes. From Chelmsford it takes 38 minutes.
It would take much less time from Witham if driven at high speed by an officer who knew the area well.
The telephone call was put through to Chelmsford from Witham, hence the reason why Jeremy was put on hold, as Witham wasn't manned that night.
What evidence is there for that? It seems to differ from Pc West's version of events. Pc West said he was able to contact Witham, and the first officers at the scene were based at Witham, weren't they?
I think if a second car was sent it was on the back of JB's first call.
Bonnett's log shows that a second car (CA05) was sent. JB made only one call to the police and one call to JM. He tried other calls without success.
I believe an audio/video called Timecode Sound Visuals actually records the police logs, giving an account of a 999 call by Nevill, lasting from 2,24 to 2.31 minutes,and zooms in to show the recorded logs.
Malcolm Bonnett's log of the call he received shows it as not being a 999 call, but a call from Pc West, who passed on what he had been told by Nevill. It is the wording of that log that suggests the information did come from Nevill. It refers to Sheila using the word "daughter".
That 2.24 was the start of the call in minutes, not the time of the morning. It's an audio tape-recording starting from zero to 14 minutes, and somewhere, there are 5 more of these tapes.
A call duration wouldn't be referenced by both 2.24 and 2.31; the duration would be known exactly.
-
From 2 minutes 24 seconds to 2 minutes 31 seconds,was the duration of the 999 call.
-
Thanks Susan/ NN.. Not us to nice things being said about me. :-[ :-[ :-*
-
From 2 minutes 24 seconds to 2 minutes 31 seconds, was the duration of the 999 call.
How come? If a call is recorded, the exact length is known.
-
It would take much less time from Witham if driven at high speed by an officer who knew the area well.
I was just pointing out the difference in distances by time thus indicating that Chelmsford is much further away. Also we must question whether any of the cars were travelling under a blue light or not?
-
It's reasonable to assume that the police drivers went as fast as they could safely drive. Police evidence states that the car that arrived from Witham was being driven much faster than Jeremy's car when Jeremy was overtaken.
-
It's reasonable to assume that the police drivers went as fast as they could safely drive. Police evidence states that the car that arrived from Witham was being driven much faster than Jeremy's car when Jeremy was overtaken.
If they were travelling very fast, then this questions their ability to calculate how fast Jeremy was going? Indeed he may even have pulled over to let the police car pass him, as do most people? I've always questioned that evidence as just "guess work" myself.
-
It's reasonable to assume that the police drivers went as fast as they could safely drive. Police evidence states that the car that arrived from Witham was being driven much faster than Jeremy's car when Jeremy was overtaken.
As I'd already pointed out,,in 1984,Jeremy had already met Saxby due to an accident in which Jeremy was involved in,,so to have driven like a bat out of Hell wouldn't have been the done thing------again.
I don't have any information on the car accident,,but my guess is that Jeremy may have been speeding.
-
If they were travelling very fast, then this questions their ability to calculate how fast Jeremy was going? Indeed he may even have pulled over to let the police car pass him, as do most people? I've always questioned that evidence as just "guess work" myself.
I have also questioned the relevance of how fast Jeremy Bamber may have been driving. There are multiple reasons why he may have been driving slowly, the assumption that he should have driven like a bat out of hell to prove his concern is nonsensical as people in shock or fear tend to drive slowly due to natural self protection.
I agree Lugg, if the police were driving as fast as they usually do in such circumstances they wouldn't have the faintest clue what speed he was going.
If he was driving very fast towards the airport now that would have been suspicious. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie,,,I think he was keeping his nose clean in view of his accident the previous year. He may have got points on his licence from whatever happened. So he wouldn't have wanted to have been seen driving recklessly again---------in the dark--------along a windy road.
-
Maggie,,,I think he was keeping his nose clean in view of his accident the previous year. He may have got points on his licence from whatever happened. So he wouldn't have wanted to have been seen driving recklessly again---------in the dark--------along a windy road.
There's loads of reasons imo lookout. A combination of a few probably, quite likely one of them being your suggestion.
I have been in a situation of driving five miles along country roads at 1am to get to someone very close to me in a dangerous situation and the police involved.
My thoughts were....... must drive slowly, I want to get there in one piece.
I mustn't get stopped by the police for speeding that will complicate everything
I mustn't have an accident as I need to get there as quickly as possible as safely as possible.
It also has the effect almost like a car accident when everything slows down and a calmness comes over you.
Adrenaline fuelled speeding doesn't come into it. imo
However this is just my experience therefore, also only a possibility imo.
-
There's loads of reasons imo lookout. A combination of a few probably, quite likely one of them being your suggestion.
I have been in a situation of driving five miles along country roads at 1am to get to someone very close to me in a dangerous situation and the police involved.
My thoughts were....... must drive slowly, I want to get there in one piece.
I mustn't get stopped by the police for speeding that will complicate everything
I mustn't have an accident as I need to get there as quickly as possible as safely as possible.
It also has the effect almost like a car accident when everything slows down and a calmness comes over you.
Adrenaline fuelled speeding doesn't come into it. imo
However this is just my experience therefore, also only a possibility imo.
Maggie,,there'd have been a thousand and one things going through his head.Firstly,,you've got to focus yourself after been wakened at an unearthly hour,,as he must have been dead beat after working 17 hours on the farm gathering in rape. Neville also would have been very tired that night too.
Then whilst driving,,you have to make sure that your mind/thoughts don't take over your driving,,as it's easy to lose concentration as you're aware. I thought it was dreadful that Jeremy wasn't given a lift.It would have been all the same if he'd had more " than a beer ",,what then.? A drink driving ban.?
I thought it was customary for the police to collect a person to take to the scene of a crime,,in case he/she was a suspect. After all,,he was the only one of the family who was not in the family home.
Did he by any chance have to drive himself back after the trauma.?
I think it was a bad move asking him to drive himself to the farmhouse,,because if the car was examined afterwards,,which it was,,how on earth would the police know if the car had been used prior to the murders.?
-
also it 330 am i could of been a bit tired.
-
If they were travelling very fast, then this questions their ability to calculate how fast Jeremy was going?
Indeed, but the police didn't calculate how fast Jeremy was going. The police evidence was that Jeremy was going considerably slower than they were (or words to that effect). They didn't even estimate their own speed.
. . . to have driven like a bat out of Hell wouldn't have been the done thing------again.
You seem to have misunderstood what I posted. I suggested the police went a lot faster than the speed assumed by a website. I assumed that Jeremy was travelling at a considerably lower speed, but not dawdling. I don't know the exact nature of Jeremy's car accident, but his car was a write-off.