Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on June 23, 2013, 11:10:PM
-
This evidence was never relied on during the trial - Sheila spoke to actor on telephone just before she went on a shooting spree, claiming to him that she was hearing voices from god, telling her to do things...
-
He also called his former girlfriend, a manic depressive, who loved her two kids, and hesaid that he ciould not imagine what took place at the farmhouse when she shot dead everyone and then killed herself, but if someone had been threatening to take her kids away from her, that might havebeen thetrigger that started it all off (or words to thgat effect) - News of the World, 11th August 1985...
-
He also called his former girlfriend, a manic depressive, who loved her two kids, and hesaid that he ciould not imagine what took place at the farmhouse when she shot dead everyone and then killed herself, but if someone had been threatening to take her kids away from her, that might havebeen thetrigger that started it all off (or words to thgat effect) - News of the World, 11th August 1985...
Hi Mike I have read that June used to tell Sheila she was an unfit mother. If things like that were said that night coupled with talk of others looking after her children at least part of the time it could have been the last straw in Sheila's head. Especially as she had spoken about killing her mother and herself for a long time?
-
There is no doubt who killed the family that night. It's not a question of Jeremy having used Sheilas' illness as an excuse. Nobody who's right in the head would have committed that atrocity,,and I don't see Jeremy as having been part of it at all. He wasn't capable of carrying such a thing out,besides the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever,either forensic or otherwise.
I know what paranoid schizophrenics can do,because one lives in the next road to me.Her mother and daughter have had to move out of the family home for fear of their lives.
-
There is no doubt who killed the family that night. It's not a question of Jeremy having used Sheilas' illness as an excuse. Nobody who's right in the head would have committed that atrocity,,and I don't see Jeremy as having been part of it at all. He wasn't capable of carrying such a thing out,besides the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever,either forensic or otherwise.
I know what paranoid schizophrenics can do,because one lives in the next road to me.Her mother and daughter have had to move out of the family home for fear of their lives.
Lookout, I have suggested that it would be interesting to construct lists of KNOWN pointers to why Jeremy/Sheila would have committed this crime. There are numerous KNOWN facts that could be placed under Sheila's name. The only "facts" which could be placed under Jeremy's name have been pulled out of the ether and made to fit.
-
Lookout, I have suggested that it would be interesting to construct lists of KNOWN pointers to why Jeremy/Sheila would have committed this crime. There are numerous KNOWN facts that could be placed under Sheila's name. The only "facts" which could be placed under Jeremy's name have been pulled out of the ether and made to fit.
That is very true April, it would be an interesting exercise. Would you like to start it? :) :)
-
Lookout, I have suggested that it would be interesting to construct lists of KNOWN pointers to why Jeremy/Sheila would have committed this crime. There are numerous KNOWN facts that could be placed under Sheila's name. The only "facts" which could be placed under Jeremy's name have been pulled out of the ether and made to fit.
-
Lookout, I have suggested that it would be interesting to construct lists of KNOWN pointers to why Jeremy/Sheila would have committed this crime. There are numerous KNOWN facts that could be placed under Sheila's name. The only "facts" which could be placed under Jeremy's name have been pulled out of the ether and made to fit.
A good idea,April,,,though I'd really struggle with Jeremy.
-
For all those naive enough to believe the police don't use underhanded and dirty tactics to cover their own arses - ask the Lawrence family!!
-
For all those naive enough to believe the police don't use underhanded and dirty tactics to cover their own arses - ask the Lawrence family!!
Caroline,,I've just been reading about that. I wonder if it'll come to anything.? Don't hold your breath.!
It's an absolute disgrace that the Met police plotted a smear campaign against the family.Now they've got to prove that they didn't." Pigs might fly.!
-
For all those naive enough to believe the police don't use underhanded and dirty tactics to cover their own arses - ask the Lawrence family!!
We have seen two recent cases, Hillsborough and now again the Stephen Lawrence case. These two appalling examples of controlling and power mad police behaviour is surely enough to convince we do not live in a fair and open society. Personally,I don't trust any of them an inch it's a very bad state of affairs imo, once I used to really believe we lived in a special country and it's sad to realise we are at least as bad as any other. Maybe until the emergence of the digital world we were just better at covering it up.
-
I've just posted my sixpenn'orth on the Yahoo news thread for ALL to see. So I can only hope that some of the retired officers of the Bamber case are looking in.
I've had one positive reply.!
-
I've just posted my sixpenn'orth on the Yahoo news thread for ALL to see. So I can only hope that some of the retired officers of the Bamber case are looking in.
I've had one positive reply.!
Dishing dirt seems to be a favourite past-time in order to try and get a conviction.It was done in Jeremys' case. Because the police had nothing to go on,,no evidence,forensic or otherwise,,they decided to resurrect past exploits which bore no relevence to the crime,,such as the friendship of a homosexual,,conversations " allegedly " said to certain members of family and friends,,without witnesses to back the conversations up.
-
Dishing dirt seems to be a favourite past-time in order to try and get a conviction.It was done in Jeremys' case. Because the police had nothing to go on,,no evidence,forensic or otherwise,,they decided to resurrect past exploits which bore no relevence to the crime,,such as the friendship of a homosexual,,conversations " allegedly " said to certain members of family and friends,,without witnesses to back the conversations up.
Why state this so brazenly when it is simply not true.
I appreciate that different posters on here have differing opinions on the case and are more or less inclined towards JBs guilt on differing levels. However, to state that the police had no evidence whatsoever, is just plain ridiculous.
I don't intend to patronise but are u aware of circumstantial evidence? Equally however much you or others may attempt to discredit Julie Mugford and the silencer, it is still evidence used by the police and prosecution.
-
Two silencers, not one, were present at the scene on the morning of the shootings, one parker hale model MM1, and another identical parker hale silencer, model MM1. One which was normally fitted to the barrel of Anthony Pargeters Bruno.22 bolt action rifle, and the other normally fitted to the barrel of the so called Bamber owned .22 semi-automatic rifle. Yet, we find that police who entered the farm house that morning say nothing at all about finding the Pargeter rifle or the state it was found in (more later), however, they find the Bamber rifle minus its silencer upstairs in the main bedroom. Then what supposedly happens is that police do not suspect that a silencer was used in the shootings, so after three days of examining the farm house, police hand keys over to the relatives on evening of 9th August 1985. On the following day (10th) relatives find one of the silencers in a gun cupboard in the downstairs office. This silencer is taken to the home of Ann Eaton where it is kept until evening of 12th August 1985, at which stage Peter Eaton (gun dealor) hands it over to DS 'Stan' Jones, and so on, and so forth...
Relatives remove all the weapons from the scene, including emptying the aforementioned gun cupboard of everything firearms related, including guns, ammunitions, and weapon accessories...
Neither the police, the relatives who carried out the search on 10th August 1985, refer to the presence of Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle being found and present in that very same gun cupboard - but there it was, photographed by the police inside that very same gun cupboard on morning of 7th August 1985, minus its silencer on the end of its barrel...
Two .22 rifles then, found at the scene, one upstairs at the bedroom window leaning against the window, or on Sheila's body, and the other downstairs in the gun cupboard, both with the thread on the end of their barrels exposed, where at some stage a silencer belonging to either rifle was once fitted - and then along come the relatives and they find a silencer in the same gun cupboard that Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle was also situated, so not only does David Boutflour suddenly come to the conclusion at the behest of his father Robert Woodwis Boutflour that this particular silencer was probably used in the shootings and must be given to the police, but Ann Eaton, her husband Peter, DS 'Stan' Jones, DI Cook, and PI Miller, suddenly begin to treat it as the parker hale silencer belonging and owned by the Bambers which fitted the .22 semi-automatic rifle found upstairs in the bedroom. In order to promote this feature, every effort is made to try and disguise the presence of Anthonys .22 bolt action rifle (minus its own parker hale silencer) in the very same gun cupboard in the downstairs office on the morning of the shootings. How anyone could possibly be able to tell which parker hale silencer belonged to whom, or to which rifle, beggars belief - but suddenly it is being declared from the roof tops that the Bamber owned parker hale silencer has been found in the gun cupboard, where Anthony Pargeters unsilenced .22 rifle was also found...
It is simply not good enough, to declare from day 1 of the find of this silencer that it was the Bamber owned parker hale silencer, and to assume that blood and paint found upon it, or within it, proves or establishes that it was fitted to the thread of the Bamber owned .22 semi-automatic rifle at the time of the shootings, since it could very well have been fitted to the thread of the Pargeter .22 bolt action rifles barrel when it became contaminated - it was not 100% certain that it could have been fitted to the barrel of either rifle, it might not have been fitted at all to one rifle (described) or the other, at best only a 50 / 50 chance it might have been fitted to the barrel of one, or the other weapon...
Once you start tampering with evidence to try and hide or conceal the presence of the Pargeter rifle and its parker hale silencer from even being present at the scene at the time of the shootings, alarm bells start ringing, the sirens start going off, and it makes it more likely that any claim that this blood / paint contaminated parker hale silencer was / is the Bamber owned one, and that it was fitted to the barrel of the Bamber rifle during the shootings, less likely...
Why have so many prosecution witnesses gone out of their way to try and cover up for the fact that Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle was found in the gun cupboard without its parker hale silencer fitted to its barrel?
I will have a great deal more to say on this soon...
-
Morning petey
The majority of posters on this forum believe Jeremy Bamber to be innocent of the murders at WHF. What makes us so sceptical is if Julie Mugford knew that it was Jeremy's intention to murder his entire family what kind of person does that make her that she lived with it before and after the murders and did nothing about it. Would you class her as a credible witness I would not. Secondly the silencer was not discovered by the police but family members and taken away by one of them and passed from pillar to post before handing to EP. I am also of the belief that circumstantial evidence presented at trial was very "selective" and IMO the trial was very one sided. This is of course my opinion which I am entitled to as you are entitled to yours and I will always read your posts and try to be respectful to you in my reply.
-
Morning petey
The majority of posters on this forum believe Jeremy Bamber to be innocent of the murders at WHF. What makes us so sceptical is if Julie Mugford knew that it was Jeremy's intention to murder his entire family what kind of person does that make her that she lived with it before and after the murders and did nothing about it. Would you class her as a credible witness I would not. Secondly the silencer was not discovered by the police but family members and taken away by one of them and passed from pillar to post before handing to EP. I am also of the belief that circumstantial evidence presented at trial was very "selective" and IMO the trial was very one sided. This is of course my opinion which I am entitled to as you are entitled to yours and I will always read your posts and try to be respectful to you in my reply.
With respect, if u read my post that is not the point I was making. Of course, how much credibility and strength you attach to the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's witness statements is down to an individuals take on the case.
However, surely you must agree that to brazenly state categorically that the police had NO evidence and NOTHING to go on is just plain ridiculous and diminishes the effect of valuable debate. Why harm the valuable arena this forum provides for case debate by posting such absolute rubbish!
-
With respect, if u read my post that is not the point I was making. Of course, how much credibility and strength you attach to the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's witness statements is down to an individuals take on the case.
However, surely you must agree that to brazenly state categorically that the police had NO evidence and NOTHING to go on is just plain ridiculous and diminishes the effect of valuable debate. Why harm the valuable arena this forum provides for case debate by posting such absolute rubbish!
Thankyou for sharing those thoughts with us, Petey.
-
Thankyou for sharing those thoughts with us, Petey.
If u disagree with anything I have posted then pm me and I will explain in greater detail.
-
Hello petey how lookout expresses herself is really upto her and I am not on this forum to judge her or anyone else. I think knowing her as I do I could never ever think of her as brazen she says it as she thinks and many think like her but maybe keep it to themselves.
-
Hello petey how lookout expresses herself is really upto her and I am not on this forum to judge her or anyone else. I think knowing her as I do I could never ever think of her as brazen she says it as she thinks and many think like her but maybe keep it to themselves.
Susan dear, HELLO :) I rather think that it was in a response to one of YOUR posts that the words "brazenly stated" were included.
-
Hello petey how lookout expresses herself is really upto her and I am not on this forum to judge her or anyone else. I think knowing her as I do I could never ever think of her as brazen she says it as she thinks and many think like her but maybe keep it to themselves.
Do u agree with what she posted then?!
Everybody on this forum is an Internet persona to me so I'm certainly not here to judge people. However when people post such rubbish which I believe to be detrimental to either jb's cause or healthy debate on this forum I have commented.
It's one thing debating the merits and strengths of various pieces of evidence and witness statements. However, irrespective of whether posters believe these to be worthless or not credible, it has to be accepted that they are evidence which was successfully used by the prosecution at trial. The fact that some people don't think they are acceptable / valid / credible evidence doesn't mean that they are not evidence and don't exist!
-
Hello april must have missed that was not aware I am brazen certainly never been called that before. I am rather busy today and on and off the forum and obviously reading things wrong. Thank you for pointing that out to me I appreciate that.
-
petey the fact it has just been pointed out to me that my post was brazenly stated according to you I have no wish to debate with a person lacking in people skills and manners so you are now on ignore.
-
If u disagree with anything I have posted then pm me and I will explain in greater detail.
Petey, it's not a question of whether I agree or DISagree with what you've posted. We debate on different levels. Wheras I'm inclined to suggest that something may have been said/have occured, and say that my views are my opinion, you as a clinician would be more inclined simply to say that I was wrong, end of story. It IS only my opinion that the proscecution used to advantage what little was available at the time as it is also only my opinion that what they used then wouldn't bring about the same results or even be allowed today.
-
petey the fact it has just been pointed out to me that my post was brazenly stated according to you I have no wish to debate with a person lacking in people skills and manners so you are now on ignore.
Given that my post quoted lookout's post and highlighted words I believe she erroneously used, when I questioned her audacity to make such a brazen statement, then I'm not too sure why you suddenly feel the aggrieved party.
By all means ignore me if you wish. I shall try not to lose too much sleep over ur damning verdict.
-
Petey, it's not a question of whether I agree or DISagree with what you've posted. We debate on different levels. Wheras I'm inclined to suggest that something may have been said/have occured, and say that my views are my opinion, you as a clinician would be more inclined simply to say that I was wrong, end of story. It IS only my opinion that the proscecution used to advantage what little was available at the time as it is also only my opinion that what they used then wouldn't bring about the same results or even be allowed today.
I have never disagreed with people having the right to hold and express an opinion and have certainly never disagreed that the prosecution maximised their chances of success using evidence which has later been shown to be less credible than previously thought and at the very least tainted.
However, when people post erroneous statements that the police had absolutely no evidence and nothing to go on, I will correct them as this does jb and healthy debate on this forum, no favours at all.
-
petey I feel I owe you an apology as it would appear some confusion has occurred over the statement to lookout over the word" brazenly " I was quite offended when it was said on the forum it was directed at me as I am a lot of things but brazen is not one of them quite the opposite actually. So I will stand up and be counted and hold my hands high and say "so sorry" for implying you were bad mannered. You will be so pleased to know I am not putting you on "ignore" ;D ;D ;D and you should sleep easy tonight ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Goodness me,,I gave an opinion,my opinion. I don't expect to be met with the fact that I'm brazen as well.! Though I must have obviously hit a nerve over a year ago when I joined the forum,as petey made a beeline for each post I posted,,and it's carried on that way since.!
Do carry on nit-picking,petey if it makes you feel better.! It bothers me not. It would appear that the only time you show yourself,,is to pass some derogatory remark about me.
-
Hello lookout think I have upset petey because I said he had no people skills and was bad mannered as I thought I was the brazen one. I have said sorry but think he is ignoring me. I do hope he can forgive me for being so rude to him :(
-
Hello lookout think I have upset petey because I said he had no people skills and was bad mannered as I thought I was the brazen one. I have said sorry but think he is ignoring me. I do hope he can forgive me for being so rude to him :(
Hi Susan,,I'm afraid I haven't got any time for those who can't display people skills.It's by no means clever to speak down to anyone,least of all insult them into the bargain. I find it somewhat weak.
I only do apologies when I'm in the wrong,,but, however, I'd certainly apologise to everyone else for peteys' behaviour,even though it's predictable when aimed at myself,as the rest of the forum has to see it,and it's never pleasant. But hey-ho,,onwards and upwards.
-
I wonder if Sheila did use her big toe on the trigger of the rifle,,because of the chunk of toe-nail that was found. I can't think of any other way that a toe-nail injury could have happened,,certainly not without ripping the whole nail off anyway.
-
I wonder if Sheila did use her big toe on the trigger of the rifle,,because of the chunk of toe-nail that was found. I can't think of any other way that a toe-nail injury could have happened,,certainly not without ripping the whole nail off anyway.
Lookout hello, that's a strong possibility but if she was walking around without her shoes on, it's equally possible that she flicked the edge of her nail against something, like a child's toy perhaps. I once did, and part of the nail chipped away. Actually, it was quite lucky for me because the nail was ingrown and difficult to cut.
-
Lookout hello, that's a strong possibility but if she was walking around without her shoes on, it's equally possible that she flicked the edge of her nail against something, like a child's toy perhaps. I once did, and part of the nail chipped away. Actually, it was quite lucky for me because the nail was ingrown and difficult to cut.
Hi April,,the toe-nail was quite jagged ( on the actual toe itself ) in which the injury looked as if it had been done with something on top of the nail,as opposed to her having tripped, whereby it would have cut across by catching the side of the nail.
I can picture it in my mind,,but it's hard to explain.
The toe-nails are usually kept low-cut anyway,in order not to tear-off or ingrow. The injury to Sheila was directly on top of her nail,,and it would have bled too.
-
Sorry but who on earth is Don Hawkins?
-
Sorry but who on earth is Don Hawkins?
Caroline, from what I can make out he was a "bits" actor. We're not talking Guilgud or Brannagh. No idea how she got to know him.
-
Sorry but who on earth is Don Hawkins?
An actor,,Caroline,though I don't know anything about him. I did mean to google it,but forgot.
-
Caroline, from what I can make out he was a "bits" actor. We're not talking Guilgud or Brannagh. No idea how she got to know him.
So not so much 'red carpet' more 'soggy mat'?? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So not so much 'red carpet' more 'soggy mat'?? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Eloquently put, Caroline :D
-
So not so much 'red carpet' more 'soggy mat'?? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Love the description. ;D
-
He was in Corrie apparently - Trevor Ogden. He don't look familiar to me!!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Meb213t5h-s
You can see him briefly in this episode (6.45) - don't blink though!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Have bumped this thread! A younger Don Hawkins,does anyone else think he looks familiar,or is it just me being suspicious? He was a professional musician working all over Europe before he became an Actor.
-
Yes,he does look familiar,tyler. This is maybe why Sheila rang him,with a similar picture in her mind from years prior. The poor girl was always living in hope,,while balancing precariously on a knife-edge.
-
Have bumped this thread as I dont feel that Mr Hawkins claim got the attention that it deseved. I had read the article wrongly and hadn't realised that Mr Hawkins had referred to SHEILA as his ex girlfriend. I wonder if anyone else has ever interviewed this guy? I feel it was significant that Sheila is alleged to have rang him on the night of the murders claiming that she could hear voices etc,surely a sign of an impending psychotic episode? Or indeed in the midst of one? Mr Hawkins certainly felt that Sheila was capable of the murders if she had felt that her relationship with her sons was being threatened. It is interesting that this was also stated by one of Sheila's psychiatrists. Two people that would have known Sheila very well. Maybe Jackie,you could track this guy down for more info? Im not assertive enough lol.Lovely to see you reposting on here btw!
-
. Maybe Jackie,you could track this guy down for more info?
??? :-\
-
Thanks for that tyler.I'd forgotten about it,but it is significant,I agree.
If Sheila rang him,then his number would have been on the telephone bill,as it registered the recipients number. I wonder what time Sheila rang him.
-
and hes particlar reason to lie about that well that we know of anyway.
-
No reason that I can see,nugs.
-
mind you some people with that ilsness hear voices every day so it might not mean much that she was hearing them that night.
by the way the reason im calling it that illness is i cant spell it.
-
Carry on as you are,nugs,sod the spelling.Illness will do fine.
-
Does kind of dispel the myth that Sheila had gone inward on herself and was not communicating with anyone that night though doesn't it?
-
She was deep in thought,tyler. No knockout pills,a sparse amount of Haldol in her system,a smoke or two of cannabis and she'd have been ready for anything.
-
HaHaHa nugnug I am exactly like you I cannot spell the words you are referring to with trying a few times. Who Cares ;D
-
Does kind of dispel the myth that Sheila had gone inward on herself and was not communicating with anyone that night though doesn't it?
I can't help but wonder why peopel run with claims they don't have any evidence to believe are true.
There has been no evidence put forth regarding Don hawkins claiming Sheila said anything to him let alone what she supposedly said and when.
The source of this claim is mike and he has demonstrated he will make up anything.
The first thing to do is to have him post evidence to prove Hawkins claims she spoke to him and precisely what he claims she said and when. Absent such there is nothing to even discuss. There is no need to even evaluate Hawkin's credibility with respect to the claim unless we see evidence that he actually did claim such and unless we see specifics of when she supposedly spoke to him and what she supposedly said it is meaningless even if she did.
Jeremy supporters say that shortly before the murders she spoke about her kids being evil. That was 2 years before the murders. Jeremy suppoerts seme to have a different deifnition of shortly before the murders than others.
-
Your claims are untrue too unless you were at the scene of the crime.
At least we don't expect anyone to always agree with our posts,but God help anyone who doesn't agree with yours,you To55er !
-
I can't help but wonder why peopel run with claims they don't have any evidence to believe are true.
There has been no evidence put forth regarding Don hawkins claiming Sheila said anything to him let alone what she supposedly said and when.
The source of this claim is mike and he has demonstrated he will make up anything.
The first thing to do is to have him post evidence to prove Hawkins claims she spoke to him and precisely what he claims she said and when. Absent such there is nothing to even discuss. There is no need to even evaluate Hawkin's credibility with respect to the claim unless we see evidence that he actually did claim such and unless we see specifics of when she supposedly spoke to him and what she supposedly said it is meaningless even if she did.
Jeremy supporters say that shortly before the murders she spoke about her kids being evil. That was 2 years before the murders. Jeremy suppoerts seme to have a different deifnition of shortly before the murders than others.
Why do you constantly state things as fact when they are not! The source was NOT Mike,it was a News of the World article. I have previously seen it many times online,although I canot seem to find it now,maybe because the newspaper is now defunct?
-
Thanks Tyler I will seek him out for sure
It would be good to get something in the press about this if he will talk
It's nice to be back on the forum to set the record straight on a lot of rubbish x
-
Why do you constantly state things as fact when they are not! The source was NOT Mike,it was a News of the World article. I have previously seen it many times online,although I canot seem to find it now,maybe because the newspaper is now defunct?
A very sad desperate delusional man
-
Why do you constantly state things as fact when they are not! The source was NOT Mike,it was a News of the World article. I have previously seen it many times online,although I canot seem to find it now,maybe because the newspaper is now defunct?
A newspaper that said what? Did it print verbatim what she supposedly said to him and when it was supposedly said? There is no need to even evaluate whether Hawkins was telling the truth if there were no quotes of any substance.
If you don't have proof he said something and moreove rhave proof of what he claimed ther eis nothign to evne debate- that is a fact for you.
-
A newspaper that said what? Did it print verbatim what she supposedly said to him and when it was supposedly said? There is no need to even evaluate whether Hawkins was telling the truth if there were no quotes of any substance.
If you don't have proof he said something and moreove rhave proof of what he claimed ther eis nothign to evne debate- that is a fact for you.
Mike has stated at the beginning of the thread what Sheila was alleged to have said to Mr Hawkins,and it is the same words used from the article that I had previously read. Its hardly my fault that the newspaper is now defunct and no longer has a website from which I can copy and paste the article as proof,but if you dont want to take my word for it,then you could always contact The Sun,they may have some kind of archive from which they could retrieve it from for you.
-
I think that it's become creepy that people are now being traced to be questioned by Jackie Preece!!! This forum is becoming worrying the way that people off the forum are spoken about as is they have to answer questions or that an intrusion on their person life in 2014 is justified because of something they (apparently) said to a newspaper years ago.
-
Mike has stated at the beginning of the thread what Sheila was alleged to have said to Mr Hawkins,and it is the same words used from the article that I had previously read. Its hardly my fault that the newspaper is now defunct and no longer has a website from which I can copy and paste the article as proof,but if you dont want to take my word for it,then you could always contact The Sun,they may have some kind of archive from which they could retrieve it from for you.
i think a lot of people remember reading that artical.
-
I don't remember reading it, but if Tyler says she has I believe it exists.
-
mind you some people that ilsness hear voices every day so it might not mean much that she was hearing them that night.
by the way the reason im calling it that illness is i cant spell it.
Never mind the spelling, we understand what you say, that is what counts. :)
Tyler, why does this guy look familiar?
-
Does kind of dispel the myth that Sheila had gone inward on herself and was not communicating with anyone that night though doesn't it?
I wonder if she called Colin too. He writes something in his book that made me wonder.
-
Hello Mat I agree if tyler says she has read it she will have done she is a great honest girl and very well read.
-
Never mind the spelling, we understand what you say, that is what counts. :)
Tyler, why does this guy look familiar?
Hi Alias,he was the original actor that played the son of Stan and Hilda Ogden in Coronation Street.
-
Mike has stated at the beginning of the thread what Sheila was alleged to have said to Mr Hawkins,and it is the same words used from the article that I had previously read. Its hardly my fault that the newspaper is now defunct and no longer has a website from which I can copy and paste the article as proof,but if you dont want to take my word for it,then you could always contact The Sun,they may have some kind of archive from which they could retrieve it from for you.
I did a search for Sheila telling him she was, "hearing voices from god, telling her to do things" but came up empty. This is exactly what he claimed or you are not sure? Equally as imprtant when did she supposedly tell him this and what was their relationship? When people are dead it is easy for someone seeking fame to come out of the woodwork claiming to know the person and to have something relevant to say.
-
.......................................... When people are dead it is easy for someone seeking fame to come out of the woodwork claiming to know the person and to have something relevant to say.
Hmm. That's dodgy because it also infers that with equal ease, what's said, post death, can be disregarded, even when/if it's the truth, if it fails to suit someone else's purpose.
-
I did a search for Sheila telling him she was, "hearing voices from god, telling her to do things" but came up empty. This is exactly what he claimed or you are not sure? Equally as imprtant when did she supposedly tell him this and what was their relationship? When people are dead it is easy for someone seeking fame to come out of the woodwork claiming to know the person and to have something relevant to say.
well thats true but that allso applys to people who said things about jeremy.
-
I wonder if she called Colin too. He writes something in his book that made me wonder.
That made me wonder too. The number,again,would have been on the billing,as well as the time.
-
well it would be an easy cliam to prove or disprove wich is why im surprised nobody's done it before.
-
well it would be an easy cliam to prove or disprove wich is why im surprised nobody's done it before.
The thing is,if the subject hadn't come up ( the call was made on the night of the murders ) then nobody would have known about it anyway,although someone obviously knew that Sheila had phoned him. However,it's something that could very well have been overlooked and numbers on a telephone bill would mean nothing unless this guys' number was known.
It could possibly have been in Sheilas' diary ? Which we know nothing about.
-
Hmm. That's dodgy because it also infers that with equal ease, what's said, post death, can be disregarded, even when/if it's the truth, if it fails to suit someone else's purpose.
It is one of the reasons why Historians and legal investigators carefully scrutinize such claims. Are there phone records to prove they talked at a time claimed, did they actually have a relationship that would warrant discussing things of such a nature and all the other things that go into evaluating claims.
Since this claim never made it to court that alone means it is of little value and relevance even if truly alleged by Hawkins.
The unreliability of claims of what people supposedly told them is also why hearsay is indamissible. Admissibility of evidence hinges on reliability and relevance. The former in a general principle of application. The rules of evidence are formed with such in mind. General rules regarding what could be deemed reliable. The latter is actually specific to the case at hand and involves whether the exact issues of the case at hand are impacted by the evidence.
If evidence is of anature generally reliable then it can be considered but tat that point the specifics are evaluated by the trier of fact to evaluate the veracity and what if any impact that has on the actual case. Some things relevant still don't impact the overall decision.
Courts just formally apply rules that are used by historians and others in everyday life. The same exact issues a court looks at regarding reliability and accuracy are used in everyday life just less formalistic application of such.
-
It is one of the reasons why Historians and legal investigators carefully scrutinize such claims. Are there phone records to prove they talked at a time claimed, did they actually have a relationship that would warrant discussing things of such a nature and all the other things that go into evaluating claims.
Since this claim never made it to court that alone means it is of little value and relevance even if truly alleged by Hawkins.
The unreliability of claims of what people supposedly told them is also why hearsay is indamissible. Admissibility of evidence hinges on reliability and relevance. The former in a general principle of application. The rules of evidence are formed with such in mind. General rules regarding what could be deemed reliable. The latter is actually specific to the case at hand and involves whether the exact issues of the case at hand are impacted by the evidence.
If evidence is of anature generally reliable then it can be considered but tat that point the specifics are evaluated by the trier of fact to evaluate the veracity and what if any impact that has on the actual case. Some things relevant still don't impact the overall decision.
Courts just formally apply rules that are used by historians and others in everyday life. The same exact issues a court looks at regarding reliability and accuracy are used in everyday life just less formalistic application of such.
So please tell me how information gets to court and who decides if it's "relevant" and to whom? Also, who decides what constitutes "hearsay".
-
hearsay is when you say somebody told you something about someone else.
this wouldn't be hearsay in law because even though theirs no proof of its a derect conversion between 2 people which isnt hearsay.
-
Absolutely nugs. Otherwise JM's testimony would have then have to have been deemed as 'hearsay'.
-
exactly alleged cell mate confessions allowed though for the life of me i cant see why they are how anyone on a jury can be stupid enough to believe them.
-
exactly alleged cell mate confessions allowed though for the life of me i cant see why they are how anyone on a jury can be stupid enough to believe them.
A confession is a statement against interest. Statements against interest are excluded from the hearsay rule. All confessions are admissible not just jailhouse confessions. How credible the claim is depends on how detailed the claim is and what the person has to gain from lying. Most of the time they say they confessed because they wanted to appear tough so the prisoners would leave them alone. It is up to the trier of fact to decide whether the person did in fact confess and the significance to attribute to such a confession.
Most of the time the details matter the most. if the detials match the evidence in the case that is very bad. If the details don't match that can be indicative of the person having falsely confessed for some reason and in some instances the confession being made up.
-
I think that it's become creepy that people are now being traced to be questioned by Jackie Preece!!! This forum is becoming worrying the way that people off the forum are spoken about as is they have to answer questions or that an intrusion on their person life in 2014 is justified because of something they (apparently) said to a newspaper years ago.
I think it's creepy when people make out they have inside knowledge of submissions to the ccrc
Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders
But you're not are you
-
hearsay is when you say somebody told you something about someone else.
this wouldn't be hearsay in law because even though theirs no proof of its a derect conversion between 2 people which isnt hearsay.
Mike is alleging that Don Hawkins told a reporter that he spoke to Sheila. Unless we hear directly from Hawkins it is hearsay/double hearsay. Hawkins talking directly on the record and subject to cross examination would not be hearsay.
But he was not used in court so whether she actually said such to him is in doubt or it was long before the murders so deemed useless by the defense.
-
Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders
I am interested actually but nothing has ever been made of this, so there can't be much there.
-
I think it's creepy when people make out they have inside knowledge of submissions to the ccrc
Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders
But you're not are you
i belive some people may be telling the truth aout the inside knowledge butif then thats illegal.
-
If you were really interested you would want to talk to him yourself
-
If you were really interested you would want to talk to him yourself
No I wouldn't! Why would I contact someone I've never met in order to question them about the Bamber case. I have no right to invade someones privacy or the interest in tracking anyone down.
-
I think it's creepy when people make out they have inside knowledge of submissions to the ccrc
Mat if you were ever interested in our justice system you would be interested if this guy spoke to Sheila just before the murders
But you're not are you
Since the evidence proves she didn't kill anyone else and can't have killed herself either, what she supposedly told someone doesn't amount to squat. It certainly could not help get Jeremy off. I could be in a crowd that witnesses someone threaten to kill another person. I could hold a gun near the head of the person who was threatened and shoot then knock out the guy who make the threat and dump him at the scene, leave the gun near him and call police. If the police show up and test his body and know he didn't fire a gun and had no blood from the victim then the police will know it was a frameup like he claimed. No matter how many witnesses come forward saying he threatened to kill the victim that will not change the evidence that he didn't.
-
Since the evidence proves she didn't kill anyone else and can't have killed herself either, what she supposedly told someone doesn't amount to squat. It certainly could not help get Jeremy off. I could be in a crowd that witnesses someone threaten to kill another person. I could hold a gun near the head of the person who was threatened and shoot then knock out the guy who make the threat and dump him at the scene, leave the gun near him and call police. If the police show up and test his body and know he didn't fire a gun and had no blood from the victim then the police will know it was a frameup like he claimed. No matter how many witnesses come forward saying he threatened to kill the victim that will not change the evidence that he didn't.
Exactly. But because it fits with what Jackie believes, she chooses to ACCEPT it... everything else that doesn't fit with what she believes is rejected. That's not how you decide innocence or guilt.
-
Mike is alleging that Don Hawkins told a reporter that he spoke to Sheila. Unless we hear directly from Hawkins it is hearsay/double hearsay. Hawkins talking directly on the record and subject to cross examination would not be hearsay.
But he was not used in court so whether she actually said such to him is in doubt or it was long before the murders so deemed useless by the defense.
if he told this to a national newspaper he can hardly deny saying it.
quated out of context not his exact words maybe but he cant deny he said it.
-
Oh dear,it doesn't go down well when,or if something comparatively new crops up.
-
So true Lookout
-
New? ::)
-
So please tell me how information gets to court and who decides if it's "relevant" and to whom? Also, who decides what constitutes "hearsay".
If there is a dispute between the parties then a judge decides based on the law. That is why a judge is the trier of law. If a party doesn't like the decision of the judge it can be appealed. Sometiems that appeal can take place before the final disposition of the case other times it is after a final order is entered. If you don't raise an objection at the time though you lose it you can't raise issues on appeal not raised below.
Information gets into court primarily by testimony. In an adversarial system the witnesses are subject to examination by both sides. That is why defendants often do no testify they don't want to be subject to cress examination. Documents can be used to some extent but which documents and how they are authenticated is heavily regulated by the rules of evidece/rules of court. You have to provide a foundation and authentication for most evidence.
So imagine something like this isf he really made such claim and were told to provide it in court:
Hawkins:
Sheila Cafell callled me before the murders and said she heard God's voice telling her to do things.
Cross examination:
When did you meet her?
How did she have your phone number?
Did you speak often?
What was your relationship with her?
On what date did she call you and tell you this
Why did she call you that day, what was the purpose of her call?
What did she say his voice was telling her to do?
Did she indicate that she did any of the things God was telling her to do?
When else did you speak with her during the year prior to hear death?
That is just a small sample of the kind of questioning he would undergo to test his claims and see if the supposed claims have any significance at all.
I know someone who says God speaks to her and even gives her advice of how to live but that doesn't mean God tells her to hurt anyone. On the contrary he supposedly tells her to live a good life. She also claims to see angels...
Naturally most people don't believe her but there are a few zealots who do.
-
i agrea with you scorpio much as it pains me to say that.
its not a sighn that she was likely kill anyone neccasarly.
-
i agrea with you scorpio much as it pains me to say that.
its not a sighn that she was likely kill anyone neccasarly.
Which could be the reason why the defense did not try to use him IF he did make such a claim though it could be that the defense did not find him credible or worse they found out he was prepared to say something harmful like God was telling her to be kind to people. It is easy to attack lawyers over the choices they make but it is invalid criticism unless you have all the facts at hand that went into such decision and based on those facts the decision was unsound.
-
Tyler not sure if this is correct
Patricia Quinn and Don Hawkins and their son
Patricia Quinn
as Magenta
Patricia Quinn was born in Belfast, Ireland, on May 28th 1944. Her career began in the theatre and then studying at London's Drama Centre in the very early 60's. She met her first husband, Don Hawkins, an actor and director, in 1963, at the age of 19. The later went on to marry and produce one child, their son Quinn in 1971.
Their relationship was one that lasted two decades, until Patricia left Don for Robert Stevens.
If rumours are anything to go by, Patricia was a 'serial cheater' during her first marriage, conducting affairs, including one confirmed affair with Meatloaf during the making of Rocky Horror!
To many fans she is the only "real" Magenta, with her seductive voice and distinctive red hair. Pat has kept Rocky Horror in her life with conventions and other things like that. Her and Richard O' Brien have grown close over the years after doing Rocky Horror and Shock Treatment. The famous Rocky Horror Lips belong to Pat and she is known as "The Lips"., although the voice is Richard O'Brien.
Pat was a Playboy bunny
Patricia is very, very talented although she had only five lines in Rocky Horror.
1. Your lucky, he's lucky, I'm lucky, we're all lucky
2. Come along the master doesnt like to be kept waiting.....
3. I grow weary of this world....
4. But I thought you liked them they liked you
5. Master dinner is prepared.
(she then had her wonderful ending speach)
Patricia went on to appear in Shock Treatment with her closest friend and Rocky costar, Richard O'Brien.
Richard and Patricia met in late 1972. They have been very close friends for 29 years, and they still share the same raucous personality. Richard introduced Patricia to pot while filming Rocky Horror....
They are very much like brother and sister, and get on with each other's families, Richard's children, Linus, 28, Joshua, 16 and Amelia, 10, love Pat like an Aunt and Pat's son, Quinn, now 29, loves Richard like his uncle.
Patricia is also a very dignified widow, and although losing her husband in November 1995, affected her deeply, she smiled through it all and often laughs it off, knowing her hubbie wouldnt want her to be down.
The son
QUINN HAWKINS
Widely regarded as an exceptional advocate, Quinn's is sought after by defence and prosecution solicitors in equal measure. As a leading criminal junior he specialises in substantial cases involving complex areas of fact, law and public interest in the Crown Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. Solicitors remark that he is "extremely client friendly with the ability to make a client feel at ease while at the same time developing a good professional rapport" and that "his experience of prosecuting complex cases provides him with an obvious advantage in his tactical approach when defending a case".
Crime
Serious and organized crime, fraud and confiscation - "He has an ability to work quickly through complex material and focus on the real issues in the case". Quinn appears in cases of homicide, serious robbery, rape and drug conspiracies. In recent years his practice has focused on defending in large-scale fraud and money laundering cases. In addition, he has significant experience of confiscation and restraint. Having appeared in one of the more significant confiscation appeals in recent years (R v Whittington) he is often called on to provide advice to clients facing confiscation proceedings and all related matters.
The nature of Quinn's practice is such that he has developed the particular skills of presenting complex expert evidence to a jury. By way of example, in a recent case he was called upon to examine 6 experts in the fields of DNA, Ballistics, Podiatry and Cell Site.
In addition to his appellate work Quinn is instructed in matters of Judicial Review and has represented RBS, charitable organisations such as the Refugee Council and the Metropolitan Police in proceedings in the Crown and High Court resisting requests for disclosure of confidential documents on the basis of relevance and professional privilege. The most recent of these was a request by the Court for 'third party material' in a people trafficking case. Much of the material was subject to legal professional privilege.
Quinn has also developed a niche practice of representing high profile defendants including former MP's and Professional Tennis Players on criminal charges with a high rate of success.
Criminal Regulatory
As a natural extension of Quinn's skills as an advocate and his extensive experience and abilities in the handling expert witnesses he is developing a practice in the field of criminal regulatory. He has advised in cases of corporate manslaughter. One particular case arose as a result of death allegedly caused by employees of a large construction company on a site in West London. Quinn was called on to advise on issues of causation following the service of a number of expert reports provided by both sides.
Other
Other non-criminal work includes licensing hearings and appeals and police disciplinary hearings.
Appointments
CPS grade 4 prosecutor (also included in Serious Crime Group and Proceeds of Crime Specialist panels).
-
Google locates where Quinn Hawkins works in London. He presumably knows how to contact his father.