Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on December 01, 2013, 04:52:PM
-
Susan Battersby said the phone rang at around 3.12am. Or even earlier as she had her phone 10 minutes fast so she could have a lay in. She has no reason to lie. This is a long time before the other phone calls.
The police interview with Bamber in Wilkes book states that Mugford knew about the kitchen fight & bible. At the time this has not been reported in the media. If correct it can only mean
one thing.
-
If JM knew as much as she professed to know,,why did she leap into bed with a " murderer " ? Would you ?
-
Don't want to sound glib but we all make mistakes.
She was a very young woman who had feelings for him. It seems she felt bad about what happened & was in turmoil. Eventually confessing to friends & then going to the police.
-
Don't want to sound glib but we all make mistakes.
She was a very young woman who had feelings for him. It seems she felt bad about what happened & was in turmoil. Eventually confessing to friends & then going to the police.
Well there are mistakes and then there are unbelievable disasters. Do you really believe that any young woman, especially someone of JMs intelligence could turn a bind eye to such a crime even to the extent of sleeping with a murderer who killed Mother, Father, Sister and his two 6 year old nephews in cold blood? Imo it defies belief.
-
Is Mugford especially intelligent ?
Who knows how a young woman would react in this sort of situation. Shock would be the first reaction. She would have been scared as well.
Was Mugford really jilted ? Or did she want to find a way out of the relationship so she could clear her head before deciding what to do ?
-
Is Mugford especially intelligent ?
Who knows how a young woman would react in this sort of situation. Shock would be the first reaction. She would have been scared as well.
Was Mugford really jilted ? Or did she want to find a way out of the relationship so she could clear her head before deciding what to do ?
Um I would tend to think anyone who had been a young woman may have a bit of an idea Adam :)
As far as intelligence she was bright enough, she was training to be a teacher at Goldsmith's College which was recognised back at that time as the top Teacher's Training College in the Country so she can't have been a total bimbo.
The official story is that she stuck with Jeremy until he two timed her and finished the relationship, have never heard the slightest suggestion that she finished with Jeremy, she has admitted to trying to suffocate him and telling him if she can't have him neither can anyone else. Well she certainly made sure of that. :)
-
Two timing you're girlfriend. That's one way to grieve !
Jeremy took a risk, dumping her so soon afterwards. Even if he had not told her anything, people were suspicious. Would have been better to keep her onside. In relationships people do get carried away, throw things etc. Young love, eh.
-
Two timing you're girlfriend. That's one way to grieve !
Jeremy took a risk, dumping her so soon afterwards. Even if he had not told her anything, people were suspicious. Would have been better to keep her onside. In relationships people do get carried away, throw things etc. Young love, eh.
It's not unusual for relationships to fall apart at a time of stress, Adam. I get the impression Julie was possibly a bit of an attention seeker and instead of just being happy Jeremy had a good friend who seemed to be helping him cope she got jealous and resentful of Brett Collins. I know she was very young and possibly didn't understand how men grieve etc. but she probably caused her own demise by her behaviour imo. :-\
-
what was actull reason for him dumping mugford i dont think etere of them explained.
-
I know there are spur of the moment relationships situations that go OTT. John Bobbit for one !
Does anyone know of any other cases where a former partner, woman or man has gone to similar lenghts to get someone sent to jail where it was proved that the person lied under oath ?
What is the punishment ?
-
what was actull reason for him dumping mugford i dont think etere of them explained.
Nugs,,I rather think it was when he found out about real women if you get my meaning. Or maybe the thought of marriage gave him cold feet,,after thinking about it.
I don't know that the real reason was ever given,,though he wasn't committed to JM so he wanted to play the field I suppose. He was only young,,and not ready to be tied down.
-
i wonder weather was really gay
-
i wonder weather was really gay
I wouldn't have thought so nugs,,even though his pal Brett was it didn't mean to say that Jeremy was too.. He probably respected that his pal was " different " at the time,,but Jeremy himself was much the womaniser.
-
I get the impression that she probably was more keen on him than he was on her . And their original statements tied up completely . I can not imagine that she would just have gone back to sleep if he told her what she claimed in her subsequent statements. Also I still do not believe that if he had been so clever . calculating and wicked as he was made out to be that he would tell anybody . Let alone a girlfriend that he would subsequently break up with. It just does not make sense to me . Also his "reported" reactions afterwards are statements from the police who May have been complicit in his conviction. Originally on the night there were statements that he was very distressed. So I don't personally think you can draw any conclusions from that. Also we all forget he was only in his early 20s and in shock. And perhaps he did not even say half the things that are reported. It may have been part of a huge character assassination in order to secure a conviction. Which is why the original records that are held under PII are so important.
-
Susan Battersby said the phone rang at around 3.12am. Or even earlier as she had her phone 10 minutes fast so she could have a lay in. She has no reason to lie. This is a long time before the other phone calls.
The police interview with Bamber in Wilkes book states that Mugford knew about the kitchen fight & bible. At the time this has not been reported in the media. If correct it can only mean
one thing.
Really? I guess you haven't read about the cheque book fraud then?
-
Well it is accepted by everyone that Bamber phoned Mugford at around 3am. Bamber, when interviewed was very unsure whether he phoned Mugford before or after the police. The judge was amazed he phoned at all.
-
Two timing you're girlfriend. That's one way to grieve !
Jeremy took a risk, dumping her so soon afterwards. Even if he had not told her anything, people were suspicious. Would have been better to keep her onside. In relationships people do get carried away, throw things etc. Young love, eh.
Most don't try and suffocate their partners, though. After that no wonder he wanted to break up!
-
Most don't try and suffocate their partners, though. After that no wonder he wanted to break up!
HME,,I wouldn't mind betting that that incident scared him. Maybe he wondered just what she was capable of.
-
well he knows now.
-
HME,,I wouldn't mind betting that that incident scared him. Maybe he wondered just what she was capable of.
Maybe we can add 'attempted murder' to her crime sheet :)
Imagine if she had succeeded!
-
Well it is accepted by everyone that Bamber phoned Mugford at around 3am. Bamber, when interviewed was very unsure whether he phoned Mugford before or after the police. The judge was amazed he phoned at all.
There was no initial agreement about phone call timings and one of the flat mates even suggested the call was 03:30. No one gve the same time until (cough) Stan Jones intervened.
-
Maybe we can add 'attempted murder' to her crime sheet :)
Imagine if she had succeeded!
Well she certainly meant business judging by Jeremys' end result.
-
Susan Battersby said the phone rang at around 3.12am. Or even earlier as she had her phone 10 minutes fast so she could have a lay in. She has no reason to lie. This is a long time before the other phone calls.
The police interview with Bamber in Wilkes book states that Mugford knew about the kitchen fight & bible. At the time this has not been reported in the media. If correct it can only mean
one thing.
Phone rang at about 3.30am, in her first account, and only changed to 3.12am, when DS 'Stan' Jones got involved...
-
I get the impression that she probably was more keen on him than he was on her . And their original statements tied up completely . I can not imagine that she would just have gone back to sleep if he told her what she claimed in her subsequent statements. Also I still do not believe that if he had been so clever . calculating and wicked as he was made out to be that he would tell anybody . Let alone a girlfriend that he would subsequently break up with. It just does not make sense to me . Also his "reported" reactions afterwards are statements from the police who May have been complicit in his conviction. Originally on the night there were statements that he was very distressed. So I don't personally think you can draw any conclusions from that. Also we all forget he was only in his early 20s and in shock. And perhaps he did not even say half the things that are reported. It may have been part of a huge character assassination in order to secure a conviction. Which is why the original records that are held under PII are so important.
Mugford would have been half asleep when answering the phone. She said that afterwards she started realising what may have gone on. If all Jeremy said was 'everything is going well ' she could not be sure what was happening. There is not much she can do from London.
There are conflicting reports of Jeremys immediate reaction. Appearing to be sick in a field & repeatedly saying to police 'you told me everything was going to be alright'. However he was well enough to say he didn't want the dog messing up his stereo equipment. Later that morning he cooked a full breakfast & said to the police 'right, lets get on with it. I'm ready to start when you are'.
-
EP advised JB to eat something. Toast and a couple of rashers of bacon is hardly a 'full' breakfast!
-
EP advised JB to eat something. Toast and a couple of rashers of bacon is hardly a 'full' breakfast!
Very often after such a shock the mind puts up a defence of bravado. It appears that those idiot cops used this against Bamber by misinterpreting his words. They were and still are very shallow numbnuts. I remember being the same when my mother lost my stepfather in the night and I had to put on an iron mask as my wife was in hospital with our second baby. So up went this protective facade and I took on a hardman stance. I distinctly remewmber saying several silly things at the time. Why don't people like those two very shallow thinking so call writers, whose insignificant names escape me just think a little deeper, instead of using Jeremy's words to blacken his character at every turn.
-
Mugford would have been half asleep when answering the phone. She said that afterwards she started realising what may have gone on. If all Jeremy said was 'everything is going well ' she could not be sure what was happening. There is not much she can do from London.
........................... Later that morning he cooked a full breakfast & said to the police 'right, lets get on with it. I'm ready to start when you are'.
You know Adam, I really can't begin to put into forum suitable words just HOW sick I am of hearing about the SUPPOSED full/hearty breakfast. I find myself wondering if he was ever up in time to eat anything other than a slice of toast and probably any left over bacon was what may have been a bacon butty lunch yet the implication is ALWAYS eggs, sausages, bacon, mushrooms, beans, black pudding followed by toast and marmalade.
-
Didn't Ann Eaton originally write down on one of her contemporaneous note cards that one of JM's flatmates had confirmed to JM that the call was at the later time, as per both JM and JB originally claimed? AE then altered this time when giving a statement (about having witnessed JM check the time of the call with the said flat mate).
Neither defence nor Jury ever saw AE's note card prior to or during trial.
-
Mugford would have been half asleep when answering the phone. She said that afterwards she started realising what may have gone on. If all Jeremy said was 'everything is going well ' she could not be sure what was happening. There is not much she can do from London.
There are conflicting reports of Jeremys immediate reaction. Appearing to be sick in a field & repeatedly saying to police 'you told me everything was going to be alright'. However he was well enough to say he didn't want the dog messing up his stereo equipment. Later that morning he cooked a full breakfast & said to the police 'right, lets get on with it. I'm ready to start when you are'.
Are you getting these questions from Wilkes's book? Read Jeremy's statement and the all of the others in the archives - most of these questions can be answered there.
-
Are you getting these questions from Wilkes's book? Read Jeremy's statement and the all of the others in the archives - most of these questions can be answered there.
Why these writers words are taken on face value never ceases to amaze me?
-
Didn't Ann Eaton originally write down on one of her contemporaneous note cards that one of JM's flatmates had confirmed to JM that the call was at the later time, as per both JM and JB originally claimed? AE then altered this time when giving a statement (about having witnessed JM check the time of the call with the said flat mate).
Neither defence nor Jury ever saw AE's note card prior to or during trial.
Indeed Roch, it was initially confirmed as 03:30 but SJ wasn't happy with that and we all know what happens when he isn't happy with events!
-
Why these writers words are taken on face value never ceases to amaze me?
Nor me! This site is a goldmine of information - I would rather read the statements and make my own mind up.
-
You know Adam, I really can't begin to put into forum suitable words just HOW sick I am of hearing about the SUPPOSED full/hearty breakfast. I find myself wondering if he was ever up in time to eat anything other than a slice of toast and probably any left over bacon was what may have been a bacon butty lunch yet the implication is ALWAYS eggs, sausages, bacon, mushrooms, beans, black pudding followed by toast and marmalade.
You and me both April but to be fair to Adam, he's not to know that Steve had repeated the 'hearty breakfast' at every opportunity - even though it has been long disputed. Like I said before - lots of myths!! ;D ;D
-
You and me both April but to be fair to Adam, he's not to know that Steve had repeated the 'hearty breakfast' at every opportunity - even though it has been long disputed. Like I said before - lots of myths!! ;D ;D
All these tails of this so called "fully hearty breakfast" just confirms to me that those coppers who put this story about are themselves full hearty liars.
-
Nor me! This site is a goldmine of information - I would rather read the statements and make my own mind up.
I agree I was very wary about reading the books but was given Lomax's book for Christmas and was surprised that he simply stuck to facts and as it was a later book he included quite a bit of newer evidence which had come to light. I was a bit cautious about reading Wilkes because I see no enjoyment in reading anything which is just an assassination of someone's character but was pleasantly surprised that while there was more hearsay involved it still seemed a fair comment on the case. I draw the line at Claire Powell which seems to be muck raking and hearsay which is constantly quoted by SteveUK.
Either of these books can be interesting imo but are only part of the picture, the real and invaluable information is on this site and I believe that should be the first port of call. :)
-
I agree I was very wary about reading the books but was given Lomax's book for Christmas and was surprised that he simply stuck to facts and as it was a later book he included quite a bit of newer evidence which had come to light. I was a bit cautious about reading Wilkes because I see no enjoyment in reading anything which is just an assassination of someone's character but was pleasantly surprised that while there was more hearsay involved it still seemed a fair comment on the case. I draw the line at Claire Powell which seems to be muck raking and hearsay which is constantly quoted by SteveUK.
Either of these books can be interesting imo but are only part of the picture, the real and invaluable information is on this site and I believe that should be the first port of call. :)
Maggie, a problem is always created when people have preconceived ideas and agendas which, because they fit with what they WANT to have occurred, they refuse to put aside.
-
I read the reviews of the different books. Wilke's book got the best reviews & was considered the most impartial.
Lomax's book is supposed to be very pro Jeremy. Which is fine, writers can write what they wish.
I read the Wilkes book. A good read but the book is now quite old. The internet has a lot more new information, forums & documents.
-
Lomax's book is supposed to be very pro Jeremy. Which is fine, writers can write what they wish.
That being said, Anne Eaton either originally recorded on her note card that Julie's flatmate confirmed the call occurred at the later time... Or she did not.
She either later distorted this to an earlier time.... or she did not.
The note card was either available for defence pre-trial... Or it was not.
The sympathies of Lomax and the balance of Wilkes don't really come in to it.
-
I just started to read JM statements and how much they changed between the dates in august and Sept. What I did find interesting is the statement about the hit man making SB lie on the bed and shoot herself and put the bible on her chest. Which "fitted" what the original scene may have been ( according to photos that may have been seen by certain people on here) and yet in court the body was on the floor. I will read some more but that stood out as being strange. Does anyone know why she did the ID of the bodies and not one of the other relatives?
-
I just started to read JM statements and how much they changed between the dates in august and Sept. What I did find interesting is the statement about the hit man making SB lie on the bed and shoot herself and put the bible on her chest. Which "fitted" what the original scene may have been ( according to photos that may have been seen by certain people on here) and yet in court the body was on the floor. I will read some more but that stood out as being strange. Does anyone know why she did the ID of the bodies and not one of the other relatives?
The story goes that she wanted to communicate with Sheila to find out what had happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Just seems a bit odd although I am sure not connected with the cover up - why did the other relatives not do it. Also strange that she told relatives about only one wound on Sheila instead of two. Although I am sure it must have been a harrowing thing for anyone to do. especially a relatively young girl of her age.
-
Just seems a bit odd although I am sure not connected with the cover up - why did the other relatives not do it. Also strange that she told relatives about only one wound on Sheila instead of two. Although I am sure it must have been a harrowing thing for anyone to do. especially a relatively young girl of her age.
It MAY have been a case of someone having to. Familiy members can and DO behave oddly at such times. I recall that after my ex brother in law was pulled from a burning car in which the driver died, my then mother in law was asked to go through the clothes he'd been wearing. She collapsed in a heap screaming that she couldn't do it so I said I would. Her response to me, infront of the nurse and policeman was "You would you bitch, wouldn't you"......................she then made a miraculous recovery and did it herself 8)
-
It MAY have been a case of someone having to. Familiy members can and DO behave oddly at such times. I recall that after my ex brother in law was pulled from a burning car in which the driver died, my then mother in law was asked to go through the clothes he'd been wearing. She collapsed in a heap screaming that she couldn't do it so I said I would. Her response to me, infront of the nurse and policeman was "You would you bitch, wouldn't you"......................she then made a miraculous recovery and did it herself 8)
Charming!! She wasn't Welsh was she? Sounds like my ex's mother - complete cow!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Susan Battersby said the phone rang at around 3.12am. Or even earlier as she had her phone 10 minutes fast so she could have a lay in. She has no reason to lie. This is a long time before the other phone calls.
The police interview with Bamber in Wilkes book states that Mugford knew about the kitchen fight & bible. At the time this has not been reported in the media. If correct it can only mean
one thing.
To what other telephone calls are you alluding?
-
I just started to read JM statements and how much they changed between the dates in august and Sept. What I did find interesting is the statement about the hit man making SB lie on the bed and shoot herself and put the bible on her chest. Which "fitted" what the original scene may have been ( according to photos that may have been seen by certain people on here) and yet in court the body was on the floor. I will read some more but that stood out as being strange. Does anyone know why she did the ID of the bodies and not one of the other relatives?
Julie M. volunteered to identify the bodies. As far as I remember, Jeremy said he couldn´t do it, it would be too much for him, Ann Eaton said that she wouldn´t be able to tell the twins apart, so Julie did it. I don´t think anyone else from the family was in the picture at all.
Julie also wanted to go back inside to see the bodies again - she hadn´t got the "message" she wanted. According to Ann Eaton (who was waiting in her car outside the morgue), Julie seemed calm about the whole thing when she returned, lit a cigarette and wondered why the bodies´ heads had been shaved.
-
Julie M. volunteered to identify the bodies. As far as I remember, Jeremy said he couldn´t do it, it would be too much for him, Ann Eaton said that she wouldn´t be able to tell the twins apart, so Julie did it. I don´t think anyone else from the family was in the picture at all.
Julie also wanted to go back inside to see the bodies again - she hadn´t got the "message" she wanted. According to Ann Eaton (who was waiting in her car outside the morgue), Julie seemed calm about the whole thing when she returned, lit a cigarette and wondered why the bodies´ heads had been shaved.
thanks that does explain things . I was not thinking that some of the other relatives may not have known the twins that well.
-
Julie M. volunteered to identify the bodies. As far as I remember, Jeremy said he couldn´t do it, it would be too much for him, Ann Eaton said that she wouldn´t be able to tell the twins apart, so Julie did it. I don´t think anyone else from the family was in the picture at all.
Julie also wanted to go back inside to see the bodies again - she hadn´t got the "message" she wanted. According to Ann Eaton (who was waiting in her car outside the morgue), Julie seemed calm about the whole thing when she returned, lit a cigarette and wondered why the bodies´ heads had been shaved.
so she calmly and wit no emotion when in and looked at the bodies of the children that she later cliamed her boyfriend had just murdered.
-
Didn't JM also " speak " to Sheila ? Something about being spiritual ? I wonder what she asked ???
-
so she calmly and wit no emotion when in and looked at the bodies of the children that she later cliamed her boyfriend had just murdered.
It seems like it. I have never heard anything about her being overly upset by this.
There are many things that make me think that Julie Mugford had some issues - mental issues. This obviously, secondly her attempting to smother Jeremy and finally her attempt to stab a teddy bear she had gotten as a gift from Brett, Jeremy´s friend. All three episodes are worrying and certainly not normal for a young girl.
Oh, not to mention burglary (with Jeremy - can´t deny that), cheque fraud (without Jeremy) and drug dealing (without Jeremy).
This girl was out of control, seriously!!
-
It seems like it. I have never heard anything about her being overly upset by this.
There are many things that make me think that Julie Mugford had some issues - mental issues. This obviously, secondly her attempting to smother Jeremy and finally her attempt to stab a teddy bear she had gotten as a gift from Brett, Jeremy´s friend. All three episodes are worrying and certainly not normal for a young girl.
Oh, not to mention burglary (with Jeremy - can´t deny that), cheque fraud (without Jeremy) and drug dealing (without Jeremy).
This girl was out of control, seriously!!
Sorry I have to keep agreeing with you Alias but you speak such good sense. I have wondered for a long time whether, when people are accusing Jeremy Bamber of personality disorders they are maybe looking in the wrong direction. :-\ :-\
-
Sorry I have to keep agreeing with you Alias but you speak such good sense. I have wondered for a long time whether, when people are accusing Jeremy Bamber of personality disorders they are maybe looking in the wrong direction. :-\ :-\
Well, I don´t mind that you agree!
Steve says we come down on her like a ton of bricks, but come on, no matter from which angle you look at this case, Julie does not come out of it smelling like roses.
-
I know I will get picked up on this comment - so I will say IMO
I was about the same age as JM in the 80s and I know you should not judge someone your own morals but I would have been extremely distressed to have to do ID on the victims and personally even at that age I never would have accepted money from a newspaper for any story to do with such a tragic case. I also could never have stood up in court and lied ( if that is what she did do)
So together with the comments above she does seem to have some issues.
-
I know I will get picked up on this comment - so I will say IMO
I was about the same age as JM in the 80s and I know you should not judge someone your own morals but I would have been extremely distressed to have to do ID on the victims and personally even at that age I never would have accepted money from a newspaper for any story to do with such a tragic case. I also could never have stood up in court and lied ( if that is what she did do)
So together with the comments above she does seem to have some issues.
When she chose to pose for money in a sexual manner on the back of a family tragedy including the murders of two little innocent boys - even after having SEEN them dead, it should have become crystal clear to anyone and everyone that there was something seriously wrong with her!
-
I know I will get picked up on this comment - so I will say IMO
I was about the same age as JM in the 80s and I know you should not judge someone your own morals but I would have been extremely distressed to have to do ID on the victims and personally even at that age I never would have accepted money from a newspaper for any story to do with such a tragic case. I also could never have stood up in court and lied ( if that is what she did do)
So together with the comments above she does seem to have some issues.
I understand what you said Janus. During my training as a nurse,I was on a childrens' ward,though granted,I was younger at 16,and unfortunately witnessed the death of a 9 year old girl who'd died from yellow jaundice. I was beside myself and wondered if this career was for me. Sister in charge called me into her office for a talk,and told me that even after years,no member of staff ever got used to losing a young patient and all continued to cry,,which made me feel better and not a failure. Sister said it was perfectly normal and it was her way,believe it or not,,of spotting emotion,which I never fully understood until I did psychiatric nursing where I didn't see emotion and remembered what sister had told me.
So work that one out.
-
Susan Battersby said the phone rang at around 3.12am. Or even earlier as she had her phone 10 minutes fast so she could have a lay in. She has no reason to lie. This is a long time before the other phone calls.
The police interview with Bamber in Wilkes book states that Mugford knew about the kitchen fight & bible. At the time this has not been reported in the media. If correct it can only mean
one thing.
I see what you mean. If Julie Mugford knows that the police found Sheila’s body on the bed with a bible on her chest, it means that she knows that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor.
-
I was about the same age as JM in the 80s
Only in the 80s?
-
Only in the 80s?
;D ;D!!
-
Only in the 80s?
;D no I am much younger now! wine preserves one very well thank you.
-
;D no I am much younger now! wine preserves one very well thank you.
I'll drink to that ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A question
I can see from JM statements on here that she said that JB had clearly told her about the hit man that he had arranged and how the killings were done - but by the time this had come to court of course this had been discounted completely . Then I can see in the newspaper interview she says that JB never admitted his guilt - not to her or in court. So is her actual court transcript on here anywhere ? I am just wondering what her story was at the time of the trial because it was obviously very instrumental in the judgement .
-
If Mugford was going to lie, why mention Michael Mcdonald ? She would have known that would be checked & proved to be untrue.
I believe Mcdonald was mentioned because Bamber told her this story to soften the blow. If Bamber was innocent why not just say to Mugford 'it was Sheila' ?
-
If Mugford was going to lie, why mention Michael Mcdonald ? She would have known that would be checked & proved to be untrue.
I believe Mcdonald was mentioned because Bamber told her this story to soften the blow. If Bamber was innocent why not just say to Mugford 'it was Sheila' ?
But there is only JM's word for it that Jeremy ever said these things.
-
I know, but I would never lie about someone & use a third person. My lie would come back to bite me.
-
The statements are here - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html
-
I know, but I would never lie about someone & use a third person. My lie would come back to bite me.
Because she probably didn't want him to be convicted if she used a third party and he had an alibi, she could simply say that she was only repeating what Jeremy had told her. Interesting that THIS particular third party had had a relationship with her friend Liz Rimmington, who in turn had slept with Jeremy behind Julie's back.
-
I know, but I would never lie about someone & use a third person. My lie would come back to bite me.
The sighting by Myall required there to have been a third party involved, while Bamber was outside with police. Maybe the sighting was edited out of the logs, when it became clear that the hitman role couldn't be pinned on McDonald? The police had to fall back to a secondary, less satisfactory option. They had to pin the actual deed on Bamber himself. Pinning it on an accomplice would have fitted in with both the sighting and the lack of evidence regarding Bamber's involvement.
-
The sighting by Myall required there to have been a third party involved, while Bamber was outside with police. Maybe the sighting was edited out of the logs, when it became clear that the hitman role couldn't be pinned on McDonald? The police had to fall back to a secondary, less satisfactory option. They had to pin the actual deed on Bamber himself. Pinning it on an accomplice would have fitted in with both the sighting and the lack of evidence regarding Bamber's involvement.
Like that suggestion Roch, d'you think the hit man may have been invented to explain away the sighting at the window and they chose McDonald as he was said to be a mercenary? If that is true well, words fail me however they shouldn't because I know very well they fitted Jeremy Bamber up, why should I be surprised??
-
Like that suggestion Roch, d'you think the hit man may have been invented to explain away the sighting at the window and they chose McDonald as he was said to be a mercenary? If that is true well, words fail me however they shouldn't because I know very well they fitted Jeremy Bamber up, why should I be surprised??
Roch is quite clever,you know. ;D A most logical suggestion.
-
The sighting by Myall required there to have been a third party involved, while Bamber was outside with police. Maybe the sighting was edited out of the logs, when it became clear that the hitman role couldn't be pinned on McDonald? The police had to fall back to a secondary, less satisfactory option. They had to pin the actual deed on Bamber himself. Pinning it on an accomplice would have fitted in with both the sighting and the lack of evidence regarding Bamber's involvement.
I don't think the 'hitman' suggestion would ever have stood up if they used the sighting at the window to back it up(even if McDonald didn't have an alibi). It falls down when you ask 'where did he go'? House locked from the inside and the place is crawling with cops.
-
Roch is quite clever,you know. ;D A most logical suggestion.
I should think Malcolm McDonald should be forever thankful he had an alibi that night. If he hadn't he may have found himself in the dock next to Jeremy. :o :o :o
-
I don't think the 'hitman' suggestion would ever have stood up if they used the sighting at the window to back it up(even if McDonald didn't have an alibi). It falls down when you ask 'where did he go'? House locked from the inside and the place is crawling with cops.
Yes that's true, hadn't thought that through, had I? :-[
-
I don't think the 'hitman' suggestion would ever have stood up if they used the sighting at the window to back it up(even if McDonald didn't have an alibi). It falls down when you ask 'where did he go'? House locked from the inside and the place is crawling with cops.
They could have argued that the hitman used the egress alleged to have been used by Bamber, at a time that Myall, Bews and Bamber fled back to vehicle. You have to look at why McDonald was introduced at all. Was it simply due to one of Mugford's associates? Was it part of Stan's plan?
-
They could have argued that the hitman used the egress alleged to have been used by Bamber, at a time that Myall, Bews and Bamber fled back to vehicle. You have to look at why McDonald was introduced at all. Was it simply due to one of Mugford's associates? Was it part of Stan's plan?
We will never know! Unless someone comes forward.
-
Two timing you're girlfriend. That's one way to grieve !
Jeremy took a risk, dumping her so soon afterwards. Even if he had not told her anything, people were suspicious. Would have been better to keep her onside. In relationships people do get carried away, throw things etc. Young love, eh.
Yes,,he'd certainly have taken a risk if he'd been the murderer. Intended murderers don't tell anyone.
-
Suspect Jeremy felt Julie was under his spell suffciently. It is correct he did not say to anyone else he committed the crime. However Wilke's book states that Jeremy unexpectedly said to a friend one evening 'only I know what really happened that night'.
When Mugford threatened to go to the police Jeremy said they would never believe her as he was watertight.
-
Suspect Jeremy felt Julie was under his spell suffciently. It is correct he did not say to anyone else he committed the crime. However Wilke's book states that Jeremy unexpectedly said to a friend one evening 'only I know what really happened that night'.
When Mugford threatened to go to the police Jeremy said they would never believe her as he was watertight.
And he would have been correct, up to a point, because he had supper with them and why would an innocent person believe their story to be anything other than watertight.
-
Suspect Jeremy felt Julie was under his spell suffciently. It is correct he did not say to anyone else he committed the crime. However Wilke's book states that Jeremy unexpectedly said to a friend one evening 'only I know what really happened that night'.
When Mugford threatened to go to the police Jeremy said they would never believe her as he was watertight.
Hearsay, Adam as you know. What spell was Julie under, are you inferring that you believe Jeremy is a psychopath? That is always the belief of guilters because we can be pretty sure if he wasn't he couldn't have carried out that crime without turning a hair. Bit of a quandary for people really seeing as he hasn't ever displayed the slightest sign of any personality disorder. I'm sure though you still believe you know better.
-
Sorry Jeremys words were 'I'm the only person who really knows what happened that night'.
It was said to Liz Rimmington.
Is Wilkes lying ? If so why has'nt Rimmington sued ?
If Rimmington told Wilkes this, is she lying ? I thought she was Jeremys friend.
-
Sorry the words were 'I'm the only person who really know what happened that night'.
It was said to Liz Rimmington.
Is Wilkes lying ? If so why has'nt Rimmington sued ?
If Rimmington told Wilkes this, is she lying ? I thought she was Jeremys friend.
He could have been referring to the phone call from Neville.
-
He could have been referring to the phone call from Neville.
So Jeremy withheld information from the police ?
This was said to Rimmington before the funerals. At the time everyone believed it was murder/suicide.
The major word in Jeremys sentance is 'really'.
-
This was said to Rimmington before the funerals. At the time everyone believed it was murder/suicide.
The major word in Jeremys sentance is 'really'.
Strange Adam you haven't answered my question about how JB was able to murder in cold blood when he doesn't have a personality disorder. How do you think he could do that?
-
So Jeremy withheld information from the police ?
This was said to Rimmington before the funerals. At the time everyone believed it was murder/suicide.
The major word in Jeremys sentance is 'really'.
He could still have been referring to the phone call from Neville. Ann Eaton started taking notes of everything Jeremy did or said from the very morning after the murders - it cannot have escaped him that people were out to get him.
-
Sheilas' blood was bound to have been on the silencer,as when police were "arranging" bodies,etc,,they'd have experimented as to whether a silencer was used on Sheila,by firstly attaching it,putting it against her bloodied neck,,then detaching it and putting it on the bed. I don't know who put it back into the cupboard,,but whoever it was,didn't own up.
-
Sheilas' blood was bound to have been on the silencer,as when police were "arranging" bodies,etc,,they'd have experimented as to whether a silencer was used on Sheila,by firstly attaching it,putting it against her bloodied neck,,then detaching it and putting it on the bed. I don't know who put it back into the cupboard,,but whoever it was,didn't own up.
Sorry, that is very speculative.
-
Maggie, you would have to ask Jeremy that. He may tell you ! But he had a motive & opportunity. It was either him or Sheila.
He did not seem upset afterwards, going on holidays, buying drugs, having expensive meals, selling off household items & having affairs.
Since the conviction it is in his interests to pass any personality test. It supports the 'how could I have done it' claim.
-
Maggie, you would have to ask Jeremy that. He may tell you ! But he had a motive & opportunity. It was either him or Sheila.
He did not seem upset afterwards, going on holidays, buying drugs, having expensive meals, selling off household items & having affairs.
Since the conviction it is in his interests to pass any personality test. It supports the 'how could I have done it' claim.
Imo you believe he's a psychopath because he has to be to prove your theories but you know everything points away from that fact.
-
Sorry, that is very speculative.
I get carried away sometimes,Alias.
-
Sorry Jeremys words were 'I'm the only person who really knows what happened that night'.
It was said to Liz Rimmington.
Is Wilkes lying ? If so why has'nt Rimmington sued ?
If Rimmington told Wilkes this, is she lying ? I thought she was Jeremys friend.
Is Rimmington lying, automatically meaning this section in Wilke's book is untrue.
It would not surprise me. After all Mugford, Battersby, Barbara Wilson, Essex Police & the relatives are all lying. Why not include Rimmington & Wilkes in the list ?
-
I get carried away sometimes,Alias.
Hehe ;D
-
well barbra wilson has changed her story from what she said at the trial she must be lying.
one way or the other.
-
Is Rimmington lying, automatically meaning this section in Wilke's book is untrue.
It would not surprise me. After all Mugford, Battersby, Barbara Wilson, Essex Police & the relatives are all lying. Why not include Rimmington & Wilkes in the list ?
You would have to ask Liz Rimmington that. By the way, didn't you say you were 'open minded' when you registered? Guilty supporters are very welcome here but I think we would all prefer that people be honest from the start. Anything else causes suspicion.
-
well barbra wilson has changed her story from what she said at the trial she must be lying.
At trials people are asked percific questions and have to give straight to the point answers.
When interviewed by the media, Barbara Wilson has more freedom. So can mention new things, which she has recently done.
She has said before that Neville was worried about being attacked. It is doubtful he meant by Sheila, as he invited her to stay at the house.
-
well theres a simple explantion for that nevile already had already been attacked by one of the relatives.
-
well barbra wilson has changed her story from what she said at the trial she must be lying.
Nugs,,from the start she must have felt the odd one out having given a shining example of what Jeremy was like,,while everyone else,including the police,hated him like poison. Even comparing him with her own son wishing he was like Jeremy,,so yes,,her arm was well and truly twisted during that docu the other week. It was nearly as quick to have had her mind changed for her as it was changing granny Speakmans' will !!
-
At trials people are asked percific questions and have to give straight to the point answers.
When interviewed by the media, Barbara Wilson has more freedom. So can mention new things, which she has recently done.
She has said before that Neville was worried about being attacked. It is doubtful he meant by Sheila, as he invited her to stay at the house.
Not when they make a statement!! Wilkes quotes BW talking about the so called 'premonition' but she doesn't mention that he was talking about Jeremy. Recently she claims that he mentioned him by name? So she didn't remember something that was said a short time before the murders but remembers it all these years later? And you think she's credible? Wow!!
-
At trials people are asked percific questions and have to give straight to the point answers.
When interviewed by the media, Barbara Wilson has more freedom. So can mention new things, which she has recently done.
She has said before that Neville was worried about being attacked. It is doubtful he meant by Sheila, as he invited her to stay at the house.
Jeremy was at the house every day. If Neville had been so afraid of him, why did he leave firearms strewn all over the farmhouse? Why, in the first place, did he let Jeremy work there?
-
You would have to ask Liz Rimmington that. By the way, didn't you say you were 'open minded' when you registered? Guilty supporters are very welcome here but I think we would all prefer that people be honest from the start. Anything else causes suspicion.
I am open minded but like to ask difficult questions as I am sure I will get good answers on here.
-
At trials people are asked percific questions and have to give straight to the point answers.
When interviewed by the media, Barbara Wilson has more freedom. So can mention new things, which she has recently done.
She has said before that Neville was worried about being attacked. It is doubtful he meant by Sheila, as he invited her to stay at the house.
Well, if you're not exactly putting specific words in BW's mouth, you certainly seem to be implying the thoughts in her mind, which of course neither you nor I can know. What we do know is that not once did she previously mention Jeremy's name NOR did she imply that Nevill had, either.
-
Not when they make a statement!! Wilkes quotes BW talking about the so called 'premonition' but she doesn't mention that he was talking about Jeremy. Recently she claims that he mentioned him by name? So she didn't remember something that was said a short time before the murders but remembers it all these years later? And you think she's credible? Wow!!
Mmmmmmm Caroline, seems a bit gullible to me. 8)
-
I am open minded but like to ask difficult questions as I am sure I will get good answers on here.
[/quote
.............as opposed to...............?????? :)]
-
I am open minded but like to ask difficult questions as I am sure I will get good answers on here.
OK, if you like difficult questions - here is one for you. As Alias has asked - how did Jeremy manage to lead Sheila to their parents bedroom, make her lay down passively and shoot her - TWICE?
-
OK, if you like difficult questions - here is one for you. As Alias has asked - how did Jeremy manage to lead Sheila to their parents bedroom, make her lay down passively and shoot her - TWICE?
...................and what position would he have needed to force Sheila's head into/adopt for himself, to cause the known trajectory of bullets?
-
OK, if you like difficult questions - here is one for you. As Alias has asked - how did Jeremy manage to lead Sheila to their parents bedroom, make her lay down passively and shoot her - TWICE?
Just answered that in another thread.
-
...................and what position would he have needed to force Sheila's head into/adopt for himself, to cause the known trajectory of bullets?
Shuffling along on his belly would have been my first thought,,like a soldier doing manouvres. Oh I don't think so.
-
Shuffling along on his belly would have been my first thought,,like a soldier doing manouvres. Oh I don't think so.
lookout, would that be before or after he'd forced Sheila's head into the required position and if it was after, how could he have guaranteed she'd keep it there?
-
i would think she would of tried to move her head.
-
OK, if you like difficult questions - here is one for you. As Alias has asked - how did Jeremy manage to lead Sheila to their parents bedroom, make her lay down passively and shoot her - TWICE?
Because everything we read about Sheila after she came out of St. Andrew's for the second time depicts her as a gullible,easily-led,vacant girl who wasn't quite with it,which is what must have put the idea into Jeremy's mind in the first place.
-
she had mental health problems she wasnt retarded.
-
Because everything we read about Sheila after she came out of St. Andrew's for the second time depicts her as a gullible,easily-led,vacant girl who wasn't quite with it,which is what must have put the idea into Jeremy's mind in the first place.
I read that around the time Sheila barely had enough co ordination to put sugar in her tea.
-
Because everything we read about Sheila after she came out of St. Andrew's for the second time depicts her as a gullible,easily-led,vacant girl who wasn't quite with it,which is what must have put the idea into Jeremy's mind in the first place.
So was she being all those things when she attacked the gas man? Why do you say Sheila was gullible? No one has claimed she was stupid, just mentally ill, poor Sheila.
Thought it had been in Jeremy's mind for a long time Steve? Long before Sheila's second spell in St Andrews.
-
Because everything we read about Sheila after she came out of St. Andrew's for the second time depicts her as a gullible,easily-led,vacant girl who wasn't quite with it,which is what must have put the idea into Jeremy's mind in the first place.
When someone uses the term 'easily led' they aren't talking about by the hand in the middle of the night by a gunman to their death!! The suggestion is absurd!!
-
I read that around the time Sheila barely had enough co ordination to put sugar in her tea.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So was she being all those things when she attacked the electric man? Why do you say Sheila was gullible? No one has claimed she was stupid, just mentally ill, poor Sheila.
Thought it had been in Jeremy's mind for a long time Steve? Long before Sheila's second spell in St Andrews.
Yes I must check the exact date but to my mind the occasion of Ann Eaton's birthday in September 1984 was certainly a danger signal when she received a birthday card from Jeremy. This would be because Jeremy had pencilled in the Christmas period of that year to burn down the White House,whose plan was only thwarted when he realized Sheila would not be staying there after all.
-
I read that around the time Sheila barely had enough co ordination to put sugar in her tea.
acording the relative who vested interest in jeremys conviction.
its rather funny that nobody else including her husband noticed this.
-
she had mental health problems she wasnt retarded.
How well put!
-
I read that around the time Sheila barely had enough co ordination to put sugar in her tea.
That was probably because of the cannabis mixed with prescription drugs causing the shakes.
Remember though,that the actual shootings were also shaky and frenzied with aimless firings,that if she'd been further away from her targets,,she'd have missed them. Let's face it,,she couldn't have been any nearer anyway.
-
nobody mentions her cordination exept the relatives.
her husband never mentioned it and he knew her a lot better than they did.
-
I read that around the time Sheila barely had enough co ordination to put sugar in her tea.
And that was said by Ann Eaton. Who by the way hadn't even seen her since the last Christmas. So how would she had known?
-
That was probably because of the cannabis mixed with prescription drugs causing the shakes.
Remember though,that the actual shootings were also shaky and frenzied with aimless firings,that if she'd been further away from her targets,,she'd have missed them. Let's face it,,she couldn't have been any nearer anyway.
Shootings shaky & frenzied ? All the bullets except one hit the target. She was co ordinated enough to get close enough to her targets to not miss. Also able to reload twice & batter Neville.
-
Shootings shaky & frenzied ? All the bullets except one hit the target. She was co ordinated enough to get close enough to her targets to not miss. Also able to reload twice & batter Neville.
Hardly likely to miss at that distance!!
-
Shootings shaky & frenzied ? All the bullets except one hit the target. She was co ordinated enough to get close enough to her targets to not miss. Also able to reload twice & batter Neville.
We are constantly being told by the guilters that ALL the bullet hit their targets.
-
We are constantly being told by the guilters that ALL the bullet hit their targets.
I said all except one. Is that incorrect ?
-
I said all except one. Is that incorrect ?
Not according to all the other guilters. As for me I can't see that any of the shots were that accurate? Jeremy was supposed to have been a crack shot. If so then most as good as missed.
-
Shootings shaky & frenzied ? All the bullets except one hit the target. She was co ordinated enough to get close enough to her targets to not miss. Also able to reload twice & batter Neville.
Not exactly the professional marksman like Jeremy would have been,,and don't say it was him emulating Sheilas' " lack of co-ordination " because during that time,he had no idea how sick his sister was,,nor did he have any understanding of her illness.
-
Shootings shaky & frenzied ? All the bullets except one hit the target. She was co ordinated enough to get close enough to her targets to not miss. Also able to reload twice & batter Neville.
Not exactly the professional marksman like Jeremy would have been,,and don't say it was him emulating Sheilas' " lack of co-ordination " because during that time,he had no idea how sick his sister was,,nor did he have any understanding of her illness.
-
I said all except one. Is that incorrect ?
Hi Adam :)
Which one missed its target, I have not heard about that? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not exactly the professional marksman like Jeremy would have been,,and don't say it was him emulating Sheilas' " lack of co-ordination " because during that time,he had no idea how sick his sister was,,nor did he have any understanding of her illness.
I do not understand. All but one shot hit a head or body.
-
I do not understand. All but one shot hit a head or body.
Yeah, but it wasn't an exercise in good marksmanship, was it. I simply cannot comprehend that Jeremy would have gone in with the express intention of creating a big a bloody mess as possible and torturing/prolonging the family's terror simply to make it APPEAR as if Sheila had done it.
-
Not according to all the other guilters. As for me I can't see that any of the shots were that accurate? Jeremy was supposed to have been a crack shot. If so then most as good as missed.
But he made sure the twins were dispatched,murdered in cold blood,or warm blood as the twins slumbered,one still sucking his thumb as an emotional throwback to a breastfeeding mother who was now intermittently absent,one day skipping down the lane hand in hand with her boys,the next day bedridden with the side-effects of her medication.Of course Jeremy couldn't understand all of this,but he did see the potential for using her as a scapegoat,and we do know that Jeremy was very good at using people to his advantage when the chance arose. How did Jeremy leave the scene;we really only have his words to Julie,but he would have known he had to pump multiple bullets into his victims first to incapacitate as he rushed up and down the Georgian staircase in the midst of night in an endeavour to fulfil his evil plan.
-
But he made sure the twins were dispatched,murdered in cold blood,or warm blood as the twins slumbered,one still sucking his thumb as an emotional throwback to a breastfeeding mother who was now intermittently absent,one day skipping down the lane hand in hand with her boys,the next day bedridden with the side-effects of her medication.Of course Jeremy couldn't understand all of this,but he did see the potential for using her as a scapegoat,and we do know that Jeremy was very good at using people to his advantage when the chance arose. How did Jeremy leave the scene;we really only have his words to Julie,but he would have known he had to pump multiple bullets into his victims first to incapacitate as he rushed up and down the Georgian staircase in the midst of night in an endeavour to fulfil his evil plan.
Or Sheila did. At very close range by the way. Probably because she loved them and wanted to make sure they didn't feel anything?