Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 11, 2011, 06:55:PM
-
72 page witness statement of Ann Eaton, made to COLP on 14 / 08/ 1991
Pages 1 to 19
-
Pages 20 to 29
-
Pages 30 to 39
-
Pages 40 to 49
-
She wasn't surprised at finding cannabis resin in the safe??? Could this have something to do with Jeremy's appetite and strange moods???
-
She wasn't surprised at finding cannabis resin in the safe??? Could this have something to do with Jeremy's appetite and strange moods???
It's a fascinating account of what happened and the thought processes of those who were around.
-
Pages 50 to 59
-
Pages 60 to 72
remaining contents are currently being uploaded to server
-
Page 21
Re. JM identifying the bodies -JM told Ann that Sheila had just one hole there,
pointing to her (Julie's) neck under the chin
--------------------------
This is very interesting, in view of the fact that the police surgeon Dr Craig, and PI "Bob" Miller also said that Sheila only had one wound? Additionally, PI MIller told the Deputy Corner, Mr Thompkin at the opening of the inquest into these deaths, held on 14th August 1985, that Sheila had killed the others, and that she had then taken her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin...
Very strange, indeed...
-
Just started reading this. Although have only read the first few pages.
Jeremy telling Ann the caravan site would be there's shortly is strange. Ann Eaton was also unconvinced at Jeremys tears when first meeting him after the massacre.
-
well you would be to if you had a vested financial interest in being unconvinced.
-
Just started reading this. Although have only read the first few pages.
Jeremy telling Ann the caravan site would be there's shortly is strange. Ann Eaton was also unconvinced at Jeremys tears when first meeting him after the massacre.
Yes, 'we've' read it so we don't need a blow, by blow account!
-
I wonder why Robert Boutflour said concerning the silencer, "The police had better have that"? Why would he think that they would be interested in the silencer? Was a plot simmering in his mind?
Also it is obvious that neither Basil Cock or Barbara Wilson were with them, because she said that she couldn't remember where they were. Also why did she mention the window? She said that the window was always left open for the cat. So why would Jeremy bother about shutting it? It was obvious if she thought about it the muddy marks were made by the cat.
Just one other observation. She said that Jeremy told them that they would get a surprise when they opened the safe. She said that they weren't surprised, they found some cannabis resin. DAH! Why were they not surprised at that I wonder?
-
I wonder why Robert Boutflour said concerning the silencer, "The police had better have that"? Why would he think that they would be interested in the silencer? Was a plot simmering in his mind?
Also it is obvious that neither Basil Cock or Barbara Wilson were with them, because she said that she couldn't remember where they were. Also why did she mention the window? She said that the window was always left open for the cat. So why would Jeremy bother about shutting it? It was obvious if she thought about it the muddy marks were made by the cat.
Just one other observation. She said that Jeremy told them that they would get a surprise when they opened the safe. She said that they weren't surprised, they found some cannabis resin. DAH! Why were they not surprised at that I wonder?
Because they knew that Neville had confiscated some resin from Pargeter's brother and had put it in the safe.
-
Ann. So caring and thoughtful it brings a lump to my throat. She went to Jeremy's cottage only ".....Out of duty I suppose" and "I gave him a peck on the cheek. Well, you would under the circumstances, wouldn't you" I wonder if Jeremy was aware of how caring a cousin she was.
-
Jeremy was gullible. Of that,there is no doubt at all.
-
lookout I agree think Jeremy was gullible and not a bit street wise Julie was the strong one in that relationship and this is why she went mental when he decided on another over her.
-
Commonly known as a patsy,Susan.
How distressed Ann was when she was showing the film-makers where the bodies of the family were found. Parading around WHF like a peacock,,not at all resembling someone in mourning !
I'm not at all happy over a few things concerning the relatives.
-
April it is quite obvious now Jeremy was clueless about his relatives knowing within himself he was totally innocent it would not cross his mind they did not think the same it reminds me of the story of Little Red Riding Hood and Jeremy gave the relatives the keys to the farm and finished his relationship with Julie as he saw no wrong in them why would he suspect they would try and harm him :'( Bet he has had plenty of regrets since :'(
-
Lookout I'm not happy either about some of the behaviour of some of the relatives :'(
-
April it is quite obvious now Jeremy was clueless about his relatives knowing within himself he was totally innocent it would not cross his mind they did not think the same it reminds me of the story of Little Red Riding Hood and Jeremy gave the relatives the keys to the farm and finished his relationship with Julie as he saw no wrong in them why would he suspect they would try and harm him :'( Bet he has had plenty of regrets since :'(
Susan, in the two sentences I picked out from 72 pages Ann was clearly explaining that she had no REAL feeling for Jeremy and was just going through appropriate actions. If I go through the whole 72 pages I wonder what else I'll find.
-
lookout I have often wondered had their been no farms, money, caravan parks and other properties would Jeremy Bamber be serving a life sentence just now.
-
My word,he's learned the hard way,,not to trust,or take people at face value,,even your family.
-
lookout I have read that Jeremy can at times be difficult this could be due to the fact he has difficulty in trusting people and always thinks they have an ulterior motive (which many will have) and he is at such a disadvantage being locked up and having to rely on others as he does not have one family member.
-
well hes been given plenty of reason to be like that.
-
My word,he's learned the hard way,,not to trust,or take people at face value,,even your family.
Well he certainly trusted Ann Eaton by letting her have the keys instead of himself (for they were first offered to him by the police) Not expecting that they were plotting against him even at that stage. If it had been one of the "blood" relatives I bet you your bottom dollar that they would not suspect them in a blue moon. Jeremy certainly was gullible when it came to these scheming "relatives". Notice how they all closed ranks against Jeremy and excluded him from the start except from a reluctant peck on the cheek.
-
Oh dear. I have just read half of this statement.
Lots of quotes that did Jeremy no favours.
-
which ones.
-
'Sheila was very protective of her children'
-
Twelve months before the murders
'I've got to be good to you. The caravan site will be yours & mine soon. Just you wait & see'.
-
'Sheila was very protective of her children'
Your point being?
-
Jeremy dyed his hair black just before the murders. A colour he had never had before.
AE was not convinced at Jeremys crying. And called his version a story.
-
AE said Sheila was very uncordinated. Even pouring tea was difficult.
-
AE did not believe the fostering story.
-
Twelve months before the murders
'I've got to be good to you. The caravan site will be yours & mine soon. Just you wait & see'.
One wonders why he didn't say "You've got to be good to me..................."
-
AE said she did not understand why Jeremy did not call 999.
-
AE did not understand why Jeremy drove so slowly to WHF. She said he is a fast driver.
-
Jeremy dyed his hair black just before the murders. A colour he had never had before.
AE was not convinced at Jeremys crying. And called his version a story.
EVERY new colour he tried was presumably one he's never tried before. AE was unlikely to believe ANYTHING he said, her aim was to see him convicted.
-
AE said there was a blazing row between Jeremy & Neville just before the murders. She was surprised Neville did not hit him.
-
AE said Sheila was very uncordinated. Even pouring tea was difficult.
AE hadn't been in Sheila's company for over a year.
-
AE did not understand why Jeremy drove so slowly to WHF. She said he is a fast driver.
well she should of done he had been told by the police to wait for them.
-
AE believed there was friction between Jeremy & Neville. Jeremy would antagonize Neville.
-
AE did not believe the fostering story.
WHY??? It had happen ed on several previous occasions. It just shows how little of Sheila's life Ann knew.
-
Jeremy dyed his hair black just before the murders. A colour he had never had before.
AE was not convinced at Jeremys crying. And called his version a story.
Ooh! Never die your hair black. It means you are ready to murder your family. ;D
-
AE said Jeremy painted an incuurate picture of June to the police.
-
AE said Sheila was very uncordinated. Even pouring tea was difficult.
Ann Eaton hadn't visited Sheila or the Bamber family since Christmas 1984. So how could she make such a statement.
-
AE did not understand why Jeremy drove so slowly to WHF. She said he is a fast driver.
He was told by the police to wait for them.
-
AE believed Neville would have put the gun away.
Perhaps Jeremy had hidden it somewhere. Easily ready for collection.
-
AE said Jeremy never never showed any remorse for apparently leaving a fully loaded gun around.
-
Ann Eaton hadn't visited Sheila or the Bamber family since Christmas 1984. So how could she make such a statement.
Sheila was too unwell to visit WHF for Christmas 84. The last time Ann saw her would have been August/September 84.
-
Stan Jones said/asked AE to clean the house.
-
AE said she did not understand why Jeremy did not call 999.
So what? Jeremy himself said that it didn't seem that serious. The reason being of course that Sheila had been in this state before and Nevill and Jeremy had managed to handle it. But he called the police just in case it all kicked off. To me there is no suspicion in not calling the police. It adds or subtracts to nothing. The question is a red herring. Ann Eaton was not qualified to ask such a question. She was not there. Jeremy was.
-
AE said Jeremy never never showed any remorse for apparently leaving a fully loaded gun around.
She was perhaps judging him by her own way of showing of remorse.
-
AE said the rigle sights would have remained on.
Anthony Pargeter said he saw the rifle with the silencer on the weekend before the murders. There is no reason to take it off. The rifle is used for shooting fast moving vermin.
-
AE believed Neville would have put the gun away.
Perhaps Jeremy had hidden it somewhere. Easily ready for collection.
We don't actually know that he DIDN'T, do we?
-
AE said Sheila would not know how to re load the gun.
-
AE believed Neville would have put the gun away.
Perhaps Jeremy had hidden it somewhere. Easily ready for collection.
Again this is all a red herring. Jeremy didn't have to mention the gun at all. In all honesty Ann Eaton was not there and consequently in no position to make such a statement. If Jeremy wanted to murder his family he kne where the guns were kept so he didn't need to make up such a story.
-
ae wouldent know that she hardly knew shiela.
-
AE said Jeremy was checking all the newspapers just after the murder.
No doubt so proud how the country were blaming Sheila.
-
AE said the rigle sights would have remained on.
Anthony Pargeter said he saw the rifle with the silencer on the weekend before the murders. There is no reason to take it off. The rifle is used for shooting fast moving vermin.
Bearing in mind that their aim was to see Jeremy convicted, they would, wouldn't they.
-
AE said the clothes were washed before the silencer was found.
-
AE said the rigle sights would have remained on.
Anthony Pargeter said he saw the rifle with the silencer on the weekend before the murders. There is no reason to take it off. The rifle is used for shooting fast moving vermin.
Then you must ask what difference would it make if the sights and silencer were on the rifle? Another red herring thrown in to confuse the issue. Tell you what I'm getting quite sick of all these kippers being thrown into the pan.
-
AE said Jeremy was checking all the newspapers just after the murder.
No doubt so proud how the country were blaming Sheila.
I can see how he would have become addicted to seeing what the papers said.
-
AE said Jeremy would never go back to WHF.
When he did eventually go back Julie said he put on an act.
-
AE said Jeremy was checking all the newspapers just after the murder.
No doubt so proud how the country were blaming Sheila.
ae said so basscaly only the word of someone with a vested finical interest in the conviction.
-
AE said Jeremy was checking all the newspapers just after the murder.
No doubt so proud how the country were blaming Sheila.
How on earth can you make such an assumption?
-
AE said the clothes were washed before the silencer was found.
Er so?
-
AE said Stan Jones rang her to get her to attend WHF.
-
AE said Jeremy would never go back to WHF.
When he did eventually go back Julie said he put on an act.
Hearsay pure and simple.
-
AE said the clothes were washed before the silencer was found.
Meaning WHAT? Ann or her daily lady washed the clothes. When, we don't know and Ann was present when the silencer was said to have been found.
-
AE said Stan Jones rang her to get her to attend WHF.
Good for him.
-
AE said Stan Jones rang her to get her to attend WHF.
Which has how much to do with the cost of living?
-
That is enough for now. Will read the second half of the WS soon.
The WS would have been presented to the defence team. So they could have cross examined her on any of these issues. So unlikely any of it lies.
-
AE said Jeremy would never go back to WHF.
When he did eventually go back Julie said he put on an act.
What gave AE the right to make assumptions?
-
Which has how much to do with the cost of living?
People accuse the relatives of trying to frame Jeremy. They didn't even ask to enter WHF. Stan Jones told them to go there.
-
Er so?
So how did the relatives put Sheila's blood inside the silencer ?
-
Hearsay pure and simple.
Not hearsay. Put in Julies WS.
-
What gave AE the right to make assumptions?
Jeremy told AE he would never go back inside WHF.
-
thats allready been explianed but of course we can go into greater detial.
-
So how did the relatives put Sheila's blood inside the silencer ?
I've told you so many times. If they did put the blood in the silencer and that is not to say they did. It would have been quite easy to do. If I did it I would have used an eye dropper and a drop of Sheila's blood. There was loads of it lying around. But as I said before I believe both David Boutflour and Ann Eaton were innocent of this. We must look further afield.
-
What to members think of Ann Eatons words concerning Jeremy referring to himself as her "favourite" cousin? Do you think that her thoughts on this to be an indication of her contempt of him?
Methinks that this reveals more about her that about Jeremy.
-
I've told you so many times. If they did put the blood in the silencer and that is not to say they did. It would have been quite easy to do. If I did it I would have used an eye dropper and a drop of Sheila's blood. There was loads of it lying around. But as I said before I believe both David Boutflour and Ann Eaton were innocent of this. We must look further afield.
Loads of it lying about ?
Three days after the massacre. How would they know which blood was Sheila's ?
-
What to members think of Ann Eatons words concerning Jeremy referring to himself as her "favourite" cousin? Do you think that her thoughts on this to be an indication of her contempt of him?
Methinks that this reveals more about her that about Jeremy.
Grahame, this is why her words are so revealing of her thoughts. They show utter contempt of the kind that has been in existence so long that the author is probably unaware of it.
-
Hello April Jeremy was really into his colours I saw it posted on this forum very recently that Jeremy used something like powder on his face to make him look pale for the funeral :'( :'( :'(
-
I've told you so many times. If they did put the blood in the silencer and that is not to say they did. It would have been quite easy to do. If I did it I would have used an eye dropper and a drop of Sheila's blood. There was loads of it lying around. But as I said before I believe both David Boutflour and Ann Eaton were innocent of this. We must look further afield.
there was also the bloodstained clothing which Ann Eaton took from the house for no apparent reason.
-
Grahame oh heck just dyed my hair black for a change ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello April Jeremy was really into his colours I saw it posted on this forum very recently that Jeremy used something like powder on his face to make him look pale for the funeral :'( :'( :'(
He also had a lovely new Hugo Boss suit.
Would have thought he would not be interested in make up on that day. But he had to give a theatrical performance after not bothering to attend the memorial service.
-
What's a Hugo Boss suit got to do with anything ?
-
Hello April Jeremy was really into his colours I saw it posted on this forum very recently that Jeremy used something like powder on his face to make him look pale for the funeral :'( :'( :'(
Susan Hello :) As far as the rellies were concerned, IMO, Jeremy didn't stand a chance.
-
Not hearsay. Put in Julies WS.
It is still hearsay as she has no way of backing up her story. It's just words.
-
What's a Hugo Boss suit got to do with anything ?
Nothing apart from at the funeral reception Jeremy pointed at his suit & said 'me boss'.
-
What's a Hugo Boss suit got to do with anything ?
It's the hallmark of Adam's intellectual achievements.
-
Nothing apart from at the funeral reception Jeremy pointed at his suit & said 'me boss'.
If the rellies had made Jeremy feel like a hired hand most of his life, I imagine it gave him enormous pleasure.
-
Loads of it lying about ?
Three days after the massacre. How would they know which blood was Sheila's ?
Oh come on use your grey matter Adam. Its was obvious where she had been lying. Anyway I did not say it was them did I? If the property could be accessed through a window then it was common knowledge throughout the family. Anyone could have accessed the property at any time. Don't you even think it strange that the police searched the house and did not go to the gun cupboard? Perhaps they did and already had a silencer in their possession? Who knows? I think you are too trusting of the wrong people?
-
Grahame oh heck just dyed my hair black for a change ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MURDERER! >:(
;D
-
April not too sure about that because when he came on the forum at first he told me he would love one but could not afford one so I suggested he try Oxfam now just recently he is saying he had one and it ripped to bits maybe he went to Oxfam after all ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nothing apart from at the funeral reception Jeremy pointed at his suit & said 'me boss'.
is this another qaute from ann eaton.
-
Oh come on use your grey matter Adam. Its was obvious where she had been lying. Anyway I did not say it was them did I? If the property could be accessed through a window then it was common knowledge throughout the family. Anyone could have accessed the property at any time. Don't you even think it strange that the police searched the house and did not go to the gun cupboard? Perhaps they did and already had a silencer in their possession? Who knows? I think you are too trusting of the wrong people?
The relatives sneaked in after the murders to get blood samples. That is a new one. And desparate.
Thought the carpets had been moved. Less than three days after the massacre the relatives may not know where Sheila was killed.
Sheila was shot twice In the neck. Where would all the blood be ? That is right, on her neck.
-
Nothing apart from at the funeral reception Jeremy pointed at his suit & said 'me boss'.
Miller said that. At my stepfaher's funeral my mother was all over the place. I felt that I had to take over and make3 it appear that I was "in charge", "boss". I should think that Jeremy thought the same? Anyway a funeral is not the place to look for "normal" reactions. We should never judge anyone at a funeral.
-
is this another qaute from ann eaton.
No, a quote from a police officer on the recent 'Slaughter at the farm' documentary.
-
Miller said that. At my stepfaher's funeral my mother was all over the place. I felt that I had to take over and make3 it appear that I was "in charge", "boss". I should think that Jeremy thought the same? Anyway a funeral is not the place to look for "normal" reactions. We should never judge anyone at a funeral.
Amazing how people make excuses on each of the mountain of circumstantial evidence points.
-
oh a policeman said oh right well that really says it all.
-
Amazing how people make excuses on each of the mountain of circumstantial evidence points.
thats not evedence of anything.
-
Amazing how people make excuses on each of the mountain of circumstantial evidence points.
Exactly the same can be levied at you. You're making each statement say what you want it too. All we're doing is showing the opposite side of the coin.
-
Exactly the same can be levied at you. You're making each statement say what you want it too. All we're doing is showing the opposite side of the coin.
Only difference is,,that Adam gets really carried away,,and like the rellies,,has convinced himself that Jeremy was the murderer,regardless that there was no forensic proof that he did so.
-
Exactly the same can be levied at you. You're making each statement say what you want it too. All we're doing is showing the opposite side of the coin.
Do not need to twist things.
Justify Jeremys failure to attend the memorial service & the caravan break in. Both facts. Or my Judges Curious coincidences'.
-
Amazing how people make excuses on each of the mountain of circumstantial evidence points.
Amazing how people drink in any lies and hearsay and circumstantial evidence rather than looking at the facts isn't it?
-
The relatives sneaked in after the murders to get blood samples. That is a new one. And desparate.
Thought the carpets had been moved. Less than three days after the massacre the relatives may not know where Sheila was killed.
Sheila was shot twice In the neck. Where would all the blood be ? That is right, on her neck.
Those are your words not mine. I have not accused the relatives of anything.
-
Amazing how people drink in any lies and hearsay and circumstantial evidence rather than looking at the facts isn't it?
Do you want me to post my 14 forensic facts & Judges Curious Coincidences again ?
Jeremy also had a motive, opportinity & no alibi. Facts.
-
Do not need to twist things.
Justify Jeremys failure to attend the memorial service & the caravan break in. Both facts. Or my Judges Curious coincidences'.
Neither are mine to justify.
-
No, a quote from a police officer on the recent 'Slaughter at the farm' documentary.
Oh this is the police officer who also said that he knew that Jeremy was guilty from the beginning? Well if you read Ann Eaton's statement she says that the police considered her to be a nuisance. The cops were so dimwitted that the relatives had to worry then to death about their suspicions. I fact they were nearly thrown out of the police station according to her.
-
Do you want me to post my 14 forensic facts & Judges Curious Coincidences again ?
Jeremy also had a motive, opportinity & no alibi. Facts.
Well if he had a motive but no alibi then he was a fool. Or of course "innocent".
-
Weren't one or two of them ushered out of court as well ? I'm sure I read about that.
-
Grahame quite right people react in different ways at funerals some show no emotion like Wills and Harry at their dear Mother's funeral yet they adored her. Others cannot contain their grief and let it be shown everyone is different. I remember the night before the funeral Wills and Harry were looking at all the floral tributes left for their Mother and they were talking and smiling with members of the crowd it was so touching :(
-
Grahame quite right people react in different ways at funerals some show no emotion like Wills and Harry at their dear Mother's funeral yet they adored her. Others cannot contain their grief and let it be shown everyone is different. I remember the night before the funeral Wills and Harry were looking at all the floral tributes left for their Mother and they were talking and smiling with members of the crowd it was so touching :(
And many who are deeply distressed actually laugh. It also isn't unheard of for people to give themselves some Dutch courage by drinking too much alcohol which causes them to behave inappropriately.
-
Grahame the police officer Taff Jones very nearly threw her out of the police station they were becoming so persistent and we all know he said from the onset 4 murders one suicide and he would not change his mind hey presto guess what happened he was taken off the case. :'(
-
April absolutely and laughing is a release of an emotion which has been kept in check then it is released sometimes tears sometimes laughter cannot judge people on their reactions.
-
It does depend on the upbringing how a person reacts to anything,,particularly a funeral. Jeremy,with his stiff upper-lip bringing,,along with Dianas' boys,,would have been groomed in such a way as to hold their council as regards emotion. I can fully understand this way of life,,as to be seen blubbering in public,is a sign of weakness in their eyes.
-
Grahame the police officer Taff Jones very nearly threw her out of the police station they were becoming so persistent and we all know he said from the onset 4 murders one suicide and he would not change his mind hey presto guess what happened he was taken off the case. :'(
Yes Adam can put that in as one of his curious coincidences as well. Strange turn of events there. I wonder if the chief commissioner was also a member of an "exclusive" club which shall remain nameless? ;)
-
Well if he had a motive but no alibi then he was a fool. Or of course "innocent".
People that commit a crime do not usually have alibi's. No one was going to help Jeremy out with something so serious. Although Jeremy may have sussed Julie out & realised she would not have helped.
He did try to get himself an alibi. From his dead father.
-
lookout yes the stiff upper lip is the way Jeremy would have been brought up and Diana's boys. Some funerals they all start fighting after the buriel and blame each other for items gone missing and so it goes on ;D
-
They usually ALL have alibis',,for the obvious reason ! To get off with the crime.
-
They usually ALL have alibis',,for the obvious reason ! To get off with the crime.
I would have thought that after a year in the planning, an alibi would have been his first consideration.
-
Grahame we wont set Bigdave off on that one again :'( It is so strange how events would have changed had Taff Jones not had a tragic accident. He would not have been silenced by anyone on Jeremy Bamber innocent and he was an excellent police officer :(
-
They usually ALL have alibis',,for the obvious reason ! To get off with the crime.
Jeremy did have an alibi.
He said he was at home, 'sleeping like a log'. His downstairs phone rang, and rang, and rang (the answer machine had for some reason been switched off). Jeremy answered it, it was dad.
But how could Jeremy have been asleep if he had had rang Julie beforehand ?
-
april/lookout after a year of planning he must have been quite stupid to have got it so wrong :'(
-
I would have thought that after a year in the planning, an alibi would have been his first consideration.
How should he have got an alibi ?
-
Grahame we wont set Bigdave off on that one again :'( It is so strange how events would have changed had Taff Jones not had a tragic accident. He would not have been silenced by anyone on Jeremy Bamber innocent and he was an excellent police officer :(
That makes number 26 on Adam's "curious coincidences". Amazing just how many coincidences we can make out of something which is actually quite innocent isn't it?
-
Do you want me to post my 14 forensic facts & Judges Curious Coincidences again ?
Jeremy also had a motive, opportinity & no alibi. Facts.
They aren't your 14 points and NO, we don't need it posting again!
-
Jeremy did have an alibi.
He said he was at home, 'sleeping like a log'. His downstairs phone rang, and rang, and rang (the answer machine had for some reason been switched off). Jeremy answered it, it was dad.
But how could Jeremy have been asleep if he had had rang Julie beforehand ?
Eh? Another Sherlock blooper!! He called Julie earlier on, then went to bed. A tad obvious Adam!!
-
Jeremy did have an alibi.
He said he was at home, 'sleeping like a log'. His downstairs phone rang, and rang, and rang (the answer machine had for some reason been switched off). Jeremy answered it, it was dad.
But how could Jeremy have been asleep if he had had rang Julie beforehand ?
Erm did you just contradict yourself? Jeremy also had a motive, opportinity & no alibi. Facts
-
Jeremy did have an alibi.
He said he was at home, 'sleeping like a log'. His downstairs phone rang, and rang, and rang (the answer machine had for some reason been switched off). Jeremy answered it, it was dad.
But how could Jeremy have been asleep if he had had rang Julie beforehand ?
He had no alibi. It was his word versus the Crown. Saying that,,his alibi will be in the public domain soon enough when it's found that someone rang him from WHF.
A phone ringing in the early hours would waken the dead,,so if Jeremy said he'd been fast asleep,then he was,prior to the phone ringing. It was while he was already up that he phoned Julie,,after the event,not before because she knew he'd be going straight to bed after having worked for 17 hours harvesting.
-
Eh? Another Sherlock blooper!! He called Julie earlier on, then went to bed. A tad obvious Adam!!
He called her at around 10am, then around 3am.
Another blooper Caroline.
-
They aren't your 14 points and NO, we don't need it posting again!
Curious coincidences:
(25) Taff Jones gets taken off the case just after the relatives complain and make a fuss.
(26) Taff jones has a tragic accident just before the trial.
Now I unlike Adam am not trying to make these things suspicious. I an demonstrating that purely innocent coincidences can be made to seem what they are not and twisted into something so as to throw guilt upon someone else.
-
He had no alibi. It was his word versus the Crown. Saying that,,his alibi will be in the public domain soon enough when it's found that someone rang him from WHF.
A phone ringing in the early hours would waken the dead,,so if Jeremy said he'd been fast asleep,then he was,prior to the phone ringing. It was while he was already up that he phoned Julie,,after the event,not before because she knew he'd be going straight to bed after having worked for 17 hours harvesting.
He rang Julie at 3. As testified by three witnesses.
-
He rang Julie at 3. As testified by three witnesses.
Who all of them changed their times later.
-
they dident testify to that the witness gave diffrent times for the call they did not all agrea it was 3 am.
-
Give us the names of the 3 witnesses then.
-
Grahame it is true what you are saying had Taff Jones been very much Jeremy guilty much would have been made about the tragic accident and it would have been turned into something very sinister.
-
how did taft jones die???
-
Dave he was doing some work at his house and fell off a ladder :(
-
How should he have got an alibi ?
You seem to believe you know it all so I'll leave that one to you.
-
Dave he was doing some work at his house and fell off a ladder :(
Taff Jones & the police getting it wrong at first, benefitted, rather than hurt Jeremy. Important incriminating evidence may have been lost. The defence can highlight how the police changed their mind.
-
You seem to believe you know it all so I'll leave that one to you.
He gets carried away,April. Perhaps he has been ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He gets carried away,April. Perhaps he has been ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ever the optimist, Lookout ;D ;D ;D
-
He called her at around 10am, then around 3am.
Another blooper Caroline.
No Adam another blooper from you - JM herself in her first statement when it would have been fresh in her mind said 3.30 am - So its pick and chose on times is it not.
-
He called her at around 10am, then around 3am.
Another blooper Caroline.
Ha, ha!!!!!!!! So for 5 hours he did what Adam - ohhhhh!! Could he have 'slept'? You just BLOOP away as usual!!
-
He rang Julie at 3. As testified by three witnesses.
Which one? They all said different times!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Which one? They all said different times!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
So does it mean that we're going to leave the final decision to Adam, who generally makes it up as he goes to fit with what he believes it is ;D ;D ;D
-
Taff Jones & the police getting it wrong at first, benefitted, rather than hurt Jeremy. Important incriminating evidence may have been lost. The defence can highlight how the police changed their mind.
Not if the defence don't see all the evidence from the first case ( murder suicide) only from when it was changed to murder .
-
So does it mean that we're going to leave the final decision to Adam, who generally makes it up as he goes to fit with what he believes it is ;D ;D ;D
and then blames it on poor old roger wilkes.
-
So does it mean that we're going to leave the final decision to Adam, who generally makes it up as he goes to fit with what he believes it is ;D ;D ;D
Nah, he doesn't even seem to realise that there are 5 hours between 10pm and 3am - enough time to fall asleep I would think!!
-
Nah, he doesn't even seem to realise that there are 5 hours between 10pm and 3am - enough time to fall asleep I would think!!
Perhaps we should send him back to school, assuming he hasn't yet left. :D
-
Grahame it is true what you are saying had Taff Jones been very much Jeremy guilty much would have been made about the tragic accident and it would have been turned into something very sinister.
No. What I am saying is that coincidences must be treated as coincidences and nothing more sinister than that.
-
No. What I am saying is that coincidences must be treated as coincidences and nothing more sinister than that.
Agree - and that would wipe out 95% of Adams arguments- at least, minimum
-
Morning Grahame yes a coincidence must be treated as a coincidence and not turned into something sinister like some on this forum do to make their theories fit.
-
Agree - and that would wipe out 95% of Adams arguments- at least, minimum
The judge mentioned there were a number of curious coincidences.
A curious coincidence is similar to circumstantial evidence. Of which the judge said there was a mountain of.
Both of these will have been discussed by the jury, CCRC & COA. Together with the forensic evidence.
-
The judge mentioned there were a number of curious coincidences.
A curious coincidence is similar to circumstantial evidence. Of which the judge said there was a mountain of.
Both of these will have been discussed by the jury, CCRC & COA. Together with the forensic evidence.
Adam remind me again - what exactly is the forensic evidence that JB did it ( not that SC did not - bit bored of those posts now) what is the FORENSIC FACTUAL EVIDENCE that JB committed the crime on that night.
-
Adam remind me again - what exactly is the forensic evidence that JB did it ( not that SC did not - bit bored of those posts now) what is the FORENSIC FACTUAL EVIDENCE that JB committed the crime on that night.
None. Why should there be ?
His foot & finger prints will already be all over the house. Evidence was destroyed early on. He was not examined for several weeks.
But if Sheila could not do it...
-
Thank you.
Your comment that SC could not do it is opinion only - there was evidence that she had handled guns before from a witness - and if you took the time to read the facts about "residue" on the interesting new thread on here then that will have educated you. One of the reports about blood on her hands etc is ambiguous to say the least.
So in fact the forensics that you say are discussed are nothing to do with JB having committing the crime. End of.
-
The judge mentioned there were a number of curious coincidences.
A curious coincidence is similar to circumstantial evidence. Of which the judge said there was a mountain of.
Both of these will have been discussed by the jury, CCRC & COA. Together with the forensic evidence.
No they wouldn't. The CCRC would not discuss anything from the trial other than the NEW evidence presented for an appeal. It is not their job to. But I wish they did, then they may have been able to see the other "curious" coincidences that I have pointed out.
-
None. Why should there be ?
His foot & finger prints will already be all over the house. Evidence was destroyed early on. He was not examined for several weeks.
But if Sheila could not do it...
If his footprints were all over the house then they would have been mentioned at trial. As for not being examined for weeks Ann Eaton said in her statement that she looked for any marks on him. But obviously she saw none otherwise she would have said and she suspected him from the very beginning.
-
No they wouldn't. The CCRC would not discuss anything from the trial other than the NEW evidence presented for an appeal. It is not their job to. But I wish they did, then they may have been able to see the other "curious" coincidences that I have pointed out.
So the evidence alone is strong enough ? Thought they would read WS's. That is evidence isn't it ?
The jury would have discussed the mountain of curious coincidences & circumstantial evidence. And the 'mysterious phone call'.
-
If his footprints were all over the house then they would have been mentioned at trial. As for not being examined for weeks Ann Eaton said in her statement that she looked for any marks on him. But obviously she saw none otherwise she would have said and she suspected him from the very beginning.
Oh yes. That will really convict him at trial. His footprints being in his family house.
Jeremy struggled with Neville. Hitting him so hard with the gun, the butt broke. Further blows damaged his jaw, neck, laryx & teeth. Jeremy would have worn gloves.
-
Oh yes. That will really convict him at trial. His footprints being in his family house.
Jeremy struggled with Neville. Hitting him so hard with the gun, the butt broke. Further blows damaged his jaw, neck, laryx & teeth. Jeremy would have worn gloves.
Odd, isn't it, that there were no reports of hair, blood and human tissue being on it.
-
Odd, isn't it, that there were no reports of hair, blood and human tissue being on it.
The carpet that was removed ? Or the gun butt ? How else would the butt have fallen off.
-
The carpet that was removed ? Or the gun butt ? How else would the butt have fallen off.
That's not for me to say. What I can say is that it would seem impossible to beat someone hard enough to break the skin and not leave traces on the implement used. However, to my knowledge, none was spoken of.
-
Oh yes. That will really convict him at trial. His footprints being in his family house.
Jeremy struggled with Neville. Hitting him so hard with the gun, the butt broke. Further blows damaged his jaw, neck, laryx & teeth. Jeremy would have worn gloves.
And leaving none of his bloodied footprints in doing so? Now that suggestion is bordering on the rediculous. He struggled in a life and death struggle and he leaves no forensic evidence whatsoever? Now can you see why Taff Jones held onto the true facts that Sheila did it even when the relatives came blundering into his office. An experienced policeman and a veteran being so wrong on such a vital thing? Can't you see how he was taken off the case and someone else who were in favour for some reason of the relatives version of events. And how convenient the forensic evidence of footprints of the perpetrator left out of the equation? Come on Steve most of the forensic evidence was left out of the trial and was not presented to the jury at all.
-
The carpet that was removed ? Or the gun butt ? How else would the butt have fallen off.
Together with all the other forensic evidence. I really cannot believe that such a fight took place without leaving a mountain of forensic evidence. It just doesn't make sense to me?
But Taff Jones was one of the first there and he saw the evidence for himself befor the police themselves removed it.
-
And leaving none of his bloodied footprints in doing so? Now that suggestion is bordering on the rediculous. He struggled in a life and death struggle and he leaves no forensic evidence whatsoever? Now can you see why Taff Jones held onto the true facts that Sheila did it even when the relatives came blundering into his office. An experienced policeman and a veteran being so wrong on such a vital thing? Can't you see how he was taken off the case and someone else who were in favour for some reason of the relatives version of events. And how convenient the forensic evidence of footprints of the perpetrator left out of the equation? Come on Steve most of the forensic evidence was left out of the trial and was not presented to the jury at all.
So why was he found guilty. The mountain of circumstantial evidence & curious coincidences ?
The police admitted they got it wrong early on. Taff Jones most of all.
The judge said one of the reasons they got it wrong was because they had been lead in that direction. By Jeremy. It was not surprising that the police would intially never think Jeremy could possibly kill his own family.
-
So why was he found guilty. The mountain of circumstantial evidence & curious coincidences ?
The police admitted they got it wrong early on. Taff Jones most of all.
The judge said one of the reasons they got it wrong was because they had been lead in that direction. By Jeremy. It was not surprising that the police would intially never think Jeremy could possibly kill his own family.
And yet in a blink of an eye without question they accepted that SC DID do it. Why do you think that was the case Adam? Why did they not question it at all? Why send in a team to reconstruct the scene - contaminating the crime scene and then why did they destroy evidence so quickly? Why not do a thorough search - why not take other guns for evidence etc. etc?
Why argue with the family so strongly that they were wrong?
I think that the only thing that convicted JB was the silencer - and the fact that the Jury did not hear everything that went on whilst the police were outside.
-
So why was he found guilty. The mountain of circumstantial evidence & curious coincidences ?
The police admitted they got it wrong early on. Taff Jones most of all.
The judge said one of the reasons they got it wrong was because they had been lead in that direction. By Jeremy. It was not surprising that the police would intially never think Jeremy could possibly kill his own family.
He was found guilty because most of the mountain of evidence was kept from the court and from the jury. No doubt this includes the vital forensic evidence ie the bloodied footprints of Sheila and the bloodied carpets that the police destroyed (not as some have said at the instructions of Jeremy) In fact in so doing they destroyed all the vital evidence that would have aquitted him. I hold the view that Taff Jones was absolutely right in the first place. Things changed because someone listened to the relatives with their contaminated silencer "evidence" so called. We just don't have to listen to the tissue of lies created in the dark mind of Julie Mugford at all.
Furthermore the photographic evidence that proved that police had Moved Sheila was rejected by the appeal judge because he said that the photographs lied in effect and that the police didn't lie. Just how that can be I am at a loss?
-
The judge said at the trial that Jeremy could not be found guilty on the silencer evidence alone? Why was that I wonder? Do you think he had doubts in his mind as to the genuiness of that silencer? Strange remark to have made.
-
And yet in a blink of an eye without question they accepted that SC DID do it. Why do you think that was the case Adam? Why did they not question it at all? Why send in a team to reconstruct the scene - contaminating the crime scene and then why did they destroy evidence so quickly? Why not do a thorough search - why not take other guns for evidence etc. etc?
Why argue with the family so strongly that they were wrong?
I think that the only thing that convicted JB was the silencer - and the fact that the Jury did not hear everything that went on whilst the police were outside.
I answered that in my previous post. Jeremy had received a frantic phone call from dad. Sheila was a 'nutter' & Jeremy had left a loaded gun lying around.
Did you not read my 19 reasons, 14 reasons & Judges curious coincidences ? Lots of witnesses testified against Jeremy. Why ?
-
So why was he found guilty. The mountain of circumstantial evidence & curious coincidences ?
The police admitted they got it wrong early on. Taff Jones most of all.
The judge said one of the reasons they got it wrong was because they had been lead in that direction. By Jeremy. It was not surprising that the police would intially never think Jeremy could possibly kill his own family.
Sounds like the judge was saying were thick, stupid, eejits, numbskulls, every member of EP who attended the scene. Keystone cops comes to mind.
-
I answered that in my previous post. Jeremy had received a frantic phone call from dad. Sheila was a 'nutter' & Jeremy had left a loaded gun lying around.
Did you not read my 19 reasons, 14 reasons & Judges curious coincidences ? Lots of witnesses testified against Jeremy. Why ?
They're not YOURS.
-
The 19 reasons are mine. So are the Judges curious coincidences.
-
He was found guilty because most of the mountain of evidence was kept from the court and from the jury. No doubt this includes the vital forensic evidence ie the bloodied footprints of Sheila and the bloodied carpets that the police destroyed (not as some have said at the instructions of Jeremy) In fact in so doing they destroyed all the vital evidence that would have aquitted him. I hold the view that Taff Jones was absolutely right in the first place. Things changed because someone listened to the relatives with their contaminated silencer "evidence" so called. We just don't have to listen to the tissue of lies created in the dark mind of Julie Mugford at all.
Furthermore the photographic evidence that proved that police had Moved Sheila was rejected by the appeal judge because he said that the photographs lied in effect and that the police didn't lie. Just how that can be I am at a loss?
So why have all his appeals dismally failed ?
Show me the alledged photographs.
The jury believed Julie.
-
The 19 reasons are mine. So are the Judges curious coincidences.
I'll allow that the most stupid ones probably are, Adam.
-
I'll allow that the most stupid ones probably are, Adam.
So the 14 forensic reasons which are not mine, are not stupid ?
-
And leaving none of his bloodied footprints in doing so? Now that suggestion is bordering on the rediculous. He struggled in a life and death struggle and he leaves no forensic evidence whatsoever? Now can you see why Taff Jones held onto the true facts that Sheila did it even when the relatives came blundering into his office. An experienced policeman and a veteran being so wrong on such a vital thing? Can't you see how he was taken off the case and someone else who were in favour for some reason of the relatives version of events. And how convenient the forensic evidence of footprints of the perpetrator left out of the equation? Come on Steve most of the forensic evidence was left out of the trial and was not presented to the jury at all.
If Jeremy wore a wetsuit and gloves there would be very little forensic evidence: Jeremy shoots the twins in their beds then withdraws,he shoots June in bed whereby bullets penetrate the pillow,Sheila is led by the hand like a lamb to the slaughter,and an enfeebled Nevill with shots to his head manages to get a hand to the gun,his grip finally succumbing to the vigour of a younger man in a vain attempt to stay alive..
-
So the 14 forensic reasons which are not mine, are not stupid ?
Aha, so now you're admitting that they're not yours.
-
The carpet that was removed ? Or the gun butt ? How else would the butt have fallen off.
Fallen off? Really? Where in any of the evidence does it say the butt had fallen off?
-
So why have all his appeals dismally failed ?
Show me the alledged photographs.
The jury believed Julie.
the jury were NOT convinced by JM's evidence at all which is why they asked to hear the silencer evidence again. HOWEVER the information which was given to them was the judges notes and the notes were INCORRECT because there were aspects of the evidence that the judge didn't understand!!
-
If Jeremy wore a wetsuit and gloves there would be very little forensic evidence: Jeremy shoots the twins in their beds then withdraws,he shoots June in bed whereby bullets penetrate the pillow,Sheila is led by the hand like a lamb to the slaughter,and an enfeebled Nevill with shots to his head manages to get a hand to the gun,his grip finally succumbing to the vigour of a younger man in a vain attempt to stay alive..
There would be blood on the wet suit but the idea that he wore it is ludicrous and was simply the ramblings of an old man determined to point the finger at his nephew!!
-
the jury were NOT convinced by JM's evidence at all which is why they asked to hear the silencer evidence again. HOWEVER the information which was given to them was the judges notes and the notes were INCORRECT because there were aspects of the evidence that the judge didn't understand!!
The defence said her WS had a ring of truth. They were unable to find holes in her WS.
They challenged her honesty in court. Mentioning the cheque book fraud & caravan break in. Julie maintained she was telling the truth regarding the massacre.
How do you know they were not convinced by Julies evidence ?
-
Aha, so now you're admitting that they're not yours.
Already said several days ago, I saw it on Mumsnet.
-
If Jeremy wore a wetsuit and gloves there would be very little forensic evidence: Jeremy shoots the twins in their beds then withdraws,he shoots June in bed whereby bullets penetrate the pillow,Sheila is led by the hand like a lamb to the slaughter,and an enfeebled Nevill with shots to his head manages to get a hand to the gun,his grip finally succumbing to the vigour of a younger man in a vain attempt to stay alive..
Unfortunately your whole argument rests entirely on the first word you wrote. IF
-
There would be blood on the wet suit but the idea that he wore it is ludicrous and was simply the ramblings of an old man determined to point the finger at his nephew!!
I have said it before. I used to have a wetsuit and can say without fear of contradiction that they are absorbent and it would have been useless in protecting him from any blood in this rediculous scenario. In fact it would probably have held a complete record of his actions. I also point out yet again that there must have been forensic evidence at the scene itself if there had been a fight for life between Ralph and his assailant. WHERE IS IT?
-
The defence said her WS had a ring of truth. They were unable to find holes in her WS.
They challenged her honesty in court. Mentioning the cheque book fraud & caravan break in. Julie maintained she was telling the truth regarding the massacre.
How do you know they were not convinced by Julies evidence ?
The jury weren't convinced by Julie's evidence which is WHY they asked to hear the silencer evidence AGAIN - two of them still weren't convinced!! The 'ring of truth' comment is taken out of context and we would need to know WHY and WHEN it was said - together with the rest of the conversation. It was simply a comment made in Wilkes's book which he didn't elaborate on!! Julie was HARDLY going to announce to the court that she had been lying - the fact that she ONLY cried and was often illegible when being questioned by the defense speaks volumes!! She composed herself well enough to be question by the prosecution!! Quite a ploy!!
-
The defence said her WS had a ring of truth. They were unable to find holes in her WS.
They challenged her honesty in court. Mentioning the cheque book fraud & caravan break in. Julie maintained she was telling the truth regarding the massacre.
How do you know they were not convinced by Julies evidence ?
For fear of becoming boring by repeating the same thing, which others appear to be willingly blind to? They were ignorant of her deal with the NOTW. She effectively lied about this to the judge in his chambers.
-
Already said several days ago, I saw it on Mumsnet.
Did you get any good recipes?
-
The jury weren't convinced by Julie's evidence which is WHY they asked to hear the silencer evidence AGAIN - two of them still weren't convinced!! The 'ring of truth' comment is taken out of context and we would need to know WHY and WHEN it was said - together with the rest of the conversation. It was simply a comment made in Wilkes's book which he didn't elaborate on!! Julie was HARDLY going to announce to the court that she had been lying - the fact that she ONLY cried and was often illegible when being questioned by the defense speaks volumes!! She composed herself well enough to be question by the prosecution!! Quite a ploy!!
If I had a defence team that said that kind of thing aqbout a prosecution witness I'd change my defence team. It sounds a very unusual thing for them to say.
-
Fallen off? Really? Where in any of the evidence does it say the butt had fallen off?
Adam? You made a claim that the rifle butt had fallen off - where is your evidence for this? Which statement was this in and where is the picture for evidence? Before replying though, remember that there are pictures of the rifle laying on top of SC - butt unbroken!!
-
For fear of becoming boring by repeating the same thing, which others appear to be willingly blind to? They were ignorant of her deal with the NOTW. She effectively lied about this to the judge in his chambers.
Where does it say that ? Not in Wilkes's book. There is no record of the court transcripts.
-
If I had a defence team that said that kind of thing aqbout a prosecution witness I'd change my defence team. It sounds a very unusual thing for them to say.
Yes, it does - out of context!
-
Where does it say that ? Not in Wilkes's book. There is no record of the court transcripts.
This is your problem!! You main source of what happened it Wilkes's book and copying what other guilty posters have said - all you do is copy their mistakes instead of reading the statements in the archives, you rely on other people to do the work for you!!
-
This is your problem!! You main source of what happened it Wilkes's book and copying what other guilty posters have said - all you do is copy their mistakes instead of reading the statements in the archives, you rely on other people to do the work for you!!
Have you got the court transcripts ?
-
Have you got the court transcripts ?
Have you go a picture of the broken rifle butt?
-
This is your problem!! You main source of what happened it Wilkes's book and copying what other guilty posters have said - all you do is copy their mistakes instead of reading the statements in the archives, you rely on other people to do the work for you!!
Youtube videos, internet articles, online witness statements & interview transcripts. The red forum also has a lot of information. I have also read a critically acclaimed book.
-
Have you go a picture of the broken rifle butt?
I have not. But lots of people have said it broke off. Jeremy supporters included.
Graheme said Julie lied in court about her NOTW deal. I have never read this anywhere else.
-
Youtube videos, internet articles, online witness statements & interview transcripts. The red forum also has a lot of information. I have also read a critically acclaimed book.
It's clear that you have hardly read any witness statements and What book?
-
I have not. But lots of people have said it broke off. Jeremy supporters included.
Graheme said Julie lied in court about her NOTW deal. I have never read this anywhere else.
And yet there it is on top of SC in one piece. It is also photographed being held by a uniformed officer - again - in one piece. Another myth that you're helping to repeat simply because you don't read things properly (or at all). The mechanism on the rifle was damaged - it jammed when being test fired BUT was it damaged because it was forced by someone who wasn't used to using it? An alternative view!! I have seen NOTHING that shows the butt was broken in any way!!
There is LOTS of information about the NOTW deal - I'm sure you'll enjoy reading it!!
-
It's clear that you have hardly read any witness statements and What book?
Yeah yeah.
What book ? You know what book. One of the 5 star reviews below.
Who could forget this awful crime, a very well written book, couldnt put it down, very factual, allows you to make your own mind up, remember this case well, well i did back then, and my opinion is the same now, as far as im concerned, common sense prevailed at the trial and bamber was found guilty of all the murders, what i do believe is that jeremy believes he is innocent and will fight to the end to prove it, if he secures an appeal in the future and is released, it will be on a technicality, wait and see, i hope he rots in jail then onto hell. Rest in peace sheila, nicholas, daniel, neville and june.
-
Yeah yeah.
What book ? You know what book. One of the 5 star reviews below.
Who could forget this awful crime, a very well written book, couldnt put it down, very factual, allows you to make your own mind up, remember this case well, well i did back then, and my opinion is the same now, as far as im concerned, common sense prevailed at the trial and bamber was found guilty of all the murders, what i do believe is that jeremy believes he is innocent and will fight to the end to prove it, if he secures an appeal in the future and is released, it will be on a technicality, wait and see, i hope he rots in jail then onto hell. Rest in peace sheila, nicholas, daniel, neville and june.
It is also semi factual, romanticized trivia, designed to make money and aimed at those of mediocre intellect.
-
Where does it say that ? Not in Wilkes's book. There is no record of the court transcripts.
Look up the first appeal Adam. Not everything can be found in Wilkes' book.
-
Really April.
Great account of the White House Farm Shootings of 1985. Its a classic account of a whodunit ; either Jeremy Bamber or his mentally ill sister Sheila, of whom only one could have caused the deaths since Sheila was found dead herself. The book leaves you in no doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty but still very much leads you to make your own judgement based on the evidence thoroughly presented. Its very obvious based on the circumstantial evidence that Bamber is guilty. It would surely simply be too much for so many people to be biased or self interested, including the police, family of those murdered and primary witness Julie Mugford, who attested that Jeremy had admitted wanting to kill his family. This is one of those very interesting cases whereby had the police done a better job, the rightful killer (Bamber or Sheila) would have been found from day 1. As it was with no DNA evidence in 1985, exhibits not found by the police (the rifle moderator) at the start and a bungled investigation, the truth may never be known with any certainty. One thing for sure is that Jeremy Bamber knows himself! Understand that a new book is to come out soon by former MP Andrew Hunter (pro Bamber) called 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
-
Have you got the court transcripts ?
It will not be in the court transcripts. It was at the first appeal.
-
Thought the first appeal was about the judges summing up ?
Have browsed the 2002 appeal transcripts. Do not recall anything about Julie's NOTW deal. However I have previously posted a section from it about Sheila's legs being pulled after the second shot.
-
April don't forget new book to be published shortly by Mason Doyle ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Really April.
Great account of the White House Farm Shootings of 1985. Its a classic account of a whodunit ; either Jeremy Bamber or his mentally ill sister Sheila, of whom only one could have caused the deaths since Sheila was found dead herself. The book leaves you in no doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty but still very much leads you to make your own judgement based on the evidence thoroughly presented. Its very obvious based on the circumstantial evidence that Bamber is guilty. It would surely simply be too much for so many people to be biased or self interested, including the police, family of those murdered and primary witness Julie Mugford, who attested that Jeremy had admitted wanting to kill his family. This is one of those very interesting cases whereby had the police done a better job, the rightful killer (Bamber or Sheila) would have been found from day 1. As it was with no DNA evidence in 1985, exhibits not found by the police (the rifle moderator) at the start and a bungled investigation, the truth may never be known with any certainty. One thing for sure is that Jeremy Bamber knows himself! Understand that a new book is to come out soon by former MP Andrew Hunter (pro Bamber) called 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No Adam. The book leaves YOU in no doubt and YOU experience it as leading YOU to make judgement. I don't believe circumstantial evidence to be strong enough to put someone away for life. Please don't include ME when you say YOU.
-
Look up the first appeal Adam. Not everything can be found in Wilkes' book.
My bad. It was not at the first appeal. It was the CCRC that ruled that. So they prevented it from getting to the appeal stage. Here is a quote from Jeremy Bamber.org Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
-
That is a review from someone else April.
People have been convicted on just circumstantial evidence. And a motive or no alibi.
Are you not aware of the forensic evidence ?
-
That is a review from someone else April.
People have been convicted on just circumstantial evidence. And a motive or no alibi.
Are you not aware of the forensic evidence ?
It matters little from WHERE it came, Adam. The author cannot be totally objective and will guide the reader along which ever road they feel appropriate. People MAY have been convicted on what you say but a conviction doesn't mean they have imprisoned the right person. Much of the forensic evidence seems to b e highly questionable.
-
That is a review from someone else April.
People have been convicted on just circumstantial evidence. And a motive or no alibi.
Are you not aware of the forensic evidence ?
Yes. There is none. Now that is a surprise is it not? You would expect to find a mountain of forensic evidence where there had been a fight for life wouldn't you? But hey presto. None whatsoever. Now why6 is that do you think? Could it be that the police destroyed it all? More than likely. Now the real question is WHY? did they destroy it.
-
A bit of reading for you about Mugford from jeremybamber.org.
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
-
Yes. There is none. Now that is a surprise is it not? You would expect to find a mountain of forensic evidence where there had been a fight for life wouldn't you? But hey presto. None whatsoever. Now why6 is that do you think? Could it be that the police destroyed it all? More than likely. Now the real question is WHY? did they destroy it.
Yes Grahame, I find it intriguing that, for several weeks, there was a whole STACK of evidence which either fitted the crime, OR was manipulated to fit the crime. Then, quite suddenly, NONE of that evidence fitted and there was a whole NEW stack of evidence, which given that the first stack either fitted or was made to fit, to which the same observations must similarly apply.
-
Yes. There is none. Now that is a surprise is it not? You would expect to find a mountain of forensic evidence where there had been a fight for life wouldn't you? But hey presto. None whatsoever. Now why6 is that do you think? Could it be that the police destroyed it all? More than likely. Now the real question is WHY? did they destroy it.
Have you forgotten about the '14 forensic reasons why Sheila could not have comitted the massacre'. A thread you previously commented on.
If Sheila could not do it, it must be a burglar. But Jeremy said 'dad rang'...
-
A bit of reading for you about Mugford from jeremybamber.org.
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
I see you are starting to quote Jeremys own site a lot.
The same site that says Sheila shot herself downstairs.
-
Yes Grahame, I find it intriguing that, for several weeks, there was a whole STACK of evidence which either fitted the crime, OR was manipulated to fit the crime. Then, quite suddenly, NONE of that evidence fitted and there was a whole NEW stack of evidence, which given that the first stack either fitted or was made to fit, to which the same observations must similarly apply.
Eh ?
-
It matters little from WHERE it came, Adam. The author cannot be totally objective and will guide the reader along which ever road they feel appropriate. People MAY have been convicted on what you say but a conviction doesn't mean they have imprisoned the right person. Much of the forensic evidence seems to b e highly questionable.
There are a few highly publicised incident where convicted individuals are released. Sion Jenkins being one after two juries could not reach a verdict in a retrial.
However Jeremy has not been so successful in the last 29 years. Pointing towards his guilt.
-
Perhaps Graheme can say how Sheila committed the massacre. He said yesterday Jeremy 'is' innocent. So it must be simple to explain. He created a scenario thread recently, so obviously is interested in them.
Please include Nevilles two phone calls. Nevilles brutal beating & Sheila's two shots, in the corner of her parents bedroom. As well as Sheila reloading twice.
-
Yeah yeah.
What book ? You know what book. One of the 5 star reviews below.
Who could forget this awful crime, a very well written book, couldnt put it down, very factual, allows you to make your own mind up, remember this case well, well i did back then, and my opinion is the same now, as far as im concerned, common sense prevailed at the trial and bamber was found guilty of all the murders, what i do believe is that jeremy believes he is innocent and will fight to the end to prove it, if he secures an appeal in the future and is released, it will be on a technicality, wait and see, i hope he rots in jail then onto hell. Rest in peace sheila, nicholas, daniel, neville and june.
Like I said, your main source of material is Wilkes's book with was writted years ago and why you keep repeating OLD info!
-
Thought the first appeal was about the judges summing up ?
Have browsed the 2002 appeal transcripts. Do not recall anything about Julie's NOTW deal. However I have previously posted a section from it about Sheila's legs being pulled after the second shot.
The information is on the forum!! There is a statement by JM
-
Perhaps Graheme can say how Sheila committed the massacre. He said yesterday Jeremy 'is' innocent. So it must be simple to explain. He created a scenario thread recently, so obviously is interested in them.
Please include Nevilles two phone calls. Nevilles brutal beating & Sheila's two shots, in the corner of her parents bedroom.
I believe it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the reason we don't throw "stage sets" around is because none of us was there, yet you spend copious amounts of time trying to lure us into doing exactly what we ask you to refrain from and demanding that we do it in a certain way.
-
Perhaps Graheme can say how Sheila committed the massacre. He said yesterday Jeremy 'is' innocent. So it must be simple to explain. He created a scenario thread recently, so obviously is interested in them.
Please include Nevilles two phone calls. Nevilles brutal beating & Sheila's two shots, in the corner of her parents bedroom.
With a rifle
-
I believe it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the reason we don't throw "stage sets" around is because none of us was there, yet you spend copious amounts of time trying to lure us into doing exactly what we ask you to refrain from and demanding that we do it in a certain way.
I have not asked anyone to do a scenario for weeks.
But Graheme said Jeremy 'is' innocent.
Another poster recently said Jeremy has been convicted for a crime he did 'not' commit.
If Jeremy is so obviously innocent, thought is would be easy to say how Sheila did it. Also thought Jeremys supporters would want to show everyone how Sheila did it.
The crime occurred in one house. Body locations & bullet allocations are common knowledge.
-
I have not asked anyone to do a scenario for weeks.
But Graheme said Jeremy 'is' innocent.
Another poster recently said Jeremy has been convicted for a crime he did 'not' commit.
If Jeremy is so obviously innocent, thought is would be easy to say how Sheila did it. Also thought Jeremys supporters would want to show everyone how Sheila did it.
The crime occurred in one house. Body locations & bullet allocations are common knowledge.
NOT having demanded a scenario for weeks DOESN'T entitle you to start doing so now.
So Grahame said Jeremy is innocent. SO WHAT??? You say he isn't. The only difference is Grahame doesn't make a nuisance of himself over his beliefs in the way that you do over yours.................neither is he as childish.
-
NOT having demanded a scenario for weeks DOESN'T entitle you to start doing so now.
So Grahame said Jeremy is innocent. SO WHAT??? You say he isn't. The only difference is Grahame doesn't make a nuisance of himself over his beliefs in the way that you do over yours.................neither is he as childish.
I have never said Jeremy 'is' guilty.
Just discussed the evidence. I said yesterday it is not impossible that he is innocent. But he would have to be the unluckiest man in the world.
-
I have never said Jeremy 'is' guilty.
Just discussed the evidence. I said yesterday it is not impossible that he is innocent. But he would have to be the unluckiest man in the world.
Adam, I'm willing to take a chance and say that, somewhere within the 2000 ish posts you've aimed at us, there are one or ??? which see you implying Jeremy's guilt.................................and if I'm wrong, at least I can reasonably assure other members that looking for evidence of it will shut you up for a while :)
-
How about this posted by Adam - his words
"Jeremy killed for status, power & a million pounds in todays money. People have killed people they hated for less."
I would call that a statement - not a question or discussion.
I don't care that it is obvious you 100% believe he is guilty but don't treat us as if we are stupid by pretending to debate. It is an insult to our intelligence
-
How about this posted by Adam - his words
"Jeremy killed for status, power & a million pounds in todays money. People have killed people they hated for less."
I would call that a statement - not a question or discussion.
I don't care that it is obvious you 100% believe he is guilty but don't treat us as if we are stupid by pretending to debate. It is an insult to our intelligence
Awwwww Jansus, thank-you for that. I hadn't realized it would be QUITE so easy to find evidence. I'd hoped I'd provided him with something to amuse himself with to keep him out of out hair for a while. Guess we can now add "liar" to his catalogue of offences.
-
Yes I do believe Jeremy is guilty. And have said how he could have done it (scenario).
None of Jeremys supporters who strongly argue against me, have told me how Sheila did it (except one person). Claiming it is not appropriate to do so. Strange.
-
Yes I do believe Jeremy is guilty. And have said how he could have done it (scenario).
None of Jeremys supporters who strongly argue against me, have told me how Sheila did it (except one person). Claiming it is not appropriate to do so. Strange.
We have all written scenarios at one time or another. However, your scenario on how Jeremy committed the crimes is as valuable as NOT writing one about how Sheila committed the murders because WE WEREN'T THERE!! The argument is that Sheila wouldn't have been strong enough being a small weak frail female. That's bollox - she was bigger than me and I don't think I would have any problem overpowering a wounded 61 year old male with a chronic back problem - if I ever needed to and ESPECIALLY if I had a rifle in my hand!!. Never fired one but it certainly doesn't look like rocket science ESPECIALLY for a farmers daughter who had been brought up around guns!!
-
We have all written scenarios at one time or another. However, your scenario on how Jeremy committed the crimes is as valuable as NOT writing one about how Sheila committed the murders because WE WEREN'T THERE!! The argument is that Sheila wouldn't have been strong enough being a small weak frail female. That's bollox - she was bigger than me and I don't think I would have any problem overpowering a wounded 61 year old male with a chronic back problem - if I ever needed to and ESPECIALLY if I had a rifle in my hand!!. Never fired one but it certainly doesn't look like rocket science ESPECIALLY for a farmers daughter who had been brought up around guns!!
There are lots of other things that need to be fitted into a Sheila scenario.
When did Neville make his 'mysterious' phone call to Jeremy or the police ?
How did she re load twice if she had no experience with guns ?
When did she reload twice ?
How could she do this if, as AE said she was so uncordinated ?
How did Sheila shoot herself twice ?
Why did Sheila put the silencer away ?
How did Sheila manage to do most of this between 3.26am - 3.48am ?
Why would Sheila be so keen to stop Neville making a phone call ?
Who pulled Sheila's legs after the second shot ?
Why did Sheila apparently shower after the murders ?
Why was there no gun residue on Sheila. After firing 26 shots & at least two after showering ?
The 14 points from Mumsnet.
Why was she in the corner of the bedroom with the mother she did not get along with. The father and children she was attached to, discarded ?
How did Sheila's blood get on the silencer ?
How did Sheila not have any marks after a fight with her father ?
Oh, and how could Sheila give Neville such a beating ? Breaking a bit of the rifle in the process. BW said Neville could control her with one arm.
-
There are lots of other things that need to be fitted into a Sheila scenario.
When did Neville make his 'mysterious' phone call to Jeremy or the police ?
How did she re load twice if she had no experience with guns ?
When did she reload twice ?
How could she do this if, as AE said she was so uncordinated ?
How did Sheila shoot herself twice ?
Why did Sheila put the silencer away ?
How did Sheila manage to do most of this between 3.26am - 3.48am ?
Why would Sheila be so keen to stop Neville making a phone call ?
Who pulled Sheila's legs after the second shot ?
Why did Sheila apparently shower after the murders ?
Why was there no gun residue on Sheila. After firing 26 shots & at least two after showering ?
The 14 points from Mumsnet.
Why was she in the corner of the bedroom with the mother she did not get along with. The father and children she was attached to, discarded ?
How did Sheila's blood get on the silencer ?
How did Sheila not have any marks after a fight with her father ?
Oh, and how could Sheila give Neville such a beating ? Breaking a bit of the rifle in the process. BW said Neville could control her with one arm.
There is nothing in the above which isn't repetition. The questions have been answered time and again. If they haven't provided the answers you want, tough!! I for one, won't waste time and effort on them.
-
Ok. Just answer the first question as I do not know the answer.
At what stage did Neville phone Jeremy & the police ?
Thank you.
-
Ok. Just answer the first question as I do not know the answer.
At what stage did Neville phone Jeremy & the police ?
Thank you.
Guess what, Adam? Neither do I!!! There really is no point in hazarding a guess which you UNDOUBTEDLY will tell me is wrong.
-
Guess what, Adam? Neither do I!!! There really is no point in hazarding a guess which you UNDOUBTEDLY will tell me is wrong.
Was it when she was shooting 15 bullets into June & the twins. Neville decided not to save them & ran downstairs to make his phone calls.
Or was it before any shots were fired. Neville realiasing he would not be able to wrestle the gun off her.
The most believable thing is Sheila shot Neville upstairs & on the stairs. Then turned her attention on June. Shooting her with the remaining five bullets. Once she ran out of bullets she went downstairs to re load & saw Neville on the phone, where the fight took place.
-
Adam - just give up - if as we believe it was SC then she was in the middle of a psychotic episode caused by her illness - so you can APPLY no logic to the sequence.
you don't know that the twins were not shot dead with one shot each and she went back afterwards with more shots. You don't now that she had just not grabbed the gun - but not shot anyone when he made the call for help?
you don't know and we don't know.
You could say you would overpower a girl pointing a rifle at you - but if it actually happened you can not predict your reaction.
it is a waste of time.
you are trying to reach into the minds of those that were there on the night - which is futile as you did not know them and neither did we.
-
Adam - just give up - if as we believe it was SC then she was in the middle of a psychotic episode caused by her illness - so you can APPLY no logic to the sequence.
you don't know that the twins were not shot dead with one shot each and she went back afterwards with more shots. You don't now that she had just not grabbed the gun - but not shot anyone when he made the call for help?
you don't know and we don't know.
You could say you would overpower a girl pointing a rifle at you - but if it actually happened you can not predict your reaction.
it is a waste of time.
you are trying to reach into the minds of those that were there on the night - which is futile as you did not know them and neither did we.
Like Jeremy I will never give up.
-
I'll never give up either,,,but it'll be for different reasons than yours !
-
I find it amazing that people are so adament Jeremy is innocent.
There is so much evidence pointing to his guilt. He was convicted & has failed to get this overturned in 29 years.
Each to their own I suppose.
-
Like Jeremy I will never give up.
Adam be very careful that we don't give up on you.
-
I find it amazing that people are so adament Jeremy is innocent.
There is so much evidence pointing to his guilt. He was convicted & has failed to get this overturned in 29 years.
Each to their own I suppose.
Adam - I came on to this forum with an open mind and I am still learning. Some things on here I don't believe - some I find very informative. That is what having an open mind is about. You are not on here to learn because when someone answers a post in a way you don't like you just ignore it and move on to repeating what you have said before.
-
Yeah yeah.
What book ? You know what book. One of the 5 star reviews below.
Who could forget this awful crime, a very well written book, couldnt put it down, very factual, allows you to make your own mind up, remember this case well, well i did back then, and my opinion is the same now, as far as im concerned, common sense prevailed at the trial and bamber was found guilty of all the murders, what i do believe is that jeremy believes he is innocent and will fight to the end to prove it, if he secures an appeal in the future and is released, it will be on a technicality, wait and see, i hope he rots in jail then onto hell. Rest in peace sheila, nicholas, daniel, neville and june.
-
I find it amazing that people are so adament Jeremy is innocent.
There is so much evidence pointing to his guilt. He was convicted & has failed to get this overturned in 29 years.
Each to their own I suppose.
Adam, you seem to have found your way on to the wrong forum. Why do you "find it amazing that people are so adamant that Jeremy is innocent" on a forum which supports him? Each, as you say, to their own. SUCH a shame you don't practice what you preach. As objectionable as you make yourself we don't attack your beliefs OR ask you constantly to explain them.
-
What part of 'one of the 5 star reviews below' did you not understand ?
-
Adam - I came on to this forum with an open mind and I am still learning. Some things on here I don't believe - some I find very informative. That is what having an open mind is about. You are not on here to learn because when someone answers a post in a way you don't like you just ignore it and move on to repeating what you have said before.
I do not ignore posts. Susan tried that last week but failed to provide evidence.
-
There are lots of other things that need to be fitted into a Sheila scenario.
When did Neville make his 'mysterious' phone call to Jeremy or the police ?
Before being shot
How did she re load twice if she had no experience with guns ?
It was mentioned in one of Peter Eaton's earlier statements that he HAD seen Sheila use a gun
When did she reload twice ?
When the rifle was empty and victims were incapacitated by shots ::)
How could she do this if, as AE said she was so uncordinated ?
Simple - she wasn't
How did Sheila shoot herself twice ?
Reflex
Why did Sheila put the silencer away ?
She didn't, it wasn't used
How did Sheila manage to do most of this between 3.26am - 3.48am ?
It wouldn't take long with a semi automatic rifle
Why would Sheila be so keen to stop Neville making a phone call ?
Who said she was?
Who pulled Sheila's legs after the second shot ?
No evidence that anyone did, it was a suggestion AND police admitted to moving her body to take photographs.
Why did Sheila apparently shower after the murders ?
She didn't - her hands were STILL bloodied as per Venezis written autopsy report!!
Why was there no gun residue on Sheila. After firing 26 shots & at least two after showering ?
Swabs were rejected - we don't know the same ones were resubmitted and that wouldn't be allowed today!!
The 14 points from Mumsnet.
Why was she in the corner of the bedroom with the mother she did not get along with. The father and children she was attached to, discarded ?
No one other than Sheila could answer that!
How did Sheila's blood get on the silencer ?
How indeed!
How did Sheila not have any marks after a fight with her father ?
She didn't have a fight, just like the rifle butt wasn't broken!!
Oh, and how could Sheila give Neville such a beating ? Breaking a bit of the rifle in the process. BW said Neville could control her with one arm.
She didn't and Barbara Wilson said quite a few things - like she saw the blood on the silencer when she couldn't have!!
-
Thank you.
Good. Something to discuss. Rather than me.
You forgot the 14 mumsnet points.
-
I see you are starting to quote Jeremys own site a lot.
The same site that says Sheila shot herself downstairs.
I've only quoted it twice. And that's only because I'm lazy. ::)
-
Thank you.
Good. Something to discuss. Rather than me.
You forgot the 14 mumsnet points.
But WE have already discussed these things Adam, however, please feel free to start a conversation.
-
Adam,,have you by any chance read Scott Lomax's book ? He who wrote about his doubt regarding the case against Barry George ?
-
Like Jeremy I will never give up.
Why? Your are fighting a battle that has apparently been won already. Why flog a dead horse? What's in it for you? It doesn't make sense to be a guilter?
-
I find it amazing that people are so adament Jeremy is innocent.
There is so much evidence pointing to his guilt. He was convicted & has failed to get this overturned in 29 years.
Each to their own I suppose.
Perhaps it's because many aren't so gullible and see that things just do not sound right? What may seem so straight forward to you others look at things from a completely different perspective and see a real possibility of a misgarriage of justice in this case.
And perhaps it is because there are so many people going to the ends of the earth trying to prove him guilty when he is in prison already. Now that to my mind is the most intriguing thing.
-
Adam,,have you by any chance read Scott Lomax's book ? He who wrote about his doubt regarding the case against Barry George ?
Hi Lookout have already suggested Adam reads Scott Lomax, much more up to date book with more upvto date evidence. Lomax is seen as biased cos he supports JB but maybe he does this because he finds the evidence compelling? Adam prefers tovignore this book and Steve skimmed it so I gather they didn't like what they read???? I wonder why??
-
Grahame that is what I find amazing that people who think Jeremy Bamber guilty why are they on this MOJ forum he was found Guilty serving a life sentence what do they want or are they deep down afraid he will be released and they think by posting as they do they will keep him in prison. In their dreams ;D
-
I read both forums and am still very much on the fence....and getting blisters from all the swapping about in my opinions. :P
I don't believe Sheila could have carried out these murders. Have read the PM reporta and Sheila's nails were described as long and painted with nail varnish. No way could she have loaded, reloaded that rifle and carried out all that shooting without damaging her nails in any way.
Obviously if it wasn't Sheila then it was A N Other.....and then you have to question the whole phone call "she's gone crazy" stuff.
I don't know.....and I probably never will.
Lots that bothers me.....from what Jeremy said at the timem I thought in his police questioning he seemed very evasive.....and frankly came across as trying to remember what story he had given. Then again it was just a month after his entire family had died and perhaps in those circumstances I would be confused too.
But.....the whole investigation was not well handled....although this worked as much IN Jeremy's favour as against him.
Then there is the whole destruction of evidence thing.....appalling.
-
I read both forums and am still very much on the fence....and getting blisters from all the swapping about in my opinions. :P
I don't believe Sheila could have carried out these murders. Have read the PM reporta and Sheila's nails were described as long and painted with nail varnish. No way could she have loaded, reloaded that rifle and carried out all that shooting without damaging her nails in any way.
Obviously if it wasn't Sheila then it was A N Other.....and then you have to question the whole phone call "she's gone crazy" stuff.
I don't know.....and I probably never will.
Lots that bothers me.....from what Jeremy said at the timem I thought in his police questioning he seemed very evasive.....and frankly came across as trying to remember what story he had given. Then again it was just a month after his entire family had died and perhaps in those circumstances I would be confused too.
But.....the whole investigation was not well handled....although this worked as much IN Jeremy's favour as against him.
Then there is the whole destruction of evidence thing.....appalling.
Droosie, you won't be alone on the fence for long. Several of us hop on and off from time to time. NOTHING about this case is, IMO, clear cut. I would agree that Jeremy did himself no favours, an air of arrogant boredom would have gone down like a lead balloon but that doesn't make him a murderer.
It might be worth your while taking a look at the last year of Sheila's life, the breakdown, the botched medication and the personal traumas. It might also be worth looking at WS's given by the rellies to find out what were their feelings about Jeremy and what Jeremy inheriting would have meant to them.
As you say, we'll probably NEVER know. We weren't there.
-
Jeremy Bamber. The night he came home.
-
Jeremy Bamber. The night he came home.
Are you referring to the youtube video and Michael Myers type music? I expect the inside of Sheila Caffell's mind on the night of 6th/7th Aug would have been a terrifying cauldren to inhabit.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMUrBhYpduY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5GFDFt2cV8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Here is a nice video to balance things out.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5GFDFt2cV8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Here is a nice video to balance things out.
Made a couple my self a while back. Pretty crude attempts. I took them down. I could do one again and a much better job to boot. Though they are exhausting work. The editing down to fit the narrative within a reasonable time frame that also fits with the music pattern but doesn't lose impact is real intensive stuff.
-
Made a couple my self a while back. Pretty crude attempts. I took them down. I could do one again and a much better job to boot. Though they are exhausting work. The editing down to fit the narrative within a reasonable time frame that also fits with the music pattern but doesn't lose impact is real intensive stuff.
It couldn't be any worse than Channel 5's attempt!! ;) ;D ;D
-
It couldn't be any worse than Channel 5's attempt!! ;) ;D ;D
Mine had a slightly more defence bias :D
-
Made a couple my self a while back. Pretty crude attempts. I took them down. I could do one again and a much better job to boot. Though they are exhausting work. The editing down to fit the narrative within a reasonable time frame that also fits with the music pattern but doesn't lose impact is real intensive stuff.
There was a pro Jeremy video which has been deleted. I was very upset as I liked the music.
-
Mine had a slightly more defence bias :D
Just a few facts would be nice!! :)
-
There was a pro Jeremy video which has been deleted. I was very upset as I liked the music.
Maybe it was Primal Scream or Blur. EMI blocked it due to copyright etc. I had another three projects on my laptop. An almost completed vid about the silencer but I just didn't like it. Pity, the music was The Smiths instrumental 'Oscilate Wildly'. Another project used a free soundtrack music, so no problems with copyright. This was about the raid but it was never properly put together and my laptop has since gone kaput. Mason Doyle's book put me off going through the intense work of creating it because I thought by the time it was completed, it would probably be obsolete.
For what it's worth, I like the official videos about the money trail and the bible. Though they're not perfect, they're certainly more professional than my prev attempts.
Sorry to go off-topic.
-
Just a few facts would be nice!! :)
We'll see if we cant put them right at some point. 8)
-
We'll see if we cant put them right at some point. 8)
;)
-
Maybe it was Primal Scream or Blur. EMI blocked it due to copyright etc. I had another three projects on my laptop. An almost completed vid about the silencer but I just didn't like it. Pity, the music was The Smiths instrumental 'Oscilate Wildly'. Another project used a free soundtrack music, so no problems with copyright. This was about the raid but it was never properly put together and my laptop has since gone kaput. Mason Doyle's book put me off going through the intense work of creating it because I thought by the time it was completed, it would probably be obsolete.
For what it's worth, I like the official videos about the money trail and the bible. Though they're not perfect, they're certainly more professional than my prev attempts.
Sorry to go off-topic.
It was not Blur. It had a female singer. Very mellow.
-
Perhaps it's because many aren't so gullible and see that things just do not sound right? What may seem so straight forward to you others look at things from a completely different perspective and see a real possibility of a misgarriage of justice in this case.
And perhaps it is because there are so many people going to the ends of the earth trying to prove him guilty when he is in prison already. Now that to my mind is the most intriguing thing.
I am not trying to prove him guilty. That has already been done beyond reasonable doubt. Several times over if you include the appeals.
I took an interest as it is a high profile case. Jeremy always claiming his innocence & blaming Sheila. As well as blaming the police, relatives, courts, judge, CCRC and Julie.
-
Grahame that is what I find amazing that people who think Jeremy Bamber guilty why are they on this MOJ forum he was found Guilty serving a life sentence what do they want or are they deep down afraid he will be released and they think by posting as they do they will keep him in prison. In their dreams ;D
I am afraid he will be released on a technicality. Afraid for the other relatives.
This is a discussion forum. People who believe he is guilty are allowed to express their opinions.
Me or you posting on here will make no difference when the CCRC hears the case again in a few years time.
-
Morning Droosie I noticed in your post you stated the whole police investigation was not handled well but this worked in Jeremy Bambers favour as well as against him. I am finding this difficult to understand the fact he was found Guilty and is serving life in prison.
-
morning everybody
-
I am afraid for the other relatives.
I think it's the sound moderator/s evidence that will make most people fear for the relatives.
-
Morning to you too Dave :)
-
Good morning Susan :)
-
Morning Roch
When Jeremy Bamber is released nobody will have any need to be afraid of him unless one has a guilty concience then they may feel afraid but he is not and never was a violent man. Some maybe be afraid of him claiming what was rightfully his.
-
Morning Roch
When Jeremy Bamber is released nobody will have any need to be afraid of him unless one has a guilty concience then they may feel afraid but he is not and never was a violent man. Some maybe be afraid of him claiming what was rightfully his.
Tend to be more of a pessemist regarding his release. But you never know.
-
He is serving life imprisonment yes...but that is despite the poor police investigation and not because of it.
There are lots of things which trouble me about this case.....and then I look at them as a whole and currently that still leaves me believing Jeremy to be guilty.....obviously that will not suit this forum but at least I AM reading the opinions here and thinking about them rather than just reading everything on the UK Justice Forum and believing it as factual.
I am not alone in reading both forums and they definitely have their detractors over there who believe Jeremy to be innocent and who post as such.
-
Droosie you are quite right in looking at both sides of the coin and read everything available to you, The majority of posters on here are interested in other people's views on the case otherwise we would have no debate if we all agreed. The onset was 4 murders and one suicide and most forensic evidence was taken away by EP but what worries me why so much of it was burnt against a Court order and the rest is held undrr PII what are EP hiding is my worry. This forensic evidence could have proved Jeremy Bamber innocent.
-
And then,of course,there are those that are not so concerned with his guilt or innocence but rather more concerned regarding whether he had a fair trial and if the evidence presented against him was kosher. ie: the testimony of a bitter jilted woman and a sound moderator,with an alleged blob of 'jam like' blood stuck to it,presented by his relatives who were desperate to pin the crime on him and were to benefit enormously from his conviction. Has his case been proved beyond reasonable doubt,enough to warrant a whole life term? I for one don't think so.
-
And then,of course,there are those that are not so concerned with his guilt or innocence but rather more concerned regarding whether he had a fair trial and if the evidence presented against him was kosher. ie: the testimony of a bitter jilted woman and a sound moderator,with an alleged blob of 'jam like' blood stuck to it,presented by his relatives who were desperate to pin the crime on him and were to benefit enormously from his conviction. Has his case been proved beyond reasonable doubt,enough to warrant a whole life term? I for one don't think so.
As you say, Tyler, innocent or guilty, it most definitely WASN'T a fair cop.
-
Hello tyler yes I think Jeremy did not get a fair trial and does deserve one. When he was sentenced he was not given a whole life term this is what really annoys me how this was issued half way through the sentence somebody pulling strings and that tells me some are terrified he will ever be released.
-
I am afraid he will be released on a technicality. Afraid for the other relatives.
This is a discussion forum. People who believe he is guilty are allowed to express their opinions.
Me or you posting on here will make no difference when the CCRC hears the case again in a few years time.
Why, what on earth do you think he is going to do? Risk another term of imprisonment? ::) And why are YOU afraid for them? That sounds a bit far fetched to me. I can't imagine you feeling that much for any stranger?
-
As you say, Tyler, innocent or guilty, it most definitely WASN'T a fair cop.
No it wasn't. I can see a big pair of influencial hands working in the background. Also it is so obvious that many have taken it to hand since to (1) make up bad stories about him. (2) embellish all the original alleged evidence. (3)Doing everything in their power to continually keep him incriminating him and blacken his character in various ways in order to make him the great archetypal Moriarty ctype criminal. And for what? I keep asking myself why? Why are you getting these people who find it almost a pleasure not only to continually malign Bamber. But also those who dare to say that he is innocent? HE'S IN PRISON FOR GOD'S SAKE. The guilty party are a redundant race. They should do well to pack up and go home. Because the law says the case is won for them.
Why on earth they feel they must feign a kind of "love" and concern for the relatives I don't know? The relatives aren't concerned about any of them. Their only concern is for themselves and their own security. Their only wish is for Bamber to shut his great gob so they can have a bit of peace.
So if you guilters aren't anything to do with the "relatives", then why are you here? It doesn't make sense? But of course you do make a good puppet show I must admit. ;D
-
Well said,Grahame. My middle name is " wary " !
-
He is serving life imprisonment yes...but that is despite the poor police investigation and not because of it.
There are lots of things which trouble me about this case.....and then I look at them as a whole and currently that still leaves me believing Jeremy to be guilty.....obviously that will not suit this forum but at least I AM reading the opinions here and thinking about them rather than just reading everything on the UK Justice Forum and believing it as factual.
I am not alone in reading both forums and they definitely have their detractors over there who believe Jeremy to be innocent and who post as such.
I did a lot of reading before joining the forum. Because I knew a forum would have two extreme views with little middle ground.
My reading of pro or anti Jeremy material, or unbiased material clearly shows Jeremy is guilty. As proved beyond reasonable doubt several times in court.
There is a mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence. A motive, opportunity & no alibi.
There are lots of reasons Jeremy protests his innocence. His 29 years of campaigning has resulted in a few fiercely loyal supporters. But there was no cover up from the relatives, police, raid team, DPP, court, judge, CCRC, COA & Julie Mugford.
-
Why, what on earth do you think he is going to do? Risk another term of imprisonment? ::) And why are YOU afraid for them? That sounds a bit far fetched to me. I can't imagine you feeling that much for any stranger?
The relatives said themselves they are afraid. Do not blame them.
-
Droosie you are quite right in looking at both sides of the coin and read everything available to you, The majority of posters on here are interested in other people's views on the case otherwise we would have no debate if we all agreed. The onset was 4 murders and one suicide and most forensic evidence was taken away by EP but what worries me why so much of it was burnt against a Court order and the rest is held undrr PII what are EP hiding is my worry. This forensic evidence could have proved Jeremy Bamber innocent.
What hidden forensic evidence would clear him ?
-
And then,of course,there are those that are not so concerned with his guilt or innocence but rather more concerned regarding whether he had a fair trial and if the evidence presented against him was kosher. ie: the testimony of a bitter jilted woman and a sound moderator,with an alleged blob of 'jam like' blood stuck to it,presented by his relatives who were desperate to pin the crime on him and were to benefit enormously from his conviction. Has his case been proved beyond reasonable doubt,enough to warrant a whole life term? I for one don't think so.
Julie was not jilted.
Jeremy's interview transcripts says the relationship was in decline for 6 months. She hit him after he asked another woman out in front of her. After a short period of turmoil after Jeremy said he had hired Matthew Mcdonald to kill his family she would have been relieved to escape.
-
Julie was not jilted.
Jeremy's interview transcripts says the relationship was in decline for 6 months. She hit him after he asked another woman out in front of her. After a short period of turmoil after Jeremy said he had hired Matthew Mcdonald to kill his family she would have been relieved to escape.
Yes she was.
-
Yes she was.
That is me told.
-
Julie was not jilted.
Jeremy's interview transcripts says the relationship was in decline for 6 months. She hit him after he asked another woman out in front of her. After a short period of turmoil after Jeremy said he had hired Matthew Mcdonald to kill his family she would have been relieved to escape.
Thought you said you don't twist things.
-
Thought you said you don't twist things.
It is not in Jeremys interview transcripts ?
It is not in Julies WS ?
Sorry, yes I must twist things.
-
The relatives said themselves they are afraid. Do not blame them.
Afraid my eye. If Julie was purported to have known months before,that Jeremy was allegedly going to kill everyone,,then why didn't she approach the relatives then ? How do you think that the relatives see Julie, after having kept " this secret of hers ",,after the relatives befriending her at the time ? Did they then,,or now believe the woman ?
-
It is not in Jeremys interview transcripts ?
It is not in Julies WS ?
Sorry, yes I must twist things.
Well, let's see. If hearing your partner arranging to go out with someone else isn't being dumped, I don't know what is and it's more than possible that you won't hear the words spoken "He dumped me" from Julie's lips. So according to you, she wasn't dumped. What was it that Caroline told you? Oh yes! "Yes she was" You may NOT think you twist things. Some of us would disagree.
-
Afraid my eye. If Julie was purported to have known months before,that Jeremy was allegedly going to kill everyone,,then why didn't she approach the relatives then ? How do you think that the relatives see Julie, after having kept " this secret of hers ",,after the relatives befriending her at the time ? Did they then,,or now believe the woman ?
Firstly Julie did not believe Jeremy. Even on the massacre night she told him not to be so ridiculous at 10am.
Julie was also Jeremys girlfriend. So not going to go behind his back. Espescially if she thought Jeremy was not serious.
-
Firstly Julie did not believe Jeremy. Even on the massacre night she told him not to be so ridiculous at 10am.
Julie was also Jeremys girlfriend. So not going to go behind his back. Espescially if she thought Jeremy was not serious.
But EVERYBODY believed her over Jeremy. The more she lied,the more people believed her------------all because nobody liked Jeremy !
How pathetic that this case,and Jeremys' conviction was all about jealousy and a personality clash with the cops.
-
Firstly Julie did not believe Jeremy. Even on the massacre night she told him not to be so ridiculous at 10am.
Julie was also Jeremys girlfriend. So not going to go behind his back. Espescially if she thought Jeremy was not serious.
Adam, if he'd allegedly only said it once, I'd feel inclined to agree, but according to her, not only had he discussed it, he'd even attempted a practice run that she'd provided the means for. I think that "not going behind his back" under the circumstances is an empty excuse. She was an adult, supposedly in loco parentis to others' children. I would have expected a deeper sense of obligation.
-
Hi lookout remember Julie's story that Jeremy had been planning these horrendous murders for nearly a year she gave him her sleeping tablets so Jeremy could drug Ralph and June then burn the house down but that was not carried out as the house was full of valuable antiques (must have had no insurance) ;D Julie was now part of this intended horrendous crime otherwise she would have notified the police or indeed Ralph Bamber. Then all is quiet till Jeremy dumped her then she put her plan into operation by rights she should have been charged with bank fraud buying and supplying drugs and an accessory to 5 murders. All the evidence hidden under PII could free Jeremy Bamber.
-
Whatever the truth in this case it is bloody tragic. Five people dead....and a man behind bars who might be innocent.....or might not depending upon your interpretation of the available evidence.
-
Droosie I agree 5 innocent people dead and a could be innocent man in prison for life. Maybe new evidence will be released which is being held under PII and prove Jeremy Bamber innocent this is what I find most worrying about this case burnt evidence hidden evidence documents changed what is being hidden I also find Julie's story difficult to believe as she states she knew Jeremy's intentions for nearly a year but did nothing about it and could have saved the lives of the 5 people murdered so so sad and tragic. :(
-
Hi Susan,,It beggars belief that some people can't see through this. Sleeping pills would have been a good starter if Jeremy had had designs on killing anyone. He could have dropped them in JMs' drink at his house,then gone out and she wouldn't have been any the wiser,,if his intentions had been real...But they weren't and he didn't murder anyone,but took the flak all the same,, simply because they were all in it together,led by a harridan of a woman who'd been scorned,,and she must know it too ! Plus a team of police whose heads would have been on the chopping block if they hadn't have solved this crime after the Diane Jones one.
-
Hi lookout what was Julie doing with sleeping tablets at her age think the wacky backy would have helped her sleep. She had only taken one wonder where they ended up. I have never been able to figure out how anyone could go to the morgue and identify those two beautiful little boys then go back home to bed with the man she accused of doing it I will never accept that ever.
-
Hi lookout remember Julie's story that Jeremy had been planning these horrendous murders for nearly a year she gave him her sleeping tablets so Jeremy could drug Ralph and June then burn the house down but that was not carried out as the house was full of valuable antiques (must have had no insurance) ;D Julie was now part of this intended horrendous crime otherwise she would have notified the police or indeed Ralph Bamber. Then all is quiet till Jeremy dumped her then she put her plan into operation by rights she should have been charged with bank fraud buying and supplying drugs and an accessory to 5 murders. All the evidence hidden under PII could free Jeremy Bamber.
Susan,,I often wonder if the rellies knew that little gem. Would they still remain friendly with JM if they knew that she had known ? Interesting. Or would there be doubts among the rellies given JM's track record on lies and deceit ? No wonder everyone's quaking.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Simon McKay had just one tape conversation from inside the farmhouse,where " someone " was speaking ? That would leave Jeremy free to walk.
-
Hello april Julie told the story that Jeremy got rats stoned so he could practice strangling them :'( :'( :'(
-
Whatever the truth in this case it is bloody tragic. Five people dead....and a man behind bars who might be innocent.....or might not depending upon your interpretation of the available evidence.
Perhaps he is the sixth victim of WHF tragedy? Unwittingly placed in his predicament by his sister. Some of his own behaviour, his cold, grasping relatives conducting a kangaroo court and a cabal of of bent coppers didn't exactly help his situation.
-
Hi lookout I know where you are coming from and will pm you.
-
Hello april Julie told the story that Jeremy got rats stoned so he could practice strangling them :'( :'( :'(
Susan, if she told that to the police they must have thought "We've got a right one here" :D :D :D
-
Firstly Julie did not believe Jeremy. Even on the massacre night she told him not to be so ridiculous at 10am.
Julie was also Jeremys girlfriend. So not going to go behind his back. Espescially if she thought Jeremy was not serious.
It didn't take her long to go behind his back after he'd dumped her ! The seed of dishonesty and deceit was already there,,as was the need to do damage,,and do damage she did.
-
But EVERYBODY believed her over Jeremy. The more she lied,the more people believed her------------all because nobody liked Jeremy !
How pathetic that this case,and Jeremys' conviction was all about jealousy and a personality clash with the cops.
Nobodty liked Jeremy ?
The police, court, jury, CCRC, DPP, COA had never met him before the massacre. Julie was his girlfriend & I do not recall any of the relatives saying they disliked Jeremy beforehand.
-
It didn't take her long to go behind his back after he'd dumped her ! The seed of dishonesty and deceit was already there,,as was the need to do damage,,and do damage she did.
Risking damage to herself as well.
Admitting the caravan break in. Without anyone even asking her about it.
Risking being called a lier & jealous former lover. Something people still accuse her of, even though Jeremy was convicted. She has had to leave the country.
Risking a perjury charge (if lying) & the courts bringing up the 1984 bank fraud.
Why ? She was not jilted. She could have played it dumb & said she knew nothing. But instead mentioned Matthew Mcdonald even though she would have no idea whether he had an alibi or not.
-
Nobodty liked Jeremy ?
The police, court, jury, CCRC, DPP, COA had never met him before the massacre. Julie was his girlfriend & I do not recall any of the relatives saying they disliked Jeremy beforehand.
It's called being two-faced and cruel. RWB loathed Jeremy as soon as he came into the fold.They all saw him as a threat who,one day would take over the farm,etc.and none of them relished that thought.
You'd better read up about what the relatives thought of Jeremy. There was no love lost ! Beforehand.
-
Nobodty liked Jeremy ?
The police, court, jury, CCRC, DPP, COA had never met him before the massacre. Julie was his girlfriend & I do not recall any of the relatives saying they disliked Jeremy beforehand.
Howz about "How I loathe that boy"?
-
It didn't take her long to go behind his back after he'd dumped her ! The seed of dishonesty and deceit was already there,,as was the need to do damage,,and do damage she did.
People complain it was too long.
One month sounds realistic. She had to get over the shock. Then could not or refused to believe Jeremy was involved. After accepting he was involved she had to find a way out.
-
It's called being two-faced and cruel. RWB loathed Jeremy as soon as he came into the fold.They all saw him as a threat who,one day would take over the farm,etc.and none of them relished that thought.
You'd better read up about what the relatives thought of Jeremy. There was no love lost ! Beforehand.
I have read half of AE statement. She had no bad feeling beforehand.
I know Jeremy told RB that he could easily kill his family.
Apart from the relatives, no one knew Jeremy. Apart from his long term girlfriend.
-
Risking damage to herself as well.
Admitting the caravan break in. Without anyone even asking her about it.
Risking being called a lier & jealous former lover. Something people still accuse her of, even though Jeremy was convicted. She has had to leave the country.
Risking a perjury charge (if lying) & the courts bringing up the 1984 bank fraud.
Why ? She was not jilted. She could have played it dumb & said she knew nothing. But instead mentioned Matthew Mcdonald even though she would have no idea whether he had an alibi or not.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick here!! Julie didn't go to the police of her own accord, she told Liz Rimmington her story after being jilted (YES!! JILTED!!) by Jeremy and it was Liz Rimmington who called the police!!
-
Adam, if he'd allegedly only said it once, I'd feel inclined to agree, but according to her, not only had he discussed it, he'd even attempted a practice run that she'd provided the means for. I think that "not going behind his back" under the circumstances is an empty excuse. She was an adult, supposedly in loco parentis to others' children. I would have expected a deeper sense of obligation.
She already had sleeping pills. Which Jeremy said in his interview transcript was Julies medication.
Jeremy borrowed some but told Julie they were useless. He also realised that the large WHF would be difficult to burn down. There were also some expensive uninsured items inside.
-
She already had sleeping pills. Which Jeremy said in his interview transcript was Julies medication.
Jeremy borrowed some but told Julie they were useless. He also realised that the large WHF would be difficult to burn down. There were also some expensive uninsured items inside.
You're trying to rewrite things again!!
-
You're trying to rewrite things again!!
It is in Jeremys interview transcript.
-
I have read half of AE statement. She had no bad feeling beforehand.
I know Jeremy told RB that he could easily kill his family.
Apart from the relatives, no one knew Jeremy. Apart from his long term girlfriend.
What absolute rubbish!! Try reading it all before you comment! I guess you think it's normal behaviour to rip the wallpaper from the walls of the bathroom because someone said something you didn't like. That's pretty DEEP hatred!!
-
People complain it was too long.
One month sounds realistic. She had to get over the shock. Then could not or refused to believe Jeremy was involved. After accepting he was involved she had to find a way out.
If Jeremy condemned himself by his own behaviour, Julie condemned herself, in the eyes of the public, by her own. Generally she purported herself coldly, with indifference. She appeared hard and unfeeling....................................until Jeremy was convicted. Then she revealed herself, and I DO mean revealed. She displayed herself in the most vulgar way. One picture had her raising her skirt to thigh level, grinning like a Cheshire cat, possibly waving in her hand a cheque for £25,000 and there's another, even worse, which depicts her wearing something which reveals her groin. THIS just days after Jeremy was convicted of 5 murders she was supposedly told he'd commit.
-
What absolute rubbish!! Try reading it all before you comment! I guess you think it's normal behaviour to rip the wallpaper from the walls of the bathroom because someone said something you didn't like. That's pretty DEEP hatred!!
That must be in the second part of her WS.
Before the murder AE said Jeremy was very nice to her. Even sending her a birthday card.
-
I think you have the wrong end of the stick here!! Julie didn't go to the police of her own accord, she told Liz Rimmington her story after being jilted (YES!! JILTED!!) by Jeremy and it was Liz Rimmington who called the police!!
Julie told Liz Rimmington in private. How is that seeking revenge ?
-
She already had sleeping pills. Which Jeremy said in his interview transcript was Julies medication.
Jeremy borrowed some but told Julie they were useless. He also realised that the large WHF would be difficult to burn down. There were also some expensive uninsured items inside.
Adam, what he did with them is neither here nor there. Julie GAVE them to him knowing what he wanted them for.....................but hey, what's the use? if you think it's OK -clever, even- to defraud a bank because it's "a victimless crime" you'll always see it differently.
-
Hello april Julie showed her true self once Jeremy was convicted and she got her hands on the £25.000 the photo' were a disgrace and so disrespectful to the 5 people who had lost their lives to enable her to have her own criminal charges dropped and receive a huge amount of money. Shame on her the only person she loved was herself.
-
If Jeremy condemned himself by his own behaviour, Julie condemned herself, in the eyes of the public, by her own. Generally she purported herself coldly, with indifference. She appeared hard and unfeeling....................................until Jeremy was convicted. Then she revealed herself, and I DO mean revealed. She displayed herself in the most vulgar way. One picture had her raising her skirt to thigh level, grinning like a Cheshire cat, possibly waving in her hand a cheque for £25,000 and there's another, even worse, which depicts her wearing something which reveals her groin. THIS just days after Jeremy was convicted of 5 murders she was supposedly told he'd commit.
Jeremy would have been just as bad. If acquited.
He would have no doubt done lots of interviews after complaining that 40k was not enough. And after failing to sell pictures of Sheila.
Julie did one interview. She could have sold her story several more times in the last 29 years. But has not. Or responded to Jeremys attacks.
-
Hello april Julie showed her true self once Jeremy was convicted and she got her hands on the £25.000 the photo' were a disgrace and so disrespectful to the 5 people who had lost their lives to enable her to have her own criminal charges dropped and receive a huge amount of money. Shame on her the only person she loved was herself.
The five people were not Julies relatives.
So Jeremys NOTW deal was much worse. Disrespecting Sheila by trying to sell pictures of her just makes things even more distasteful.
-
April did not know Jeremy had attacked Julie. He sent her one letter asking her why she had done this and it was returned to him unopened. I have never read one word that he has said wrong about her. We all know why she has done no more interviews wants to be forgotten now but it caught up with her in Canada and her local paper printed it all Julie will never be forgotten that is for sure.
-
April did not know Jeremy had attacked Julie. He sent her one letter asking her why she had done this and it was returned to him unopened. I have never read one word that he has said wrong about her. We all know why she has done no more interviews wants to be forgotten now but it caught up with her in Canada and her local paper printed it all Julie will never be forgotten that is for sure.
Have you not read his OS ?
-
Jeremy would have been just as bad. If acquited.
He would have no doubt done lots of interviews after complaining that 40k was not enough. And after failing to sell pictures of Sheila.
Julie did one interview. She could have sold her story several more times in the last 29 years. But has not. Or responded to Jeremys attacks.
We can't be certain EVER about what didn't happen, Adam. We can only speculate. So what Jeremy may, or not have done and for how much is purely hypothetical. I'm confidently certain, that in the eyes of the general public, let alone her own family, she portrayed herself as being exactly what June Bamber had accused her of being. Perhaps shame and embarrassment prevented more interviews.
-
That must be in the second part of her WS.
Before the murder AE said Jeremy was very nice to her. Even sending her a birthday card.
The SWINE!! >:( ;D ;D ;D
-
The five people were not Julies relatives.
So Jeremys NOTW deal was much worse. Disrespecting Sheila by trying to sell pictures of her just makes things even more distasteful.
Well, unless we're to believe what emerges from the mouth of a Sun reporter, there WERE no pictures because HAD there been, the Sun WOULD have bought them, if only to be able to say they had them.
-
Hi April Adam's values on showing respect to the dead are so different than ours also his view on fraud :'(
-
Hi April Adam's values on showing respect to the dead are so different than ours also his view on fraud :'(
Clearly Susan.............................so why do you think I'd be happy to share a pedestal with him??????? :D
-
We can't be certain EVER about what didn't happen, Adam. We can only speculate. So what Jeremy may, or not have done and for how much is purely hypothetical. I'm confidently certain, that in the eyes of the general public, let alone her own family, she portrayed herself as being exactly what June Bamber had accused her of being. Perhaps shame and embarrassment prevented more interviews.
Perhaps she just wants to be a respected teacher & mother.
-
Hi April Adam's values on showing respect to the dead are so different than ours also his view on fraud :'(
Fraud of £800.00 committed with someone else is not as serious as murder. Or burglary against you're own family.
-
Hello april Julie showed her true self once Jeremy was convicted and she got her hands on the £25.000 the photo' were a disgrace and so disrespectful to the 5 people who had lost their lives to enable her to have her own criminal charges dropped and receive a huge amount of money. Shame on her the only person she loved was herself.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
For Susan.
-
Perhaps she just wants to be a respected teacher & mother.
It's easy when you're miles away.A rat always leaves a sinking ship !
-
Fraud of £800.00 committed with someone else is not as serious as murder. Or burglary against you're own family.
Dress it up however you like but talking your FRIEND (Susan Battersby) into committing fraud - is most certainly a serious offense and a pretty low thing to do!!
-
Perhaps she just wants to be a respected teacher & mother.
I hope she makes the best of it. Her peace of mind, gained at another's expense, may not last.
-
Well, unless we're to believe what emerges from the mouth of a Sun reporter, there WERE no pictures because HAD there been, the Sun WOULD have bought them, if only to be able to say they had them.
I have already posted the article.
It goes into great detail of his meeting with Jeremy & Brett. Great detail for an apparent lie.
-
April my dear so so sorry forgive me ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have already posted the article.
It goes into great detail of his meeting with Jeremy & Brett. Great detail for an apparent lie.
That's the Sun for you you, Adam.
-
It's easy when you're miles away.A rat always leaves a sinking ship !
Sinking ship ?
-
April my dear so so sorry forgive me ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Now, let me see????? Yeahhhhhh, You're forgiven ;D ;D ;D
-
People complain it was too long.
One month sounds realistic. She had to get over the shock. Then could not or refused to believe Jeremy was involved. After accepting he was involved she had to find a way out.
Adam - this is what I mean by you ignoring posts when it does not suit you. I posted JM own words where she said she lay ( after his 3.30 call) in bed - and she knew what he had done. She knew he had killed his family. So what you are saying is not true according to her own words. So why when she went to identify the bodies - with the police - on her own - why did she not say something?
-
Adam - this is what I mean by you ignoring posts when it does not suit you. I posted JM own words where she said she lay ( after his 3.30 call) in bed - and she knew what he had done. She knew he had killed his family. So what you are saying is not true according to her own words. So why when she went to identify the bodies - with the police - on her own - why did she not say something?
She did say something. After one month. To Liz Rimmington.
-
I have already posted the article.
It goes into great detail of his meeting with Jeremy & Brett. Great detail for an apparent lie.
this has been discussed SEVERAL times before and when you discuss things it is prudent to put the other side of the story as well.But you chose not to.What a surprise
I agree if those pictures existed they would have published them - end of .
-
She did say something. After one month. To Liz Rimmington.
One month -and not even to the police then.
She could have done it the next day - she said twice in her statement she knew what he had done - then she had to make ANOTHER statement to explain why she had not done anything before.
As I said the next day when alone with the police would of been an ideal opportunity.
-
If Julie believed that Jeremy was responsible for the murders,then WHY did she testify in court that when she went along to identify the bodies of the victims,she asked them (or wanted to) what had happened? Hoping that the dead would talk to her. If she already knew the answer,why did she want to ask the question? I understand that this statement from her baffled the court too!
-
this has been discussed SEVERAL times before and when you discuss things it is prudent to put the other side of the story as well.But you chose not to.What a surprise
I agree if those pictures existed they would have published them - end of .
A very detailed lie then.
Article already posted.
-
One month -and not even to the police then.
She could have done it the next day - she said twice in her statement she knew what he had done - then she had to make ANOTHER statement to explain why she had not done anything before.
As I said the next day when alone with the police would of been an ideal opportunity.
Not to the police indeed. A woman scorned ?
She was young & under Jeremys spell. Jeremy told her he was watertight & it was an open & shut case. She was in a difficult situation. But did the right thing.
-
JM was ALWAYS a step ahead of Jeremy,,as she was the wise,but crafty one------not him,,and she certainly wasn't under anyones' spell,least of all Jeremys'. Difficult situation ? It certainly wasn't when she took the 25 grand ( hush money ) was it ? That wasn't difficult to encourage her to take it and run.
-
JM was ALWAYS a step ahead of Jeremy,,as she was the wise,but crafty one------not him,,and she certainly wasn't under anyones' spell,least of all Jeremys'. Difficult situation ? It certainly wasn't when she took the 25 grand ( hush money ) was it ? That wasn't difficult to encourage her to take it and run.
Jeremy was very popular with women. Having affairs with older women.A younger Julie could easily fall for him. She did.
Wise & crafty ? She was a 20 year old student sharing college digs.
-
JM was ALWAYS a step ahead of Jeremy,,as she was the wise,but crafty one------not him,,and she certainly wasn't under anyones' spell,least of all Jeremys'. Difficult situation ? It certainly wasn't when she took the 25 grand ( hush money ) was it ? That wasn't difficult to encourage her to take it and run.
I have already mentioned Jeremys NOTW deal & attempt to sell pictures of Sheila.
-
Jeremy was very popular with women. Having affairs with older women.A younger Julie could easily fall for him. She did.
Julie was one of those women who was born "old." There seemed to be an innate understanding. An awareness. A "knowingness." She was the sort of woman who might have caused other women to stand a little closer to their partners when she walked into a room. Julie was 20 going on 40 so fitted very well into Jeremy's "pattern(?)" -I use the word deliberately, because at 24, and Julie being only his SECOND girlfriend of any duration, in my experience, a "pattern" had yet to emerge- perhaps you could give us the names, OTHER than that of Suzette Ford, of all the "older" women he'd had affairs with. Looking back to that period the GENERAL consensus from women was that she was no ones' idea of a "BF" and couldn't be trusted any further that she could be seen. From the men, well, I can best describe it by saying how a friend and his associates referred to her. They called her "YOURS" because none of them would have touched her with "theirs."
A very detailed lie then.
And we know that Journalists NEVER lie, don't we? Isn't there a little court case going on right now concerning their ethics? It seems little, in that regard, has changed in nearly 30 years.
I have already mentioned Jeremys NOTW deal & attempt to sell pictures of Sheila.
And it's already been disregarded because as neither happened they can't be considered.
-
Sinking ship ?
Yeah. When are you boarding?
-
Julie told Liz Rimmington in private. How is that seeking revenge ?
Julie fed both Liz Rimmington and Susan Battersby JUST enough info to make them believe Jeremy was responsible. She probably didn't think that LR would call the police but simply wanted to drip feed a little poison so there would always be doubt in the minds of people he knew - I'd say that was revenge!! She got a LOT more than she bargained for!!
-
Julie fed both Liz Rimmington and Susan Battersby JUST enough info to make them believe Jeremy was responsible. She probably didn't think that LR would call the police but simply wanted to drip feed a little poison so there would always be doubt in the minds of people he knew - I'd say that was revenge!! She got a LOT more than she bargained for!!
Oh it was almost certainly revenge. The fact that she threw something at him and tried to smother him shows that. It is amazing and beyond reason what some women will do in revenge to a lover who has betrayed them.
-
Oh it was almost certainly revenge. The fact that she threw something at him and tried to smother him shows that. It is amazing and beyond reason what some women will do in revenge to a lover who has betrayed them.
I wonder if any of us can imagine just HOW humiliated she felt at being dumped. This hadn't been a private relationship. Student Julie and her wealthy middle class lover had been out and about together for nearly 2 years. I doubt very much if she's kept from her girlfriends her hopes for, at the very least, a piece of (suitably expensive) jewellery to signify his commitment to her. She'd possibly giggled with girlfriends about the size of the diamond. Maybe even gazed a wedding dresses. To say she was gutted would, I think have been an understatement. It wasn't just about loss of her boyfriend. It was loss of her future. It was loss of face. It was UTTER humiliation. Did she want revenge? Is the Pope Catholic?
-
I wonder if any of us can imagine just HOW humiliated she felt at being dumped. This hadn't been a private relationship. Student Julie and her wealthy middle class lover had been out and about together for nearly 2 years. I doubt very much if she's kept from her girlfriends her hopes for, at the very least, a piece of (suitably expensive) jewellery to signify his commitment to her. She'd possibly giggled with girlfriends about the size of the diamond. Maybe even gazed a wedding dresses. To say she was gutted would, I think have been an understatement. It wasn't just about loss of her boyfriend. It was loss of her future. It was loss of face. It was UTTER humiliation. Did she want revenge? Is the Pope Catholic?
Liz Rimmington may have had her own reasons for wanted to believe Jeremy was responsible - she slept with him behind Julie's back. Maybe she felt used?
-
Liz Rimmington may have had her own reasons for wanted to believe Jeremy was responsible - she slept with him behind Julie's back. Maybe she felt used?
So, out of anger, Julie drip feeds the embryonic story to LR, who out of her own desire to get back at Jeremy "supports" Julie in taking it further?
-
So, out of anger, Julie drip feeds the embryonic story to LR, who out of her own desire to get back at Jeremy "supports" Julie in taking it further?
It's a thought!
-
Jeremy said in his interview transcripts the relationship had been in decline for around 6 months. The judge confirmed this in his summing up when asking why Jeremy would bring a bike to his cottage if the relationship was coming to a close.
Julie did not like Brett much & did not want to a to go to some places with them. But Jeremy persuaded her. Jeremy also persuaded her to attend the funeral with him.
Jeremy gave himself no brownie points saying to Julie he hired a hit man to massacre his family. Asking another woman out in front of Julie would have done him no favours either. Julie hit him. She also said herself she put a cushion over his head. Then took it off.
Wrestling with what she knew from the 3am phone call & Jeremys confessions afterwards, Julie would have been pleased to escape.
-
So Julie was not jilted.
Even if she was it is extremly unlikely she would do something so serious & calculating. Risking her own reputation & being charged with perjury.
-
So, out of anger, Julie drip feeds the embryonic story to LR, who out of her own desire to get back at Jeremy "supports" Julie in taking it further?
Hi April was it also Liz Rimmington who had a relationship with Malcolm MacDonald? Maybe the fact he was included in the accusation had a revenge motive as well?
-
not neciseraly.she could have been jelous enough.and she was scorned.
-
Jeremy said in his interview transcripts the relationship had been in decline for around 6 months. The judge confirmed this in his summing up when asking why Jeremy would bring a bike to his cottage if the relationship was coming to a close.
Julie did not like Brett much & did not want to a to go to some places with them. But Jeremy persuaded her. Jeremy also persuaded her to attend the funeral with him.
Jeremy gave himself no brownie points saying to Julie he hired a hit man to massacre his family. Asking another woman out in front of Julie would have done him no favours either. Julie hit him. She also said herself she put a cushion over his head. Then took it of..
Wrestling with what she knew from the 3am phone call & Jeremys confessions afterwards, Julie would have been pleased to escape.
So Adam, julie hit Jeremy, that is no better than if Jrremy hit Julie. There is no sign of violence in Jeremy's past, no girlfriends accuse him of violence or abuse as would be expected of anyone convicted of a violent crime. It's Julie who is the hitter oh and the fraudster. Mmmmmm makes you think.
-
So Julie was not jilted.
Even if she was it is extremly unlikely she would do something so serious & calculating. Risking her own reputation & being charged with perjury.
So Julie WAS jilted, dumped, whatever you call it. Relationships either grow stronger or fall apart when tragedy strikes. Seems in this case it finished off a relationship which had probably run it's course. They were both really young anyway, more normal they would grow apart at that age, there was no reason why they should have married. imo
-
So Julie WAS jilted, dumped, whatever you call it. Relationships either grow stronger or fall apart when tragedy strikes. Seems in this case it finished off a relationship which had probably run it's course. They were both really young anyway, more normal they would grow apart at that age, there was no reason why they should have married. imo
Maggie, according to the OS, "Jeremy ended their relationship.........." Ended/jilted/dumped/cast aside all seem to add up to the same thing to my way of thinking. Was also interested to learn that on her visit to the police on Sept 8th she was charged with burglary but the charge was withdrawn on Dec 5th, which sounds very much as if a "deal" had been arrived at.
-
Maggie, according to the OS, "Jeremy ended their relationship.........." Ended/jilted/dumped/cast aside all seem to add up to the same thing to my way of thinking. Was also interested to learn that on her visit to the police on Sept 8th she was charged with burglary but the charge was withdrawn on Dec 5th, which sounds very much as if a "deal" had been arrived at.
I don't doubt it April, the relationship was over, 2 years is a long time when you're young and it wasn't strong enough to take the strain of so much trauma, absolutely nothing wrong or surprising in that. Jeremy had every right to end it, Julie couldn't take it but that wasn't Jeremy's fault although listeninv to some you'd think it proves he's a psychopathic murderer. I fear Julie seemed to have more of a personality disorder than Jeremy who seems to have acted by instinct rather than premeditated scheming in any part of his behaviour.
-
Jeremy said in his interview transcripts the relationship had been in decline for around 6 months. The judge confirmed this in his summing up when asking why Jeremy would bring a bike to his cottage if the relationship was coming to a close.
Julie did not like Brett much & did not want to a to go to some places with them. But Jeremy persuaded her. Jeremy also persuaded her to attend the funeral with him.
Jeremy gave himself no brownie points saying to Julie he hired a hit man to massacre his family. Asking another woman out in front of Julie would have done him no favours either. Julie hit him. She also said herself she put a cushion over his head. Then took it off.
Wrestling with what she knew from the 3am phone call & Jeremys confessions afterwards, Julie would have been pleased to escape.
An even more pertinent question would be, If the relationship was in decline for 6 months why would Jeremy tell her all about the alleged murders.
-
Grahame exactly why would Jeremy confide in her knowing the relationship was going nowhere not for one moment do I think he did but obviously some did and that is why he was sent to prison for life because of that together with the silencer :'( evidence I find it difficult to believe this actually happened.
-
Grahame exactly why would Jeremy confide in her knowing the relationship was going nowhere not for one moment do I think he did but obviously some did and that is why he was sent to prison for life because of that together with the silencer :'( evidence I find it difficult to believe this actually happened.
Can you see what can be achieved with false witnesses and smart lawyers Susan? But what I find amazing is the fact that this case ever got to trial? It's not what you know. It's who you know comes to mind. The case is so wooden it is transparently obvious that it has been practically nailed together by lies and deceit.
-
Grahame how did this get to trial and how was he found guilty it is so obvious the case was built on lies and deceit and yet 28/29 years on he is still in prison. What kind of a Justice system do we have I suppose the answer is a corrupt one we are seeing this daily with different cases and I for one have had my eyes opened I always thought the police would not be involved in lies and cover ups how naive was I. We do have good honest cops but the problem is they have to become involved in the cover ups for the sake of the credibility of the Justice system >:(
-
Grahame how did this get to trial and how was he found guilty it is so obvious the case was built on lies and deceit and yet 28/29 years on he is still in prison. What kind of a Justice system do we have I suppose the answer is a corrupt one we are seeing this daily with different cases and I for one have had my eyes opened I always thought the police would not be involved in lies and cover ups how naive was I. We do have good honest cops but the problem is they have to become involved in the cover ups for the sake of the credibility of the Justice system >:(
There may be good cops Susan. But the problem is that they all work as a team and will back oneanother up and there is where you get these harmonized statements.
-
Grahame I agree they all stick together and I am sure many will have a guilty conscience but they can do nothing about it. Think Taff Jones would have said his thoughts that is why he was removed from the case.
-
Grahame I agree they all stick together and I am sure many will have a guilty conscience but they can do nothing about it. Think Taff Jones would have said his thoughts that is why he was removed from the case.
It is one brave policeman who will go against his comrades. There was a case when a police woman constable reported a police officer higher up the scale for abusing a prisoner. The other police officer was found guilty at court. But the woman constable had to be moved to another area because no one at that police station would work with her.
So do I believe in police corruption in such cases as the Bamber one. Answer: most certainly I do. I believe Essex police lied and they are still lying about certain aspects of this case and furthermore I see those as not seeing this as most gullible and primitive in their thinking.
-
Grahame they are classed as traitors if they blow the whistle on one of their fellow workmates. Taff Jones was a great honest cop and things would have been so different had he not tragically died would love to see his notebook which will be held under PII. Hide everything that could prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
-
Grahame they are classed as traitors if they blow the whistle on one of their fellow workmates. Taff Jones was a great honest cop and things would have been so different had he not tragically died would love to see his notebook which will be held under PII. Hide everything that could prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
I am more amazed that the guilters are in no way interested in these alomalies. But whatever you tell them they say in a kind of hypnotized voice. Bamber.......is.......guilty....Bamber......is.......guilty....(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/hiya.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Hi April was it also Liz Rimmington who had a relationship with Malcolm MacDonald? Maybe the fact he was included in the accusation had a revenge motive as well?
So a 20 year old student is trying to frame two people.
Clever girl. And brave.
-
Grahame do what I am doing let him talk to himself ;D ;D ;D
-
So Julie WAS jilted, dumped, whatever you call it. Relationships either grow stronger or fall apart when tragedy strikes. Seems in this case it finished off a relationship which had probably run it's course. They were both really young anyway, more normal they would grow apart at that age, there was no reason why they should have married. imo
Jeremy has to claim he jilted Julie. It is the only justification he can make for why she testified. But as I said earlier, she was not.
-
Maggie, according to the OS, "Jeremy ended their relationship.........." Ended/jilted/dumped/cast aside all seem to add up to the same thing to my way of thinking. Was also interested to learn that on her visit to the police on Sept 8th she was charged with burglary but the charge was withdrawn on Dec 5th, which sounds very much as if a "deal" had been arrived at.
Jeremys OS says this. Surprise surprise.
She disclosed information to the police about the caravan break in. The police had no idea about this.
-
Jeremy has to claim he jilted Julie. It is the only justification he can make for why she testified. But as I said earlier, she was not.
Well, I rather think that was for Julie to say. If she FELT cast aside/cheated on/humiliated /discarded/rejected/dumped/JILTED, I would be inclined to say SHE WAS. It really is rather more about how she felt than what you say.
-
An even more pertinent question would be, If the relationship was in decline for 6 months why would Jeremy tell her all about the alleged murders.
Good point.
The judge also made a good point. Jeremy trusted Julie enough to carry out the caravan break in with him. So may have trusted him enough to confide.
He may have wanted to boast to someone. Julie being that person, espescially after she dismissed his 10am 'it's now or never' claim.
Julie would have suspected anyway, after all the discussions about it before.
Jeremy felt safe his plan was perfect. Telling Julie it was an 'open & shut case' & he was 'watertight'.
Julie said herself she was under his spell. Jeremy would have known this.
-
Good point.
The judge also made a good point. Jeremy trusted Julie enough to carry out the caravan break in with him. So may have trusted him enough to confide.
He may have wanted to boast to someone. Julie being that person, espescially after she dismissed his 10am 'it's now or never' claim.
Julie would have suspected anyway, after all the discussions about it before.
Jeremy felt safe his plan was perfect. Telling Julie it was an 'open & shut case' & he was 'watertight'.
Julie said herself she was under his spell. Jeremy would have known this. anything.
All supposition Adam, none of this proves anything.
-
All supposition Adam, none of this proves anything.
Tel you the truth I'm not very impressed with either of their characters.
-
What is proof of Jeremys' innocence is evident in his requests for those at the time of the tragedy,and who also know Jeremy,,knew the Bamber family,and know the extended family ( relatives of the deceased ) to come forward.Jeremy is NOT afraid of the truth,,and that's good enough for me.
Would anyone,,who wanted their past brought forward,in the way of friends,acquaintances and even the police,,insist that they were telling the truth ? To face them ? Head held high ?
Would anyone guilty want to be reminded,,or insist after nearly 30 years that they were innocent ? I don't think so,,as they'd have been dead long before 30 years one way or another !
For a man who never,and doesn't show a tendency to be violent,,I,,as a stranger to Jeremy,,would have found it very difficult to comprehend that he'd murdered 5 people,,and more consideration should have been made on who exactly would benefit from Jeremys' incarceration,as it appears that this was solely what it was about.
-
What is proof of Jeremys' innocence is evident in his requests for those at the time of the tragedy,and who also know Jeremy,,knew the Bamber family,and know the extended family ( relatives of the deceased ) to come forward.Jeremy is NOT afraid of the truth,,and that's good enough for me.
Would anyone,,who wanted their past brought forward,in the way of friends,acquaintances and even the police,,insist that they were telling the truth ? To face them ? Head held high ?
Would anyone guilty want to be reminded,,or insist after nearly 30 years that they were innocent ? I don't think so,,as they'd have been dead long before 30 years one way or another !
For a man who never,and doesn't show a tendency to be violent,,I,,as a stranger to Jeremy,,would have found it very difficult to comprehend that he'd murdered 5 people,,and more consideration should have been made on who exactly would benefit from Jeremys' incarceration,as it appears that this was solely what it was about.
I agree. After killing 5 people then meeting police he would have been so pumped up with adrenalin that he would be all over the place. I can never believe that a few puffs of cannabis could make any difference. Anyway the police would have noticed if he had been full of puff. They also would have detected it if he had been hyped up. It is a tremendous thing to kill one person, let alone five. It must have been someone completely out of their mind.
-
I agree. After killing 5 people then meeting police he would have been so pumped up with adrenalin that he would be all over the place. I can never believe that a few puffs of cannabis could make any difference. Anyway the police would have noticed if he had been full of puff. They also would have detected it if he had been hyped up. It is a tremendous thing to kill one person, let alone five. It must have been someone completely out of their mind.
Hi grahame the last drug anyone would take before intending to murder is cannabis, as a relaxant it's more likely to send someone to sleep. 8)
-
Hi April was it also Liz Rimmington who had a relationship with Malcolm MacDonald? Maybe the fact he was included in the accusation had a revenge motive as well?
No Maggie, her boyfriend was called Malcolm or Martin but it wasn't MacDonald.
-
Hi grahame the last drug anyone would take before intending to murder is cannabis, as a relaxant it's more likely to send someone to sleep. 8)
Or raid the fridge!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy has to claim he jilted Julie. It is the only justification he can make for why she testified. But as I said earlier, she was not.
He was making arrangements to meet another girl in front of Julie - I'd say that was pretty final!! She was jilted - like it or not!!
-
Or raid the fridge!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
No Maggie, her boyfriend was called Malcolm or Martin but it wasn't MacDonald.
I meant the so called hired assasin. The mercenary, forgotten his name.
-
I meant the so called hired assasin. The mercenary, forgotten his name.
I know - Liz Rimmington wasn't seeing him. I can't remember the name of her boyfriend - I'll see if I can find it.
-
I know - Liz Rimmington wasn't seeing him. I can't remember the name of her boyfriend - I'll see if I can find it.
Mathew MacDonald. One of Julie's friends was involved with him at some time.
Well think pretty much EVERYONE was involved with him at some point. :o
-
What is proof of Jeremys' innocence is evident in his requests for those at the time of the tragedy,and who also know Jeremy,,knew the Bamber family,and know the extended family ( relatives of the deceased ) to come forward.Jeremy is NOT afraid of the truth,,and that's good enough for me.
Would anyone,,who wanted their past brought forward,in the way of friends,acquaintances and even the police,,insist that they were telling the truth ? To face them ? Head held high ?
Would anyone guilty want to be reminded,,or insist after nearly 30 years that they were innocent ? I don't think so,,as they'd have been dead long before 30 years one way or another !
For a man who never,and doesn't show a tendency to be violent,,I,,as a stranger to Jeremy,,would have found it very difficult to comprehend that he'd murdered 5 people,,and more consideration should have been made on who exactly would benefit from Jeremys' incarceration,as it appears that this was solely what it was about.
There are several reasons why Jeremy protests his innocence. Of which i have already posted.
-
He was making arrangements to meet another girl in front of Julie - I'd say that was pretty final!! She was jilted - like it or not!!
Julie would have been fuming at Jeremys betrayal after she had kept her mouth shut post massacre.
Do you think that is the reason she told the police about the caravan break in & massacre ?
-
I agree. After killing 5 people then meeting police he would have been so pumped up with adrenalin that he would be all over the place. I can never believe that a few puffs of cannabis could make any difference. Anyway the police would have noticed if he had been full of puff. They also would have detected it if he had been hyped up. It is a tremendous thing to kill one person, let alone five. It must have been someone completely out of their mind.
Well if you are cold & calculating it may not be too hard to remain calm in front of the police.
It may have been several hours since the massacre. Some adrenalin would have gone. Espescially after an energetic bike ride home.
-
Well if you are cold & calculating it may not be too hard to remain calm in front of the police.
It may have been several hours since the massacre. Some adrenalin would have gone. Espescially after an energetic bike ride home.
Adam, a person cold and calculating to that extreme thwould have a personality disorder. Do you believe Jeremy had a personality disorder?
-
I think personality disorders are fairly difficult to diagnose. A psychiatrist friend told me that he sees people regularly with "Borderline Personality Disorders but that a major personality disorder diagnosis is always approached carefully as the implications for the patient might be severe.
I suspect from what I have read of Jeremy in his younger years that he may well have had a personality disorder of some kind. I also look at Sheila and her issues as well......neither of them had an easy start in life.
You can have a personality disorder but it doesn't make you a killer, generally though people with certain types of personality disorder will have problems empathizing with others. As a worker with parents who had personality disorder issues I found the ability to parent could be very affected in a negative way:(
Which in turn leads me to wonder about June and her mental health issues. This is not a criticism of June in any way, just an observation that she obviously found life challenging at times....as we all do. Did she have some kind of personality disorder Did this negatively affect both Sheila and Jeremy?
-
Julie would have been fuming at Jeremys betrayal after she had kept her mouth shut post massacre.
Do you think that is the reason she told the police about the caravan break in & massacre ?
Adam - make up your mind - one minute she did not say anything because she did not believe he had done it - now you are saying she knew, but kept her mouth shut. If that's the case then she lied in her first statements - you cant have it both ways. Anyway As far as I understand it was her friend who told the police - it was not Julie who volunteered the final information - and then when she did it took many many meetings with police .
-
Well if you are cold & calculating it may not be too hard to remain calm in front of the police.
It may have been several hours since the massacre. Some adrenalin would have gone. Espescially after an energetic bike ride home.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D very funny Adam
-
So a 20 year old student is trying to frame two people.
Clever girl. And brave.
or trying to save her own skin and then get rewarded. And apparently not brave in court -according to your friend the judge.
-
jansus Julie only turned on the tears during the Defence questioning she managed to get herself under control for the prosecution :'(
-
Hello Droosie, jeremy has undergone many personality tests while in prison about 27 so far and has been found to not suffer from any PDs or mental illness. Sheila was mentally ill which is different thinv altogether but like the restvof the family we shall never know if personality disorders were an issue within the family.
-
Well if you are cold & calculating it may not be too hard to remain calm in front of the police.
It may have been several hours since the massacre. Some adrenalin would have gone. Espescially after an energetic bike ride home.
I've know hardened soldiers shaking like a leaf. I'm afraid all the films and tv programs that portray violence do not tell the truth. In fact they've hardened us against reality so that we believe that anyone can be a cold calculating killer. It just isn't so in reality.
-
Ha Ha jansus bet Jeremy was sweating somewhat on the bike in the wetsuit and marigold gloves and he would be half a stone lighter when he arrived home ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think personality disorders are fairly difficult to diagnose. A psychiatrist friend told me that he sees people regularly with "Borderline Personality Disorders but that a major personality disorder diagnosis is always approached carefully as the implications for the patient might be severe.
I suspect from what I have read of Jeremy in his younger years that he may well have had a personality disorder of some kind. I also look at Sheila and her issues as well......neither of them had an easy start in life.
You can have a personality disorder but it doesn't make you a killer, generally though people with certain types of personality disorder will have problems empathizing with others. As a worker with parents who had personality disorder issues I found the ability to parent could be very affected in a negative way:(
Which in turn leads me to wonder about June and her mental health issues. This is not a criticism of June in any way, just an observation that she obviously found life challenging at times....as we all do. Did she have some kind of personality disorder Did this negatively affect both Sheila and Jeremy?
Droosie, many of us have asked the question of June, how was it that having suffered psychological breakdown -"as the result of her decision to adopt Sheila"- which required hospitalization and ECT, it was thought to be a good idea for her to adopt another child.
It is as you say, personality disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and impossible to treat. We probably ALL display SOME of the traits of many different types of personality disorders but manage to lead relatively "normal -what ever iit means to each of us!!!- lives.
-
Adam, a person cold and calculating to that extreme thwould have a personality disorder. Do you believe Jeremy had a personality disorder?
I have said before he killed out of greed, hatred, resentment, arrogance & confidence of success.
Those are enough incentives with or without personality disorders.
-
jansus Julie only turned on the tears during the Defence questioning she managed to get herself under control for the prosecution :'(
Jeremy was also unconvincing in court.
Repeatedly being asked to speak up by the judge. A reporter on TV said he was very polite, a bit arrogant & seemed to be enjoying the attention. There was of course also the famous 'that is what you have to establish' line. The media reported that was the time a killer let his mask slip.
Tears or not, Julie kept to her WS despite strong cross examination from David Napley.
-
Adam - make up your mind - one minute she did not say anything because she did not believe he had done it - now you are saying she knew, but kept her mouth shut. If that's the case then she lied in her first statements - you cant have it both ways. Anyway As far as I understand it was her friend who told the police - it was not Julie who volunteered the final information - and then when she did it took many many meetings with police .
The first few days she would not have wanted to believe it. Eventually realising & accepting Jeremys role in the massacre.
Yes, someone else went to the police without Julies knowledge. So Julie was not seeking revenge.
-
I have said before he killed out of greed, hatred, resentment, arrogance & confidence of success.
Those are enough incentives with or without personality disorders.
You cant just go a x kill peopld cos you wa t their money and then just coolly walk awayunless you have severe mental/personality issues ...... surely?
-
You cant just go a x kill peopld cos you wa t their money and then just coolly walk awayunless you have severe mental/personality issues ...... surely?
I am no expert.
People do kill for inheritance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNqtwFjFBM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
Jeremy was also unconvincing in court.
Repeatedly being asked to speak up by the judge. A reporter on TV said he was very polite, a bit arrogant & seemed to be enjoying the attention. There was of course also the famous 'that is what you have to establish' line. The media reported that was the time a killer let his mask slip.
Tears or not, Julie kept to her WS despite strong cross examination from David Napley.
I think if he was arrogant - it was because he knew he was innocent and did not think the police had a case against him. Which statement did she keep to? Not her original one - only ones in Sept. Because the two contradict each other.
-
I think if he was arrogant - it was because he knew he was innocent and did not think the police had a case against him. Which statement did she keep to? Not her original one - only ones in Sept. Because the two contradict each other.
The case had gone through the police & DPP. He had been charged with multiple murder & had hired the best lawyer available. Arrogant ?
There are probably several WS drafts done until the witness is satisfied. They are the ones answering questions in court so need to be satisfied.
-
The case had gone through the police & DPP. He had been charged with multiple murder & had hired the best lawyer available. Arrogant ?
There are probably several WS drafts done until the witness is satisfied. They are the ones answering questions in court so need to be satisfied.
I don't think that she would know what the defence would ask her in court ? Would rather defeat the point would it not? As far as I am concerned a statement should be a written record of what happened . I cant imagine why she would need so many sessions to "get it right"
-
I don't think that she would know what the defence would ask her in court ? Would rather defeat the point would it not? As far as I am concerned a statement should be a written record of what happened . I cant imagine why she would need so many sessions to "get it right"
Assume the defence will ask her questions based on her WS. Or investigate themselves & ask other questions, such as about Julies bank fraud two years earlier.
-
Jeremy was also unconvincing in court.
Repeatedly being asked to speak up by the judge. A reporter on TV said he was very polite, a bit arrogant & seemed to be enjoying the attention. There was of course also the famous 'that is what you have to establish' line. The media reported that was the time a killer let his mask slip.
Tears or not, Julie kept to her WS despite strong cross examination from David Napley.
I can well believe it. After having been coachederm questioned 32 times. I should imaging she must have had her ws burned into her mind?
-
It was not Blur. It had a female singer. Very mellow.
Adam, was it this video?
-
Tears or not, Julie kept to her WS despite strong cross examination from David Napley.
Once the police went round telling potential prosecution witnesses that there was no evidence to support a phone call from Nevill to Jeremy, some prosecution witnesses faced a stark choice. Cooperate with bending the evidence to enable Jeremy to be prosecuted or let a murderer off the hook.
Tell lies or a murderer will get off the hook.
Sad thing is, there was no evidence to support a call hadn't taken place. It was inconclusive.
Now if the police had went round telling potential prosecution witnesses that there was no evidence to support a call either had or hadn't taken place, that places an element of doubt regarding whether Jeremy is lying about the call. A totally different complexion on the things.
With regards to JM, I think it was sink or swim and the strong tide was being directed by the police / relatives. She chose to swim with the tide and that's that.
-
Once the police went round telling potential prosecution witnesses that there was no evidence to support a phone call from Nevill to Jeremy, some prosecution witnesses faced a stark choice. Cooperate with bending the evidence to enable Jeremy to be prosecuted or let a murderer off the hook.
Tell lies or a murderer will get off the hook.
Sad thing is, there was no evidence to support a call hadn't taken place. It was inconclusive.
Now if the police had went round telling potential prosecution witnesses that there was no evidence to support a call either had or hadn't taken place, that places an element of doubt regarding whether Jeremy is lying about the call. A totally different complexion on the things.
With regards to JM, I think it was sink or swim and the strong tide was being directed by the police / relatives. She chose to swim with the tide and that's that.
A really well balanced post Roch :)
-
A really well balanced post Roch :)
Thank you April.
-
Yes,,good post,Roch.
-
I am no expert.
You heard it here for the first time, folks!!!!!! The only time Adam has told the unvarnished truth. ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can well believe it. After having been coachederm questioned 32 times. I should imaging she must have had her ws burned into her mind?
Better rehearsed than any actOR!
-
You heard it here for the first time, folks!!!!!! The only time Adam has told the unvarnished truth. ;D ;D ;D
Love it!
-
I don't think that she would know what the defence would ask her in court ? Would rather defeat the point would it not? As far as I am concerned a statement should be a written record of what happened . I cant imagine why she would need so many sessions to "get it right"
That's why she bawled her ruddy eyes out when questioned by them.
-
Adam, was it this video?
<iframe width=\"420\" height=\"315\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/XWhJ4EY-xyM\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen></iframe>
No. Not this. It was even more mellow. It was a pro Jeremy video.
Thanks for looking.
-
Because they knew that Neville had confiscated some resin from Pargeter's brother and had put it in the safe.
What possible reason would Neville have for confiscating some cannabis resin and keeping it in his safe. As a magistrate I'm sure he was aware of the consequences of possession. He would have distroyed it or flushed it. Unless he was somehow involved in the business or smoked it himself. The letter Jeremy distroyed could have been incriminating to Neville. Where did the money that Jeremy knew was in Neville's wallet come from? The envelope described by AE sounds very similar to those described by JM when she was telling police about Jeremy's Scotland drug connection.
-
Lebaleb HELLO :) I was given to understand that the cannabis was to do with a member of the Pargeter family who had stayed at the farm because of his addiction. How true, I leave for you to decide.
-
I appreciate that it was assumed to belong to one of the Pargeters. What I am saying is that if one finds illicit drugs belonging to someone, you don't logically put them in your safe.
-
Lebaleb,,I would have thought that the best/safest place was the safe.
-
I appreciate that it was assumed to belong to one of the Pargeters. What I am saying is that if one finds illicit drugs belonging to someone, you don't logically put them in your safe.
They were growing the stuff in a field.
-
lebaleb no you don't put them in the safe you smoke them ;D ;D sorry for being flippant but the sun is shining maybe if you knew who they belonged to you would put them in the safe to keep them safe from visiting children.
-
lebaleb no you don't put them in the safe you smoke them ;D ;D sorry for being flippant but the sun is shining maybe if you knew who they belonged to you would put them in the safe to keep them safe from visiting children.
Or you could put it in a cake then we would all be of the opinion of, "Who cares maaaaan?" (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-cool06.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Grahame I know somebody who put resin seeds into a cake and her husband gave the Vicar slices of it and he went away with a hop skip and a jump hey ho ;D ;D ;D
-
Grahame I know somebody who put resin seeds into a cake and her husband gave the Vicar slices of it and he went away with a hop skip and a jump hey ho ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
It puts an entirely different slant on " brownies ". ;D
-
''The cannabis in my safe? Your Honour. Well, I found it and I put it in there for safekeeping. It's not mine.''
-
They were growing the stuff in a field.
The feild was opium for medicinal purposes. Jeremy was growing it at Goldhanger. According to JM the police had seen the plants and Jeremy was upset at having to distroy them. If that is true, it's strange that the police didn't prosecute him for cultivation.
-
The feild was opium for medicinal purposes. Jeremy was growing it at Goldhanger. According to JM the police had seen the plants and Jeremy was upset at having to distroy them. If that is true, it's strange that the police didn't prosecute him for cultivation.
I thought I had read it was NB who was quite a progressive farmer who had a licence to grow opium for medical uses - did not realise it was destroyed?
-
The feild was opium for medicinal purposes. Jeremy was growing it at Goldhanger. According to JM the police had seen the plants and Jeremy was upset at having to distroy them. If that is true, it's strange that the police didn't prosecute him for cultivation.
" For medicinal purposes ". ;D ;D ;D ;D,your pestilence. ;D
-
I thought I had read it was NB who was quite a progressive farmer who had a licence to grow opium for medical uses - did not realise it was destroyed?
I was talking about Jeremy's cannabis plants
-
I was talking about Jeremy's cannabis plants
:-[ :-[
-
The feild was opium for medicinal purposes. Jeremy was growing it at Goldhanger. According to JM the police had seen the plants and Jeremy was upset at having to distroy them. If that is true, it's strange that the police didn't prosecute him for cultivation.
I suppose they had other ideas :)