Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on March 05, 2014, 06:10:PM
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
Adam - how often did she actually see the family together?
Why would Julie dispute what her own mother said in her WS?
-
Adam - how often did she actually see the family together?
Why would Julie dispute what her own mother said in her WS?
A more pertinent question would be where did Mary Mugford get all this information. If she got it from Jeremy then how did he get it if he never spoke to his mother? Chinese whispers perhaps?
-
A more pertinent question would be where did Mary Mugford get all this information. If she got it from Jeremy then how did he get it if he never spoke to his mother? Chinese whispers perhaps?
flawless logic there graham.
-
A more pertinent question would be where did Mary Mugford get all this information. If she got it from Jeremy then how did he get it if he never spoke to his mother? Chinese whispers perhaps?
None of it is information. It is all Jeremys opinions.
Apart from the bit about June changing the wills. Jeremy was very interested in the wills.
-
Grahame very good point ;D
-
None of it is information. It is all Jeremys opinions.
Apart from the bit about June changing the wills. Jeremy was very interested in the wills.
So, if he heard about all this information how did he get it seeing he never spoke to June?
-
None of it is information. It is all Jeremys opinions.
Apart from the bit about June changing the wills. Jeremy was very interested in the wills.
Really ??? show evidence please.
Can you also get that other evidence you promised me about the self locking window - just in case you forgot about it.
-
So, if he heard about all this information how did he get it seeing he never spoke to June?
The only information he told to Mary Mugford was about Junes will.
That information could have come from Neville, Sheila, Basil Cock, Colin Caffell or Jeremy being nosey in the study. Or June may have told him, perhaps after she found rats in her car.
-
I would have to wonder if Jeremy was ever asked if he said those things OR what form they took. I very MUCH doubt that there was ANY dialogue between him and Julie's mother after he dumped Julie - indeed, why would there be- and had it been MY daughter who had managed to get herself into the position that Julie was in, I'd be VERY careful what I said in order that she didn't suffer prejudice or find her position compromised. What she gave, IMO, was her own opinion of what Jeremy thought, The word "never" is used three times within a very short space. A sweeping statement at the best of times and definitely NOT something which can be said of others.
-
He may not have been close to June but he obviously spoke to her....how could he not? He worked on the farm and would have had daily contact.
So the information about Wills etc might have been common knowledge, families do talk about things between themselves.
Beyond that my only knowledge of his relationship with June is what I have read....and more than one person gave evidence of his poor relationship with his parents. But Sheila did not have a good relationship with June either...., or at least she may have had an uneasy one.
-
april very well put we do not know if Jeremy ever said those words even if he did does not make him a murderer they must have been feeling insecure about his conviction to have this gossip repeated in Court.
-
Adam I asked you this question before but as yet no answer were the rats dead or alive.
-
Adam I asked you this question before but as yet no answer were the rats dead or alive.
Please provide the post where you asked this question before. I must have missed it.
Barbara Wilson said this in the recent documentary. From what I remember they were alive.
-
He may not have been close to June but he obviously spoke to her....how could he not? He worked on the farm and would have had daily contact.
So the information about Wills etc might have been common knowledge, families do talk about things between themselves.
Beyond that my only knowledge of his relationship with June is what I have read....and more than one person gave evidence of his poor relationship with his parents. But Sheila did not have a good relationship with June either...., or at least she may have had an uneasy one.
Adam has been shown several times the fact that JB had said he had had times where there were ups and downs in their relationship same as many families -but he choses to ignore that plus as you have said SC had a strained relationship with June. But he will pick and chose the bits that suit him . But tbh as we have explained hundreds of times if every body who said they hated their families turned into killers the jails would be overflowing.
-
Please provide the post where you asked this question before. I must have missed it.
Barbara Wilson said this in the recent documentary. From what I remember they were alive.
so she did not bring this obviously terribly important fact up in any statements or in court . Quite amazing how she said he was like a son to her. Bad judgement I guess ::)
-
april very well put we do not know if Jeremy ever said those words even if he did does not make him a murderer they must have been feeling insecure about his conviction to have this gossip repeated in Court.
Thanks Susan. The REAL point I was trying to make, but I don't think I quite got there, was that Julie's mother wasn't about to stand up in court and say anything derogatory or do a character assassination about her own daughter, so if it required an extension of the truth -as in "He NEVER..........." as opposed to "There may have been times when he didn't....................."- in an attempt to condemn the man she was hoping to have as a son in law, so be it. She would have out her daughter first.
-
so she did not bring this obviously terribly important fact up in any statements or in court . Quite amazing how she said he was like a son to her. Bad judgement I guess ::)
She did say in court that Jeremy seemed very happy after the massacre.
-
Adam wonder how Jeremy caught the rats they are sharp and travel at speed and would bite and he could have ended up with a fatal disease. Adam if I had to post up all the posts you have missed of mine I would be here for a week. ;D
-
She did say in court that Jeremy seemed very happy after the massacre.
In her opinion
-
Adam wonder how Jeremy caught the rats they are sharp and travel at speed and would bite and he could have ended up with a fatal disease. Adam if I had to post up all the posts you have missed of mine I would be here for a week. ;D
One post would be a start.
So Barbara Wilson was lying ?
-
its that stuck record agian.
-
Adam I merely asked you a straight forward question how did he catch the rats alive I DID NOT SAY BARBARA WILSON WAS LYING. Two earlier posts this evening still waiting for a reply.
-
One post would be a start.
So Barbara Wilson was lying ?
Well, having given two statements so ENTIRELY different they could have been made by different people, it stands to reason that ONE of them is a lie.
-
He may not have been close to June but he obviously spoke to her....how could he not? He worked on the farm and would have had daily contact.
So the information about Wills etc might have been common knowledge, families do talk about things between themselves.
Beyond that my only knowledge of his relationship with June is what I have read....and more than one person gave evidence of his poor relationship with his parents. But Sheila did not have a good relationship with June either...., or at least she may have had an uneasy one.
Why would he have daily contact with June.
He worked on a large farm. Not inside WHF. He did not have a key for WHF & lived 3 miles away. June was not a farmer.
Interesting he was in the same room as everyone a few hours before they died.
-
Adam I merely asked you a straight forward question how did he catch the rats alive I DID NOT SAY BARBARA WILSON WAS LYING. Two earlier posts this evening still waiting for a reply.
How would I know how he caught the rats ? Why don't you find out ?
Was it Julie who said he strangled rats to see if he had the courage to carry out the massacre ?
-
The only information he told to Mary Mugford was about Junes will.
That information could have come from Neville, Sheila, Basil Cock, Colin Caffell or Jeremy being nosey in the study. Or June may have told him, perhaps after she found rats in her car.
So no proof of any of this then and certainly any proof that he hated his mother?
-
Why would he have daily contact with June.
He worked on a large farm. Not inside WHF. He did not have a key for WHF & lived 3 miles away. June was not a farmer.
Interesting he was in the same room as everyone a few hours before they died.
All my kids have keys to my house. I wonder why Jeremy didn't have one for WHF? Or did he and we haven't heard of it? Amazing also is why the police didn't ask him if he had a key. For if he had then all they needed was to put it into the lock of the front door?
-
So no proof of any of this then and certainly any proof that he hated his mother?
How can you prove someone hates someone ?
Several people have said how much Jeremy hated his parents. Both in & out of court.
Jeremy said himself in court he had a poor relationship with June. Since conviction the best he can say about her is he was a mummies boy, playing on the farm. This would have been before he was packed off to boarding school.
-
How would I know how he caught the rats ? Why don't you find out ?
Was it Julie who said he strangled rats to see if he had the courage to carry out the massacre ?
;D ;D ;D ;D come on Adam that's like saying he jumped in a stream so see if he could swim the channel ;D ;D ;D
-
How would I know how he caught the rats ? Why don't you find out ?
Was it Julie who said he strangled rats to see if he had the courage to carry out the massacre ?
Why don't you try it for yourself Adam. It seems that all one requires is a live rat. Go catch one.
-
How can you prove someone hates someone ?
Several people have said how much Jeremy hated his parents. Both in & out of court.
Jeremy said himself in court he had a poor relationship with June. Since conviction the best he can say about her is he was a mummies boy, playing on the farm. This would have been before he was packed off to boarding school.
Exactly. So perhaps you'd better reword your title of the thread?
-
She did say in court that Jeremy seemed very happy after the massacre.
I could say you seem to write very informative interesting and new posts . Does not make it true though.
-
Exactly. So perhaps you'd better reword your title of the thread?
true Grahame - why not - Why did Jeremy hate June - on occasions, just a little bit, perhaps, or maybe not , and did it make him commit murder????
-
Ha Ha april that will keep him busy and off the forum trying to catch a couple of rats alive and well. Had Jeremy strangled the rats they would not have been alive ;D ;D ;D
-
How can you prove someone hates someone ?
Several people have said how much Jeremy hated his parents. Both in & out of court.
Jeremy said himself in court he had a poor relationship with June. Since conviction the best he can say about her is he was a mummies boy, playing on the farm. This would have been before he was packed off to boarding school.
What they more correctly could have said was that it was their opinion. A "poor relationship" with ones mother doesn't make one a murderer and "Mummy's boy" says more of Jeremy than June.
-
well first he hates his mother than his a mummys boy.
you cant be both which is it.
-
What they more correctly could have said was that it was their opinion. A "poor relationship" with ones mother doesn't make one a murderer and "Mummy's boy" says more of Jeremy than June.
Does not make you a murderer. Usually.
But tesimonies against Jeremy did him no favours.
Why didn't Brett Collins give Jeremy a glowing character reference in court ?
-
jansus Adam could create a new sport first to catch 2 live rats wins ;D ;D ;D and the prize is you get to keep them ;D
-
well first he hates his mother than his a mummys boy.
you cant be both which is it.
Work it out.
Since conviction he has claimed to be a mummies boy , playing on the farm. Obviously prior to Greshams.
But was then packed off to boarding school. Something Mary Mugford said he never forgave June for.
-
Does not make you a murderer. Usually.
But tesimonies against Jeremy did him no favours.
Why didn't Brett Collins give Jeremy a glowing character reference in court ?
Did he refuse? Was he asked?
-
Work it out.
Since conviction he has claimed to be a mummies boy , playing on the farm. Obviously prior to Greshams.
But was then packed off to boarding school. Something Mary Mugford said he never forgave June for.
It isn't usually mothers who make the decision on whether or not their children go to boarding school.
-
Did he refuse? Was he asked?
No idea. But was Jeremys big buddy at the time. Flying over when hearing about the massacre.
-
No idea. But was Jeremys big buddy at the time. Flying over when hearing about the massacre.
I doubt VERY much if being Jeremy's "big buddy" had anything to do with it. It was obviously decided that his presence in court wasn't required which explains very well why he didn't "give him a glowing character reference in court".
-
I doubt VERY much if being Jeremy's "big buddy" had anything to do with it. It was obviously decided that his presence in court wasn't required which explains very well why he didn't "give him a glowing character reference in court".
A few good character references may have negated all the bad ones.
-
April I read the Defence did not call Brett because of his sexual preference they thought it may show Jeremy in a bad light very narrow minded then but I cannot confirm this is true or more gossip. ;D Same with Jeremy's ex girl friend who was married with children :'(
-
A few good character references may have negated all the bad ones.
Indeed it may. It would be interesting to know decided , and why, his presence was thought to be unnecessary.
-
April you are right that was Ralph's decision that Jeremy went away to school really don't think June would have much say in the matter.
-
April I read the Defence did not call Brett because of his sexual preference they thought it may show Jeremy in a bad light very narrow minded then but I cannot confirm this is true or more gossip. ;D Same with Jeremy's ex girl friend who was married with children :'(
Sounds like they were determined that the poor sod wouldn't win. Condemned in advance for possible homosexuality and condemned for heterosexuality.
-
I would have to wonder if Jeremy was ever asked if he said those things OR what form they took. I very MUCH doubt that there was ANY dialogue between him and Julie's mother after he dumped Julie - indeed, why would there be- and had it been MY daughter who had managed to get herself into the position that Julie was in, I'd be VERY careful what I said in order that she didn't suffer prejudice or find her position compromised. What she gave, IMO, was her own opinion of what Jeremy thought, The word "never" is used three times within a very short space. A sweeping statement at the best of times and definitely NOT something which can be said of others.
All remarks don't need to have been said after the murders April,and it's indicative of Jeremy wanting to keep the Mugford's onside by offering them goodies whilst being left free to play the field.
-
All remarks don't need to have been said after the murders April,and it's indicative of Jeremy wanting to keep the Mugford's onside by offering them goodies whilst being left free to play the field.
That is possible -after all I think most people on here have admitted that JB was by no means perfect - possibly arrogant and yes perhaps a player. But that does not prove his guilt. I just think Adams words are way over the top for effect. He is trying to exaggerate a situation .
-
All remarks don't need to have been said after the murders April,and it's indicative of Jeremy wanting to keep the Mugford's onside by offering them goodies whilst being left free to play the field.
Steve hello. I wasn't suggesting that anything in particular was said AFTER it happened. I'm questioning the EXACT content and phrasing of anything which MAY have been said because you don't need me to tell you that the meaning of something can be easily changed by the inclusion/exclusion of a word. I fail to see what was wrong with offering his mother's car to Julie's mother. I doubt her finances were those of the Eaton/Boutflours and she may have been in dire need of a newer car. Please note the full stop as I see NO correlation between the offer of a car and Jeremy deciding he wanted someone other than Julie.
-
That is possible -after all I think most people on here have admitted that JB was by no means perfect - possibly arrogant and yes perhaps a player. But that does not prove his guilt. I just think Adams words are way over the top for effect. He is trying to exaggerate a situation .
I am quoting from a book. Which is quoting from a court testimony.
-
jansus Jeremy Bamber was is own worst enemy but no murderer :'(
-
Please provide the post where you asked this question before. I must have missed it.
Barbara Wilson said this in the recent documentary. From what I remember they were alive.
Its worth noting as well from her original statement
-
I am quoting from a book. Which is quoting from a court testimony.
why - cant you use your own words for your own opinion? - just say when its your opinion or when its an opinion from a book just to make it clear . When it all boils down to it , opinion is just opinion anyway.
-
Its worth noting as well from her original statement
Thank you for putting that up, Jansus. Perhaps now Adam will answer the question WHICH of the two statements given by BW was a lie.
-
Thank you for putting that up, Jansus. Perhaps now Adam will answer the question WHICH of the two statements given by BW was a lie.
I doubt it somehow
::) :-X
-
I'd find Jeremy a little more convincing were he to admit to grudges instead of trying to play the Happy Families card for 28 years. As members have stated all families go through rough patches without resorting to murder. I'm still intrigued as to why Jeremy's relationship with June deteriorated from 1978 as alluded to in Wilkes' book but never developed,and I can only assume it was due to Jeremy's attempt to make up for lost time by overindulging yet lacking the necessary wherewithal to do so on a regular basis.
-
I'd find Jeremy a little more convincing were he to admit to grudges instead of trying to play the Happy Families card for 28 years. As members have stated all families go through rough patches without resorting to murder. I'm still intrigued as to why Jeremy's relationshipwwith June deteriorated from 1978 as alluded to in Wilkes' book but never developed,and I can only assume it was due to Jeremy's attempt to make up for lost time by overindulging yet lacking the necessary wherewithal to do so on a regular basis.
don't quite understand ? I think he said they had had a difficult relationship at times - probably when he was a teenager /early 20s- but that the couple of years before the murder their relationship had been ok - he was not exactly gushy about it as far as I can see. I thought that his reminiscing was more about when he was very young - probably before he was at boarding school or in the holidays? Is that wrong?
-
why - cant you use your own words for your own opinion? - just say when its your opinion or when its an opinion from a book just to make it clear . When it all boils down to it , opinion is just opinion anyway.
My thread makes it clear. Page 220, chapter 31.
-
Thank you for putting that up, Jansus. Perhaps now Adam will answer the question WHICH of the two statements given by BW was a lie.
Neither is a lie. She was asked percific direct questions in the pre court trial.
Since the conviction she has more freedom to express herself.
-
I'd find Jeremy a little more convincing were he to admit to grudges instead of trying to play the Happy Families card for 28 years. As members have stated all families go through rough patches without resorting to murder. I'm still intrigued as to why Jeremy's relationship with June deteriorated from 1978 as alluded to in Wilkes' book but never developed,and I can only assume it was due to Jeremy's attempt to make up for lost time by overindulging yet lacking the necessary wherewithal to do so on a regular basis.
Steve, it's always difficult to make a full assessments when one only has sound bites to go by although in contrast to his present surroundings life at WHF may seem like an idyll in retrospect. Like you, I'm intrigued to know more of Jeremy's relationship with June. I can recall feeling that even if I turned myself inside out I'd never get maternal approval. I HOPE that isn't how Jeremy felt. It's a horrid thing for a child to grow up with. In case you're wondering, my own mother lived until she was 93!!!!!!!
-
don't quite understand ? I think he said they had had a difficult relationship at times - probably when he was a teenager /early 20s- but that the couple of years before the murder their relationship had been ok - he was not exactly gushy about it as far as I can see. I thought that his reminiscing was more about when he was very young - probably before he was at boarding school or in the holidays? Is that wrong?
No the quote from Wilkes' book is a deteriorating relationship from 1978 which would tally with Jeremy requiring more freedom to live his own life,and one can imagine June making similar remarks to her son as she did with Sheila. Jeremy needed a longer leash just at the time Nevill thought it was payback time for his son receiving the best education money could buy. Jeremy won that particular battle with his foreign trips concesssions but he was only buying time until the inevitable eventually came when Jeremy was expected to put in long hours at the Farm just as Nevill himself had done in his turn.
-
My thread makes it clear. Page 220, chapter 31.
so everything you have written - on this thread is all on that page of the book?
Gosh you are so confusing :)
-
Neither is a lie. She was asked percific direct questions in the pre court trial.
Since the conviction she has more freedom to express herself.
Odd then that she wasn't asked those specific questions which would have show Jeremy in a bad light. NOTHING about her WS suggests anything untoward. She could have been speaking about a totally different person so one of her versions HAS to be wrong. A LIE.
-
Steve, it's always difficult to make a full assessments when one only has sound bites to go by although in contrast to his present surroundings life at WHF may seem like an idyll in retrospect. Like you, I'm intrigued to know more of Jeremy's relationship with June. I can recall feeling that even if I turned myself inside out I'd never get maternal approval. I HOPE that isn't how Jeremy felt. It's a horrid thing for a child to grow up with. In case you're wondering, my own mother lived until she was 93!!!!!!!
I didn't see June as a control freak really;just guided by moral beliefs which may admittedly have had the same effect. June must have realized she'd made mistakes,hence the letter she wrote to be opened after her death,but I think she always wanted the best for her children.
-
so everything you have written - on this thread is all on that page of the book?
Gosh you are so confusing :)
he must of wrote it in tiny little letters musnt he.
-
I didn't see June as a control freak really;just guided by moral beliefs which may admittedly have had the same effect. June must have realized she'd made mistakes,hence the letter she wrote to be opened after her death,but I think she always wanted the best for her children.
You are judging her, in an objective way, through adult eyes, something Jeremy wouldn't, probably STILL isn't, capable of doing. I would agree with you that she only ever wanted what was best for her children, but like many parents isn't capable of seeing that what THEY regard as being the best, actually is only the best for them, NOT their children.
-
You are judging her, in an objective way, through adult eyes, something Jeremy wouldn't, probably STILL isn't, capable of doing. I would agree with you that she only ever wanted what was best for her children, but like many parents isn't capable of seeing that what THEY regard as being the best, actually is only the best for them, NOT their children.
What had June done wrong apart from becoming ill herself:very little really apart from maintaining the finances and putting Nevill first. This whole sorry tale is an unbelievable assemblage of coincidences from two adoptees,family illnesses,Jeremy's knack for figures,his alienation generated by being sent away to boarding school,his knowledge of guns,Julie's equivocation,the lightning strike..
-
No the quote from Wilkes' book is a deteriorating relationship from 1978 which would tally with Jeremy requiring more freedom to live his own life,and one can imagine June making similar remarks to her son as she did with Sheila. Jeremy needed a longer leash just at the time Nevill thought it was payback time for his son receiving the best education money could buy. Jeremy won that particular battle with his foreign trips concesssions but he was only buying time until the inevitable eventually came when Jeremy was expected to put in long hours at the Farm just as Nevill himself had done in his turn.
And according to the valuer who visited the farm on a regular basis Nevill was fairly happy about how Jeremy was progressing on the farm. So perhaps things had settled down.
-
What had June done wrong apart from becoming ill herself:very little really apart from maintaining the finances and putting Nevill first. This whole sorry tale is an unbelievable assemblage of coincidences from two adoptees,family illnesses,Jeremy's knack for figures,his alienation generated by being sent away to boarding school,his knowledge of guns,Julie's equivocation,the lightning strike..
Steve, it undoubtedly IS a sorry tale and that's just the very small part of it we know about. I've been wondering about those things we don't yet know and I've just realized that, until now, I haven't found the scapegoat. My mind first went to Jeremy but I think that's a mistake. I think it was more likely to have been Sheila. We don't here of any disruption in Jeremy's school life. He may not have liked Greshams, but he wasn't expelled and he didn't run away. I'm wondering if Sheila resented Jeremy's arrival in the family and made her feelings felt by making demands and getting her needs met, making herself the "bad" child. This would have made Jeremy the "good" child, however "good" children don't get parental attention in the same way as "bad" children because "bad" children know how to get parental attention. In later years, the parents will say of the "good" child, of whom they were SO proud, that they were no trouble and always happy to play contentedly on their own. They actually didn't have a choice. The "good" child, as an adult will talk about how its' parents took no notice of it and spent all their time with the "bad" sibling. I can't help wondering if this was how it was with Jeremy and Sheila.....................I will just add the rider that this situation doesn't automatically produce murderers.
-
The title of this thread is VERY misleading - we don't know if he did or if he didn't hate June!
-
Did Jeremy really hate June? Do we know that for a fact? How many people have said that? If he did, did that make him a murderer.
Discussing this proves nothing one way or the other. Why are we discussing this? :P
The picture below, which must have been taken not too long before the tragedy judging from Jeremy´s age, doesn´t show two people who don´t talk to each other. They show a mother and son leaning towards each other, smiling, son with arm amicably on the back of the chair mother is sitting on. They both look like they like having this photo taken. No hate. There is someone on June´s right hand (on photo) - June obviously feels closer to Jeremy, because she leans towards him.
I can´t see any hate in this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6925;image)
-
Did Jeremy really hate June? Do we know that for a fact? How many people have said that? If he did, did that make him a murderer.
Discussing this proves nothing one way or the other. Why are we discussing this? :P
The picture below, which must have been taken not too long before the tragedy judging from Jeremy´s age, doesn´t show two people who don´t talk to each other. They show a mother and son leaning towards each other, smiling, son with arm amicably on the back of the chair mother is sitting on. They both look like they like having this photo taken. No hate. There is someone on June´s right hand (on photo) - June obviously feels closer to Jeremy, because she leans towards him.
I can´t see any hate in this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6925;image)
Never seen that photo before . I will have to post it every time Adam says they had not spoken for years ( sorry some author said it)
-
The title of this thread is VERY misleading - we don't know if he did or if he didn't hate June!
Did Jeremy really hate June? Do we know that for a fact? How many people have said that? If he did, did that make him a murderer.
Discussing this proves nothing one way or the other. Why are we discussing this? :P
The picture below, which must have been taken not too long before the tragedy judging from Jeremy´s age, doesn´t show two people who don´t talk to each other. They show a mother and son leaning towards each other, smiling, son with arm amicably on the back of the chair mother is sitting on. They both look like they like having this photo taken. No hate. There is someone on June´s right hand (on photo) - June obviously feels closer to Jeremy, because she leans towards him.
I can´t see any hate in this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6925;image)
Caroline/Alias, you're both correct. The only times we hear "hate" mentioned is by others who SAY Jeremy hated June so all we have is their opinion, which like the word "NEVER" that I keep banging on about is a very sweeping statement and very likely to be an exaggeration.
-
Never seen that photo before . I will have to post it every time Adam says they had not spoken for years ( sorry some author said it)
It is obviously not true!
Just noticed now - one of the twins is in the low left corner, bless them.
-
Steve, it undoubtedly IS a sorry tale and that's just the very small part of it we know about. I've been wondering about those things we don't yet know and I've just realized that, until now, I haven't found the scapegoat. My mind first went to Jeremy but I think that's a mistake. I think it was more likely to have been Sheila. We don't here of any disruption in Jeremy's school life. He may not have liked Greshams, but he wasn't expelled and he didn't run away. I'm wondering if Sheila resented Jeremy's arrival in the family and made her feelings felt by making demands and getting her needs met, making herself the "bad" child. This would have made Jeremy the "good" child, however "good" children don't get parental attention in the same way as "bad" children because "bad" children know how to get parental attention. In later years, the parents will say of the "good" child, of whom they were SO proud, that they were no trouble and always happy to play contentedly on their own. They actually didn't have a choice. The "good" child, as an adult will talk about how its' parents took no notice of it and spent all their time with the "bad" sibling. I can't help wondering if this was how it was with Jeremy and Sheila.....................I will just add the rider that this situation doesn't automatically produce murderers.
The siblings had separate interests and Sheila was far more wrapped up in her own little world to be jealous of Jeremy. True we don't really know what went on behind closed doors,but as Dr. Ferguson believed Sheila had too much to live for to kill herself and take everyone with her,though admittedly Sheila's health is one of the Defence's strongest cards and I don't blame them for playing it.
-
Did Jeremy really hate June? Do we know that for a fact? How many people have said that? If he did, did that make him a murderer.
Discussing this proves nothing one way or the other. Why are we discussing this? :P
The picture below, which must have been taken not too long before the tragedy judging from Jeremy´s age, doesn´t show two people who don´t talk to each other. They show a mother and son leaning towards each other, smiling, son with arm amicably on the back of the chair mother is sitting on. They both look like they like having this photo taken. No hate. There is someone on June´s right hand (on photo) - June obviously feels closer to Jeremy, because she leans towards him.
I can´t see any hate in this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6925;image)
Or it could be that June's smile was directed at the twins and Jeremy had just entered the room,hence no chair(he looks as if he's stooping) and an inquisitiveness at trying to read June' s mind rather than a beaming smile. I would suggest that this photograph was taken before the well of money ran dry and Jeremy saw his predestined future stretching out ahead of him.
-
Or it could be that June's smile was directed at the twins and Jeremy had just entered the room,hence no chair(he looks as if he's stooping) and an inquisitiveness at trying to read June' s mind rather than a beaming smile. I would suggest that this photograph was taken before the well of money ran dry and Jeremy saw his predestined future stretching out ahead of him.
Your imagination knows no bounds! LOL
-
I think you could read anything you want into the photo - if you are that way inclined. But it means nothing.
It just looks like a normal happy family photo to me.
Which makes the consequence ( whoever you think did it) very sad.
-
What an ironic thread considering it was Sheila and NOT Jeremy that didn't get on with June! It is stated in Sheila's doctors wit stats. I can't source the relevant statement at the moment as not on a pc,but I'm certain his statement mentions Sheila's feelings towards June and also how distressed she felt whenever she had to stay at whf. Colin confirms this also in his book. He said that whenever she stayed there it always set her back mentally. It is also interesting that those closest to the Bamber's,ie Jean,Barbara,Colin etc have never once said that Jeremy and June did not get on with each other.
-
this is all based on here say from person who dident really know him that well.
-
With regards the door keys that Adam keeps banging on about,there were only two. One was found in the lock on the morning of the murders and the spare was kept in the shed. I don't see how Jeremy would need to be given a key as there was always somebody in or around the farmhouse and Nevill had an office in the house where everything was run from. The back (side) door was the main door in use and would have always been unlocked when Jeremy arrived at the farm for work,hence no need for his own key.
-
I´ll just ask people this: after you moved from your parents´ house, did/do you still have keys for their apartment/house, whatever it was/is?
I haven´t had keys to my mother´s house after I moved out. Why would I, it is HER house? I don´t live there anymore.
-
I´ll just ask people this: after you moved from your parents´ house, did/do you still have keys for their apartment/house, whatever it was/is?
I haven´t had keys to my mother´s house after I moved out. Why would I, it is HER house? I don´t live there anymore.
No, my dad asked for them so they would have a spare.
-
Hi Alias,yes I did. Especially once I had my children,they didn't like the thought of us all standing on the doorstep if we arrived before them or if they'd had to pop out quickly etc.
-
Hi Alias,yes I did. Especially once I had my children,they didn't like the thought of us all standing on the doorstep if we arrived before them or if they'd had to pop out quickly etc.
I can understand that - I guess if I'd lived close enough to pop round I would have kept the key. I can't see why Jeremy would have needed on. I imagine there was always someone there - farms seem to be like that.
-
Did Jeremy really hate June? Do we know that for a fact? How many people have said that? If he did, did that make him a murderer.
Discussing this proves nothing one way or the other. Why are we discussing this? :P
The picture below, which must have been taken not too long before the tragedy judging from Jeremy´s age, doesn´t show two people who don´t talk to each other. They show a mother and son leaning towards each other, smiling, son with arm amicably on the back of the chair mother is sitting on. They both look like they like having this photo taken. No hate. There is someone on June´s right hand (on photo) - June obviously feels closer to Jeremy, because she leans towards him.
I can´t see any hate in this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6925;image)
The picture is also on the 'Crimes that shook Britain'video.
Jeremy with light brown hair. AE & Julie saying he dyed it dark black a few days before the massacre.
-
Did Jeremy really hate June? Do we know that for a fact? How many people have said that? If he did, did that make him a murderer.
Discussing this proves nothing one way or the other. Why are we discussing this? :P
The picture below, which must have been taken not too long before the tragedy judging from Jeremy´s age, doesn´t show two people who don´t talk to each other. They show a mother and son leaning towards each other, smiling, son with arm amicably on the back of the chair mother is sitting on. They both look like they like having this photo taken. No hate. There is someone on June´s right hand (on photo) - June obviously feels closer to Jeremy, because she leans towards him.
I can´t see any hate in this photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=6925;image)
It is pretty conclusive that Jeremy hated June.
Mary Mugford, Julie Mugford & James Richards testified this in court.
Ann Eatons's WS said Jeremy painted an unfairly poor picture of June to the police.
Jeremy said himself in court he had a difficult relationship with June. Since the conviction the best he has been able to say is he was a mummies boy, pre Greshams.
-
a difficult relationship doesnot equate to hate.
wilf
-
The siblings had separate interests and Sheila was far more wrapped up in her own little world to be jealous of Jeremy. True we don't really know what went on behind closed doors,but as Dr. Ferguson believed Sheila had too much to live for to kill herself and take everyone with her,though admittedly Sheila's health is one of the Defence's strongest cards and I don't blame them for playing it.
Steve, as they grew older, I'm certain that what you say is true but I'm talking about pre school children, a time when a child's undeveloped survival instincts are similar to those of a small animal if they fear their place in the heirarchy may be usurped.
I smile at your suggestion that Sheila's illness is a card played by the Defence. It is a given. It cannot be ignored. I would HAVE to take on board -despite that I believe it to be the card YOU play- what Dr F said of her. Had the massacre occurred within a couple of weeks of her leaving the hospital his view of her would certainly have covered that time frame. She would still have been full of hope and hadn't yet requested a reduction in her meds. That over the next 16 weeks, those meds, reduced to a point where they weren't fully protecting her, MAY have made worse what was happening in her life and her ability to cope with it. I think it's useless to say that half as dozen specialists agreed with Dr F, in ther words of Ms M R-D, "well, they would, wouldn't they", they had nothing else to go on OTHER than Dr F's last assessment of her on which to base their findings.
We have discussed at length how concerned about her must June and Nevill have been. They hadn't spent time in her company since she'd stayed with them the previous September after coming out of hospital the fist time, so they can't have failed to notice the change in her. Her behaviour was erratic, veering between passive and withdrawn to hyper and aggressive. She showed no or little interest in the children or helping June in the house. She had a screaming hysterics at the monastery and threw a hissy fit at an electrician. All of this playing out within 2/3 days. In short, she was showing all the hallmarks of a woman who wasn't coping and had Dr F and his associates seen her then, I suspect their assessment of her would have been VERY different.
-
Its worth noting as well from her original statement
Thank you Jansus. That balances things out a great deal. Some who knew Jeremy far better than Mary Mugford and her nasty daughter.
I wonder why Barbara Wilson gave that interview against Jeremy in that hotch potch of a so called documentary a little while ago. A similar question: What hold have the relatives over her today? Yet one other question: What has changed? Did she lie in court? Did she lie on the video? If she fave false evidence in court then should she even after this length of time be charged with purgery?
-
It is crystal clear to me from Barbara Wilson's original testimony plus the photograph published on the thread as well as other photographs in the photographic thread that Jeremy did not hate his mother June. I believe that Mary Mugford and her truculent daughter Julie are both lying in their testimonies. Possibly money is the motive, as it is well known that Julie Mugford had a love of filthy lucre.
-
Grahame, it can't be understated that as there is SUCH variance in what she says she could be speaking of two different people so ONE part has to be untrue.
-
It is crystal clear to me from Barbara Wilson's original testimony plus the photograph published on the thread as well as other photographs in the photographic thread that Jeremy did not hate his mother June. I believe that Mary Mugford and her truculent daughter Julie are both lying in their testimonies. Possibly money is the motive, as it is well known that Julie Mugford had a love of filthy lucre.
Well Mary was BOUND to defend her daughter's reputation. She wasn't going to allow her to be branded a liar, thief, drug dealer and gold digger, was she. Might one label it maternal collusion?
-
Poor Sheila.The more I hear about her illness,,the more it takes me back to my days of working in an " asylum ",as it was known then. Those poor women,,most of them young,had such tortured minds,it was heartbreaking,,and looking back over the years,it probably only began as a hormonal imbalance,,but those young women were " insane " and the drastic measures such as an injection of Paraldehyde which more or less knocked the poor souls cold. I remember being upset when this drug was first administered because I thought it was cruel,and the ward sister telling me to " pull myself together,that it had to be done ". Haloperidol is an old drug too,given intravenously,,and can't be given without a patients permission unless it comes under the Mental Health Act,then it doesn't become their own choice.
I often wonder if Sheila was ever sectioned ? Only her medical notes would supply such information.
-
Or it could be that June's smile was directed at the twins and Jeremy had just entered the room,hence no chair(he looks as if he's stooping) and an inquisitiveness at trying to read June' s mind rather than a beaming smile. I would suggest that this photograph was taken before the well of money ran dry and Jeremy saw his predestined future stretching out ahead of him.
I´ll explain what I see in the photo. First and foremost a happy June, very happy. I think she is happy because she has her whole immediate family gathered around her, many women love that more than anything.
I read in the body language of June and Jeremy that they are comfortable with each other (leaning against one anoter - if any of them had harsh feelings to the other, they would NOT do that, absolutely not!)
I see a son who is maturing well. He does not draw back from a family situation like this, like a teenage boy would, but participates willingly in this family situation by leaning forward, and even towards his mother (and probably he even got up from his seat at the dinner table to be on the photo with his mother). Perhaps also Jeremy was happy about the gathering of the family and even happy for June.
A totally harmless and normal family photo, but typically nons interpret something sinister into EVERYTHING Jeremy does, as if he is the Devil incarnate!
Steve, can you please explain to me what you mean by "predestined future."
-
Maybe somebody should play Adam at his own game and begin a thread called
'Why did Sheila hate June?'
Then everyone can switch to posting on that thread instead of this one. Net result: one of the main topical threads is pro Jeremy in title, instead of pro guilter.
-
What a brilliant idea. ;D
-
Maybe somebody should play Adam at his own game and begin a thread called
'Why did Sheila hate June?'
Then everyone can switch to posting on that thread instead of this one. Net result: one of the main topical threads is pro Jeremy in title, instead of pro guilter.
ill cerntanly do that.
-
I´ll explain what I see in the photo. First and foremost a happy June, very happy. I think she is happy because she has her whole immediate family gathered around her, many women love that more than anything.
I read in the body language of June and Jeremy that they are comfortable with each other (leaning against one anoter - if any of them had harsh feelings to the other, they would NOT do that, absolutely not!)
I see a son who is maturing well. He does not draw back from a family situation like this, like a teenage boy would, but participates willingly in this family situation by leaning forward, and even towards his mother (and probably he even got up from his seat at the dinner table to be on the photo with his mother). Perhaps also Jeremy was happy about the gathering of the family and even happy for June.
A totally harmless and normal family photo, but typically nons interpret something sinister into EVERYTHING Jeremy does, as if he is the Devil incarnate!
Steve, can you please explain to me what you mean by "predestined future."
Yes of course. Jeremy reasoned in his own mind that it was preferable to be in his shoes than most because of the money angle nothing else,as he reckoned up figures in his head at the Osea Road meetings,the one skill bequeathed to him by his natural father,who was otherwise similarly as cold as the son he gave away. Jeremy realized that one day he was expected to take over the Farm,but unbeknownst to his parents he was going to sell it anyway the moment he inherited. Psychologically we know he had a difficult time settling in at Gresham's,that establishment in his own words being harder to adapt to than Gartree Prison,but it must have been a shock too far to stomach when he learned Nevill's intentions of starting his son on the lowest rung of the ladder again,and something inside just snapped. He used the illnesses of June,Sheila and at the end Nevill to justify the slaughter,neatly tidying it up with Nicholas and Daniel's death,who would only grow up damaged under the influence of their mother,when subconsciously he must have realized their demise would lead him directly inheriting the Maida Vale flat and allowing Colin the opportunity to find regular employment along with a fresh start himself.
-
I think you are over analysing ;D
-
I think you are over analysing ;D
I think he's endowing Jeremy with an introspection he wasn't capable of.
-
Jeremy felt on his own at Gresham's after he divulged to a fellow pupil that he was adopted and subsequently became an object of ridicule by the sons of the East Anglian landed gentry,who labelled him "The Bastard". Jeremy didn't have the nous to respond but filed the comment away in his mind,whereupon he reclaimed a modicum of respect through his gun prowess.
I'm afraid these things are relevant and provide the backdrop to the tragedy which became infamous as the White House Farm murders.
-
The introspection became a hallmark of his character,which he attempted to conceal through an exaggerated social bravado,but the die was cast,which stood him in good stead during the Police interrogations and his subsequent incarceration. His loneliness was exacerbated through the solitary corn carter activity where he would spend countless hours confined in the tractor,sequestered in that desolate Essex landscape whilst yearning to break free of the shackles imposed upon him by a thoughtless Nevill and June..
-
Unfortunately you are not in a position to state at all how Jeremy 'felt',Steve!
-
treating him as no more than a well-paid hired hand,unable to express tangible love in any meaningful sense,Nevill resorting to taciturnity before him and tears to John Seward,whilst June refused to write any more personal cheques possibly at her husband's behest,and could not look the son in the eye she felt so inadequate before,a sign Jeremy misread to mean she didn't care,when she cared only too much. It was for this reason that Jeremy shot her right between the eyes as he peered at her for the last time,vowing to expunge all traces of his former life as he sought the new pastures his inheritance would furnish..
-
Who could possibly have anticipated Jeremy's thoughts as he went through the motions of farming those last few months,justifying five deaths with the lamest of excuses,yet absolving himself simultaneously of blame as the lack of all blood ties made its presence felt and came to the fore. The plan was meticulously formulated yet imperfectly executed,as an ignorant Jeremy underestimated how many pellets he would need to dispatch them all whilst running up and down that winding Georgian staircase to reload,blundering spectacularly with Sheila by not executing her cleanly with just the one bullet, his dilemma aggravated by having to feign a suicide yet unable to risk her surviving from a misdirected solitary shot..
-
Jeremy felt on his own at Gresham's after he divulged to a fellow pupil that he was adopted and subsequently became an object of ridicule by the sons of the East Anglian landed gentry,who labelled him "The Bastard". Jeremy didn't have the nous to respond but filed the comment away in his mind,whereupon he reclaimed a modicum of respect through his gun prowess.
I'm afraid these things are relevant and provide the backdrop to the tragedy which became infamous as the White House Farm murders.
I Steve, according to Wilkes Jeremy had a difficult time when he first went to Greshams
and some called him The Bastard for a while but it seems he settled down well and was perfectly happy there for the rest of his school days we are told.
-
which book are your posts copied and pasted from?
And when its says who could have anticipated? well JM for one - apparently she knew for months before.
got any comments of your own - rather than plagiarism
-
The introspection became a hallmark of his character,which he attempted to conceal through an exaggerated social bravado,but the die was cast,which stood him in good stead during the Police interrogations and his subsequent incarceration. His loneliness was exacerbated through the solitary corn carter activity where he would spend countless hours confined in the tractor,sequestered in that desolate Essex landscape whilst yearning to break free of the shackles imposed upon him by a thoughtless Nevill and June..
And the clever mind is then one you referred to as being a dimwit?
-
treating him as no more than a well-paid hired hand,unable to express tangible love in any meaningful sense,Nevill resorting to taciturnity before him and tears to John Seward,whilst June refused to write any more personal cheques possibly at her husband's behest,and could not look the son in the eye she felt so inadequate before,a sign Jeremy misread to mean she didn't care,when she cared only too much. It was for this reason that Jeremy shot her right between the eyes as he peered at her for the last time,vowing to expunge all traces of his former life as he sought the new pastures his inheritance would furnish..
Who is there, who with any truth , is CAPABLE of telling you that June couldn't look Heremy in the eye because she felt inadequate? As for the shot between the eyes, it can equally well be said that it was Sheila's revenge on a mother who spied on her most intimate moments.
-
Steve and Adam obviously read the same books . Full of embellishment and setting of scenes and assumptions . the writer obviously had a wild imagination. IMO not at all appropriate writing for such a tragedy.
-
Steve and Adam obviously read the same books . Full of embellishment and setting of scenes and assumptions . the writer obviously had a wild imagination. IMO not at all appropriate writing for such a tragedy.
What books have you read on the subject ?
-
What books have you read on the subject ?
Since most of us have lived through this case from the time it occurred, what can a book do OTHER than give us something to quote from?
-
What books have you read on the subject ?
honest answer I have not - I am more interested in statements from the police /raid team /family and documents that you can freely see on the archive section of this forum and others . I am not interested in embellishing the story and from the posts you have used I definitely would not want to read that style of book. That is not to say I wont read a more current book - but that will be because it will be up to date with things that have been discovered recently. It would be a waste of my valuable time to read an old book when some of the factual documents are on here ( although of course the EP destroyed a lot of them against the instruction of the court and they are still holding documents under the PII :o) I don't expect you have any comment on that FACT though Adam.
-
An Amazon 5 star review. All the reviews gave it 5 stars - Wilkes book.
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'.
-
I prefer to read all the pro & anti Jeremy information online as well as the best reviewed book.
Then make my own mind up. It is clear to me Jeremy is guilty.
Jeremy's story falls apart in the first minute. Neville phoning Jeremy at 3am ? Come on.
-
Adam - I can read amazon reviews on my own thank you.
Any comments on the fact that the EP destroyed evidence against the instructions of the court?
And that there are still documents and photos held under PII that have never been seen by a jury?
-
Adam - I can read amazon reviews on my own thank you.
Any comments on the fact that the EP destroyed evidence against the instructions of the court?
And that there are still documents and photos held under PII that have never been seen by a jury?
Cluthcing at straws.
There was a 19 day trial & three appeals.
-
I prefer to read all the pro & anti Jeremy information online as well as the best reviewed book.
Then make my own mind up. It is clear to me Jeremy is guilty.
Jeremy's story falls apart in the first minute. Neville phoning Jeremy at 3am ? Come on.
Trouble is Adam, you gage everything which happened by your own experiences, which going by that you can't believe that a phonecall happens at 3 am, are limited to non existent. Never mind, hopefully, as you grow up you'll become more qualified to make objective judgement calls.
-
the trial was not comprehensive enough if they did not see all the relevant evidence or some of it was deliberately with held
Why did the police destroy evidence against the specific instructions of the court ? And why are they still holding on to documents now?
And are you saying that no-one is entitled to a re-trial ( in general principle) if new evidence comes to light?
-
It is how I feel.
Sheila was not shooting when Neville made his call. Neville would not have had the 5 - 10 minutes to make two calls.
So if no shots were being fired Neville & June would have calmed her down. Or wrestled the gun away. Certainly not phoned Jeremy at 3.26.
Neville certainly would not have left Sheila alone in another room with a gun, while he went downstairs to phone Jeremy.
-
the trial was not comprehensive enough if they did not see all the relevant evidence or some of it was deliberately with held
Why did the police destroy evidence against the specific instructions of the court ? And why are they still holding on to documents now?
And are you saying that no-one is entitled to a re-trial ( in general principle) if new evidence comes to light?
The trouble is no new compelling evidence has come to light to justify a re trial.
It is up to the defence to get evidence.
-
which book are your posts copied and pasted from?
And when its says who could have anticipated? well JM for one - apparently she knew for months before.
got any comments of your own - rather than plagiarism
Dear Jansus I had the same comment from a member of sitcoms online with my Margaret Thatcher thread,which I wrote in the ten minutes it took me to type. I really should be flattered but I sense a miasma of petty jealousy when you really should know better than to accuse me of plagiarism.
-
I prefer to read all the pro & anti Jeremy information online as well as the best reviewed book.
Then make my own mind up. It is clear to me Jeremy is guilty.
Jeremy's story falls apart in the first minute. Neville phoning Jeremy at 3am ? Come on.
If it is the wilkes book that has had extracts posted then I definitely will not be reading it - that kind of flowery setting of the scene and trying to read peoples thoughts when the writer was not actually there is not the kind of writing that would appeal to me I am afraid .
Nevilles call at 3 - well if JB did it and it did not exist ( which would be a fact) then yes what a slip up to use it as a cover up.JB could have not had any idea how the EP would react - they may have heroically entered the house to save the lives of the children and seen all the blood pouring from wounds which would prove it had just happened. Much simpler just to leave the house Fully locked from the inside to be discovered in the morning - with less of a chance of a determination of time of death - the trail will have gone cold . Especially as JB believed that the telecommunications company could record calls - it was a dangerous and silly ploy within a supposedly brilliant plan.Bit like the silencer and telling JM really . Brilliant evil man? Or silly fool?
-
Dear Jansus I had the same comment from a member of sitcoms online with my Margaret Thatcher thread,which I wrote in the ten minutes it took me to type. I really should be flattered but I sense a miasma of petty jealousy when you really should know better than to accuse me of plagiarism.
If they are all your own words - then I apologise - I am so used to the copying and pasting from Adam it gets confusing
And if they are you have a good imaginative style of writing - but in my humble opinion not suited to this kind of case. Perhaps use your obvious skills in writing fiction.OR both you and Adam could just add to your posts - from XXX book - or "in my own inevitable style " Then we would all be clear.
-
If it is the wilkes book that has had extracts posted then I definitely will not be reading it - that kind of flowery setting of the scene and trying to read peoples thoughts when the writer was not actually there is not the kind of writing that would appeal to me I am afraid .
Nevilles call at 3 - well if JB did it and it did not exist ( which would be a fact) then yes what a slip up to use it as a cover up.JB could have not had any idea how the EP would react - they may have heroically entered the house to save the lives of the children and seen all the blood pouring from wounds which would prove it had just happened. Much simpler just to leave the house Fully locked from the inside to be discovered in the morning - with less of a chance of a determination of time of death - the trail will have gone cold . Especially as JB believed that the telecommunications company could record calls - it was a dangerous and silly ploy within a supposedly brilliant plan.Bit like the silencer and telling JM really . Brilliant evil man? Or silly fool?
I have already created a thread about why Jeremy called the police.
The judge suggested Jeremy felt confident in telling Julie. She had acted as lookout for the caravan break in. Jeremy also wanted to boast to someone. Julie would suspect anyway after his plans to burn WHF down.
Anyway Jeremy gave himself a proxy and did not admit to doing it himself.
-
If it is the wilkes book that has had extracts posted then I definitely will not be reading it - that kind of flowery setting of the scene and trying to read peoples thoughts when the writer was not actually there is not the kind of writing that would appeal to me I am afraid .
Nevilles call at 3 - well if JB did it and it did not exist ( which would be a fact) then yes what a slip up to use it as a cover up.JB could have not had any idea how the EP would react - they may have heroically entered the house to save the lives of the children and seen all the blood pouring from wounds which would prove it had just happened. Much simpler just to leave the house Fully locked from the inside to be discovered in the morning - with less of a chance of a determination of time of death - the trail will have gone cold . Especially as JB believed that the telecommunications company could record calls - it was a dangerous and silly ploy within a supposedly brilliant plan.Bit like the silencer and telling JM really . Brilliant evil man? Or silly fool?
If the police foolishly stormed WHF straight away and saw fresh blood. So what ? They arrived 22 minutes after Jeremys phone call.
-
Dear Jansus I had the same comment from a member of sitcoms online with my Margaret Thatcher thread,which I wrote in the ten minutes it took me to type. I really should be flattered but I sense a miasma of petty jealousy when you really should know better than to accuse me of plagiarism.
Dear Steve, I for one, certainly WON'T allow you to be placed on the same rung of the ladder as Adam.
-
If they are all your own words - then I apologise - I am so used to the copying and pasting from Adam it gets confusing
And if they are you have a good imaginative style of writing - but in my humble opinion not suited to this kind of case. Perhaps use your obvious skills in writing fiction.OR both you and Adam could just add to your posts - from XXX book - or "in my own inevitable style " Then we would all be clear.
No other member here has ever accused me of plagiarism. The Wilkes book was written with the cooperation of Jeremy and I suggest that you do not lightly dismiss it,however guarded Jeremy's comments to the author were throughout.
-
It is how I feel.
Sheila was not shooting when Neville made his call. Neville would not have had the 5 - 10 minutes to make two calls.
So if no shots were being fired Neville & June would have calmed her down. Or wrestled the gun away. Certainly not phoned Jeremy at 3.26.
Neville certainly would not have left Sheila alone in another room with a gun, while he went downstairs to phone Jeremy.
-
What do people think of this ?
Seems like common sense to me.
-
Hello april
steve has a wonderful way with words although my views are so different than his I have to compliment him on the way he words his posts they deserve to be read.
-
No other member here has ever accused me of plagiarism. The Wilkes book was written with the cooperation of Jeremy and I suggest that you do not lightly dismiss it,however guarded Jeremy's comments to the author were throughout.
He interviewed everyone except Julie.
She is a mother and respected teacher living abroad. She did her duty, telling the truth in court & has resisted twisting the knife into Jeremy over the ladt 29 years. Something she can easily do to cause him a lot of damage.
-
As I've already said. A petty burglary doesn't equate to committing 5 murders.
Jeremy got it in first before the mis-trusting girlfriend did. He wasn't obliged to admit to doing it,,the same as he wasn't obliged to have done anything other than turn over after his father rang him on the night of the murders. In fact,,in view of what happened to him,,he may as well have stayed in bed,because nobody would have been any the wiser considering that there was no forensic evidence to link him with any murders. I wonder what the police would have done then ?? Apart from scratch their heads and behinds.
-
No other member here has ever accused me of plagiarism. The Wilkes book was written with the cooperation of Jeremy and I suggest that you do not lightly dismiss it,however guarded Jeremy's comments to the author were throughout.
In fairness to Jeremy, he must have been satisfied with the result, but he can't be held responsible for how others interpret the words.
-
If the police foolishly stormed WHF straight away and saw fresh blood. So what ? They arrived 22 minutes after Jeremys phone call.
that depends which timings you accept as even the police were questioned about the discrepancies in court - and they did not go in the house for HOURS. But if JB did it - he could not plan what they might do. Could he?
-
As I've already said. A petty burglary doesn't equate to committing 5 murders.
Jeremy got it in first before the mis-trusting girlfriend did. He wasn't obliged to admit to doing it,,the same as he wasn't obliged to have done anything other than turn over after his father rang him on the night of the murders. In fact,,in view of what happened to him,,he may as well have stayed in bed,because nobody would have been any the wiser considering that there was no forensic evidence to link him with any murders. I wonder what the police would have done then ?? Apart from scratch their heads and behinds.
Got what in first ? Julie told the police about the caravan break in. The police did not even ask her about it. She wanted to tell them everything.
It was a crime against his family. Staged & for money. Sounds familiar ?
-
that depends which timings you accept as even the police were questioned about the discrepancies in court - and they did not go in the house for HOURS. But if JB did it - he could not plan what they might do. Could he?
It is quite easy to investigate what the police would do in a siege situation. A 'nutter' with a gun. Common sense to me.
-
What do people think of this ?
Seems like common sense to me.
The telephone call was the weakness of his plan,but Jeremy thought he had been smart by using the latest technology of the day,an answerphone, to feign Nevill's call. We may never know for sure,as is similarly the case with a Sheila suicide or whether Jeremy's hand guided the gun that killed her. Jeremy seemed to think it was the perfect crime which is one explanation for the lack of a confession,the three telephone calls to Julie are suspicious in their number,as is the comment "I should have been an actor" which could well have been made to her when they were alone together for a moment that first morning at Goldhanger.
-
No other member here has ever accused me of plagiarism. The Wilkes book was written with the cooperation of Jeremy and I suggest that you do not lightly dismiss it,however guarded Jeremy's comments to the author were throughout.
I apologised .
I said in my opinion it does not appear to be the style of book - that I personally would be reading - however I probably will read books to be published this year as they will have more up to date information. Everyone to their own.
-
The telephone call was the weakness of his plan,but Jeremy thought he had been smart by using the latest technology of the day,an answerphone, to feign Nevill's call. We may never know for sure,as is similarly the case with a Sheila suicide or whether Jeremy's hand guided the gun that killed her. Jeremy seemed to think it was the perfect crime which is one explanation for the lack of a confession,the three telephone calls to Julie are suspicious in their number,as is the comment "I should have been an actor" made to her when they were alone together for a moment that first morning at Goldhanger.
Steve, I HAVE to ask. WHO heard those words? Where they said expansively in a room full of people OR were they SAID to have been said and "spoken" to only one other?
-
In fairness to Jeremy, he must have been satisfied with the result, but he can't be held responsible for how others interpret the words.
or which sections they chose to extract I would imagine.
-
I Steve, according to Wilkes Jeremy had a difficult time when he first went to Greshams
and some called him The Bastard for a while but it seems he settled down well and was perfectly happy there for the rest of his school days we are told.
Isn't it possible that an early childhood memory is never truly forgotten and measures taken even if only subliminally to guard against any future recurrence..
-
The telephone call was the weakness of his plan,but Jeremy thought he had been smart by using the latest technology of the day,an answerphone, to feign Nevill's call. We may never know for sure,as is similarly the case with a Sheila suicide or whether Jeremy's hand guided the gun that killed her. Jeremy seemed to think it was the perfect crime which is one explanation for the lack of a confession,the three telephone calls to Julie are suspicious in their number,as is the comment "I should have been an actor" which could well have been made to her when they were alone together for a moment that first morning at Goldhanger.
The funeral footage has Jeremy looking down, his hand covering his face. His crying seems to be more of a groan & there were no tears. It is an OTT performance after failing to attend a memorial service & realising the cameras were there.
-
If the police foolishly stormed WHF straight away and saw fresh blood. So what ? They arrived 22 minutes after Jeremys phone call.
Just think. If they had stormed the house right away Sheila might still have been alive?
-
He interviewed everyone except Julie.
She is a mother and respected teacher living abroad. She did her duty, telling the truth in court & has resisted twisting the knife into Jeremy over the ladt 29 years. Something she can easily do to cause him a lot of damage.
So could he to her. But hasn't.
-
So could he to her. But hasn't.
He does on the OS.
-
It is quite easy to investigate what the police would do in a siege situation. A 'nutter' with a gun. Common sense to me.
But Adam - in your scenario the house would have been absolutely still and quiet no movement at windows,no lights being switched on or off no persons waving a gun at them , no sounds of any shots absolutely nothing except for the dog barking . Why did they wait so long and then call more armed back up etc etc . This is in the days before H&S risk assessment etc ( or if they did one the document has not been exhibited)
with those children at risk it is not common sense to me that they waited so long before entering the house
-
He does on the OS.
Adam could you provide a link please? I didn't know that?
-
Isn't it possible that an early childhood memory is never truly forgotten and measures taken even if only subliminally to guard against any future recurrence..
Don't believe Jeremy suffered that badly Steve, many children have suffered appalling, horrifying abuse and have never murdered anyone. Don't believe being called The Bastard for a while before findinv your place at boarding school is likely to make you a murderer. Also Ralph and June offered love and security, it was his natural parents who rejected him.
-
You have quoted from the OS yourself. So find it.
-
You have quoted from the OS yourself. So find it.
OK
-
As I've already said. A petty burglary doesn't equate to committing 5 murders.
Jeremy got it in first before the mis-trusting girlfriend did. He wasn't obliged to admit to doing it,,the same as he wasn't obliged to have done anything other than turn over after his father rang him on the night of the murders. In fact,,in view of what happened to him,,he may as well have stayed in bed,because nobody would have been any the wiser considering that there was no forensic evidence to link him with any murders. I wonder what the police would have done then ?? Apart from scratch their heads and behinds.
The telephone call from Nevill is crucial here surely,because if it did occur then Jeremy should be a free man. I can only surmise that Jeremy was anxious that law enforcement didn't discover his sister alive with two shots in contrast to the overkill of the other four victims as he determined on a course of delaying entry with his public school accent hoodwinking those present into his point of view.
-
But Adam - in your scenario the house would have been absolutely still and quiet no movement at windows,no lights being switched on or off no persons waving a gun at them , no sounds of any shots absolutely nothing except for the dog barking . Why did they wait so long and then call more armed back up etc etc . This is in the days before H&S risk assessment etc ( or if they did one the document has not been exhibited)
with those children at risk it is not common sense to me that they waited so long before entering the house
It was still & quiet. With only a dog barking. Or as Mike suggested, was that Sheila ?
If there was a nutter with a gun, I would call for specialist armed back up. This was the EP in a quiet village where there was little crime. Not Bodie & Doyle.
-
Don't believe Jeremy suffered that badly Steve, many children have suffered appalling, horrifying abuse and have never murdered anyone. Don't believe being called The Bastard for a while before findinv your place at boarding school is likely to make you a murderer. Also Ralph and June offered love and security, it was his natural parents who rejected him.
I don't think Jeremy ever truly bonded with his parents. If only there were something I could put my finger on I might question the title of this thread,but all I see is a boy starved of love,compensating this for sexual promiscuity after Gresham's and tragically not settling down to family life with Suzette Ford due to her miscarriages,June's disapprobation or a combination of both.
-
The funeral footage has Jeremy looking down, his hand covering his face. His crying seems to be more of a groan & there were no tears. It is an OTT performance after failing to attend a memorial service & realising the cameras were there.
It was no OTT performance at all. It looked a painful " cover-up " of his actual feelings which were in full view,right in his face ! He probably felt like falling in a heap and yelling out,,but wouldn't he have got some stick for that too ??? He couldn't do right for doing wrong and his every movement was scrutinised by everyone. He had to stand tall and keep himself together for the sake of the haridan on his arm,,yet if you care to look at everyone else at the funeral,,it's only Jeremy that appears to be wracked in pain !!!
-
But Adam - in your scenario the house would have been absolutely still and quiet no movement at windows,no lights being switched on or off no persons waving a gun at them , no sounds of any shots absolutely nothing except for the dog barking . Why did they wait so long and then call more armed back up etc etc . This is in the days before H&S risk assessment etc ( or if they did one the document has not been exhibited)
with those children at risk it is not common sense to me that they waited so long before entering the house
The point was Jeremy thought he was covered if he was back at Goldhanger and in his own scenario he could hardly ignore the emergency call from his father. Once he had telephoned the Police by proxy as it were he could hardly turn over and go back to bed.
-
You have quoted from the OS yourself. So find it.
Can't see anything there about this. I think you are stretching the truth a bit. I have never rerad anywhere that Jeremy has said anything against Julie Mugford.
-
It was no OTT performance at all. It looked a painful " cover-up " of his actual feelings which were in full view,right in his face ! He probably felt like falling in a heap and yelling out,,but wouldn't he have got some stick for that too ??? He couldn't do right for doing wrong and his every movement was scrutinised by everyone. He had to stand tall and keep himself together for the sake of the haridan on his arm,,yet if you care to look at everyone else at the funeral,,it's only Jeremy that appears to be wracked in pain !!!
Why do you think Jeremy failed to attend the memorial service ?
Colin Caffell would have been just as upset. His reaction is much more natural.
Julie looks very uncomfortable. Knowing what she knows. She did not want to attend, but Jeremy persuaded her.
-
I don't think Jeremy ever truly bonded with his parents. If only there were something I could put my finger on I might question the title of this thread,but all I see is a boy starved of love,compensating this for sexual promiscuity after Gresham's and tragically not settling down to family life with Suzette Ford due to her miscarriages,June's disapprobation or a combination of both.
I would hazard a guess Jeremy bonding with his parents is an issue to you and others because he's adopted, it's true some adoptions don't work well but many, many do. Some natural children and parents don't bond too well either. I wonder, did Julie Mugford bond with her Mother ..... oh sorry .... not an issue because it was a biological relationship!!! Must have been perfect then!!!
-
Can't see anything there about this. I think you are stretching the truth a bit. I have never rerad anywhere that Jeremy has said anything against Julie Mugford.
Errr. Use you're eyes.
Under Julie Mugford and NOTW deal.
-
Grahame I would be interested to read that wonder where it is on the forum I have never read one bad word that Jeremy has said about Julie he wrote to her from prison asking her why she had done this to him and the letter was returned to him.
-
Why do you think Jeremy failed to attend the memorial service ?
Colin Caffell would have been just as upset. His reaction is much more natural.
Julie looks very uncomfortable. Knowing what she knows. She did not want to attend, but Jeremy persuaded her.
Colin lost his boys the hardest thing in the world, however that wasn't their funeral, it was Juneand Nevill's. He wasn't that close to June and Nevill. Jeremy lost his complete family, this waz the funeral of his Mum and Dad,; he was 24 and all his life as he knew it and his security, his home etc. Had been wiped out in such a violent way. Different experiences and different reactions or do you believe we are all clones.
-
Why do you think Jeremy failed to attend the memorial service ?
Colin Caffell would have been just as upset. His reaction is much more natural.
Julie looks very uncomfortable. Knowing what she knows. She did not want to attend, but Jeremy persuaded her.
"Julie looks uncomfortable ?" Rubbish ! She was one hard woman who certainly had no qualms whatsoever in visiting the mortuary where two little boys lay. I was a nurse,,but it would have taken me all my time to hold myself together.
JM would have been studying Jeremy for future reference,while the cogs in her head were turning.
-
Grahame I would be interested to read that wonder where it is on the forum I have never read one bad word that Jeremy has said about Julie he wrote to her from prison asking her why she had done this to him and the letter was returned to him.
Well why don't you read it then ? There is no memtion of Jeremys NOTW deal. Funny that.
-
Why do you think Jeremy failed to attend the memorial service ?
Colin Caffell would have been just as upset. His reaction is much more natural.
Julie looks very uncomfortable. Knowing what she knows. She did not want to attend, but Jeremy persuaded her.
To me Julie looks concerned about Jeremy. Not the expression I would expect on the face of someone watching the murderer of the dead cry crocodile tears imo.
-
"Julie looks uncomfortable ?" Rubbish ! She was one hard woman who certainly had no qualms whatsoever in visiting the mortuary where two little boys lay. I was a nurse,,but it would have taken me all my time to hold myself together.
JM would have been studying Jeremy for future reference,while the cogs in her head were turning.
In my opinion she looks uncomfortable.
The only cogs turning were in Jeremys mind. They involved money. He could not keep robbing the caravan site & was not clever enough to walk away & earn his millions. But did not want another 10 - 30 years of farm labouring. Only to then have to share the wills.
-
Errr. Use you're eyes.
Under Julie Mugford and NOTW deal.
Yes I read that. Jeremy has said nothing against her. It was his defence team that questioned her deal with the NOTW deal, justifiably I might add. But Jeremy himself has not said a word of hate against her.
In the other hand this "girlfriend" well and truly screwed him over at the beginning and when she was brought over for his appeal she said something like, "He is where I put him and there he is going to stay".
Now if I were to judge their characters between them I know who I would choose. She still holds a hatred for Jeremy after all these years as a mistress scorned. But Jeremy has held his peace towards her.
-
I would hazard a guess Jeremy bonding with his parents is an issue to you and others because he's adopted, it's true some adoptions don't work well but many, many do. Some natural children and parents don't bond too well either. I wonder, did Julie Mugford bond with her Mother ..... oh sorry .... not an issue because it was a biological relationship!!! Must have been perfect then!!!
There was no bonding,and it's ironic that Jeremy tells a story of sitting round the kitchen table that last evening with Jeremy looking on,when I suggest to you problems had never been discussed this way in the past. The adoption issue may have made it harder for them to overcome the intimate strangers phenomenon,but there's nothing to suggest to me that Jeremy ever missed his family emotionally after they were gone,whether you believe him guilty or not.
-
Yes I read that. Jeremy has said nothing against her. It was his defence team that questioned her deal with the NOTW deal, justifiably I might add. But Jeremy himself has not said a word of hate against her.
In the other hand this "girlfriend" well and truly screwed him over at the beginning and when she was brought over for his appeal she said something like, "He is where I put him and there he is going to stay".
Now if I were to judge their characters between them I know who I would choose. She still holds a hatred for Jeremy after all these years as a mistress scorned. But Jeremy has held his peace towards her.
Who did she say that to ? The courts ? Oh I forgot she was not called to give evidence at the appeal.
She was not jilted. Already discussed. If she was she would not dare perjure herself in such a serious trial for such a trivial reason. She was a 20 year old collage student & would not have had the courage anyway.
-
There was no bonding,and it's ironic that Jeremy tells a story of sitting round the kitchen table that last evening with Jeremy looking on,when I suggest to you problems had never been discussed this way in the past. The adoption issue may have made it harder for them to overcome the intimate strangers phenomenon,but there's nothing to suggest to me that Jeremy ever missed his family emotionally after they were gone,whether you believe him guilty or not.
May I also suggest to you Steve that problems were always discussed this way, as they were a family unit?
-
Grahame Julie maybe older but still the same Julie inwardly.
-
No other member here has ever accused me of plagiarism. The Wilkes book was written with the cooperation of Jeremy and I suggest that you do not lightly dismiss it,however guarded Jeremy's comments to the author were throughout.
Actually Steve I will take your comments on board . If one poster in particular choses only to use sections of any book just to suit his opinion, and if that author does actually give a balanced view on the other side and on this forum we are not seeing that opposing view - you are correct I should not just dismiss the book. It reminds me of the whole controversy with Glen Hoddle and his comments that appeared in the newspaper that caused his downfall. They chose not to publish all of what he said nor did they investigate how he acted within his own life . They just chose to publish one thing - out of context to suit their agenda. And I am sure that happens a lot.
-
Adam she had the courage to commit bank fraud and bringing drugs into this country and selling them .
-
Who did she say that to ? The courts ? Oh I forgot she was not called to give evidence at the appeal.
She was not jilted. Already discussed. If she was she would not dare perjure herself in such a serious trial for such a trivial reason. She was a 20 collage student & would not have had the courage anyway.
She said it to a newspaper and I read it personally. She was not called to the court of appeal because the judge ruled that she should not be called. Much to the dismay of the defence counsel. So they were not able to cross examine her as they wished. Justice or injustice?
-
Jansus,,as we all know,,it's smut and badness that sells newspapers. The more dirt,,the better.
-
Adam she had the courage to commit bank fraud and bringing drugs into this country and selling them .
Jeremy went to Amsterdam to bring Cannabis into the country after the murders.
Oh yes, the 1984 bank fraud. Committed with a friend. Money she paid back a long time before the trial.
Does anyone know exactly when she paid it back ?
-
There was no bonding,and it's ironic that Jeremy tells a story of sitting round the kitchen table that last evening with Jeremy looking on,when I suggest to you problems had never been discussed this way in the past. The adoption issue may have made it harder for them to overcome the intimate strangers phenomenon,but there's nothing to suggest to me that Jeremy ever missed his family emotionally after they were gone,whether you believe him guilty or not.
How do you know? You use adoption as an excuse to claim there was no bonding, you are showing your lack of understanding and prejudice about adoption as many people do.
-
She said it to a newspaper and I read it personally. She was not called to the court of appeal because the judge ruled that she should not be called. Much to the dismay of the defence counsel. So they were not able to cross examine her as they wished. Justice or injustice?
A newspaper that you read. Mmmm. Strange thing for her to alledgedly say.
Oh yes, those pesky courts again.
-
Who did she say that to ? The courts ? Oh I forgot she was not called to give evidence at the appeal.
She was not jilted. Already discussed. If she was she would not dare perjure herself in such a serious trial for such a trivial reason. She was a 20 year old collage student & would not have had the courage anyway.
Adam you have also chosen to ignore the evidence that she did not tell the whole truth about her visit to the bank reference the fraud . You have seen that evidence and have chosen to ignore it.
-
Who did she say that to ? The courts ? Oh I forgot she was not called to give evidence at the appeal.
She was not jilted. Already discussed. If she was she would not dare perjure herself in such a serious trial for such a trivial reason. She was a 20 year old collage student & would not have had the courage anyway.
In actual fact she was given a deal by the police. If she would testify against Bamber then a whole string of offenses will be forgotten. Strange how documents went missing just before they were going to be investigated. Those cops stink of corruption. First the documents concerning her deal with that corrupt newspaper the NOTW were lost and then the judge by some legal twisting of the law rules that she should not be cross examined. Justice or injustice. Judge for yourself.
-
A newspaper that you read. Mmmm. Strange thing for her to alledgedly say.
Oh yes, those pesky courts again.
I swear on my own grave that she did say it. So now show me what Jeremy was supposed to have said against her.
-
I swear on my own grave that she did say it. So now show me what Jeremy was supposed to have said against her.
She even went to the police to claim expenses. That is a fair indication of how she LOVED MONEY.
-
Adam you have also chosen to ignore the evidence that she did not tell the whole truth about her visit to the bank reference the fraud . You have seen that evidence and have chosen to ignore it.
This matter was dealt with in the 2002 appeal and dismissed and whilst admittedly it was an odd affair it's surprising that this is the only thing the Jeremy supporters can rake up against Julie when there's a 21 page statement of hers out there.
-
Jeremy went to Amsterdam to bring Cannabis into the country after the murders.
Oh yes, the 1984 bank fraud. Committed with a friend. Money she paid back a long time before the trial.
Does anyone know exactly when she paid it back ?
you know that - I have referred you to the WS from the bank about how she went in with a police officer ( oops she told the court that did not happen) there is a whole thread on it and you have been linked to it before, you just chose to ignore it.
-
I swear on my own grave that she did say it. So now show me what Jeremy was supposed to have said against her.
I showed you the OS. He also wrote a 2012 article blaming the relatives for trying to frame him. Already posted.
-
This matter was dealt with in the 2002 appeal and dismissed and whilst admittedly it was an odd affair it's surprising that this is the only thing the Jeremy supporters can rake up against Julie when there's a 21 page statement of hers out there.
its not the only thing - its one thing. If Adam is going to protest that she always told the truth in everything she said then I personally don't see a problem with mentioning it. To me the most chilling bit is about her WS about the night it happened and when she went to bed . Scary .
-
In actual fact she was given a deal by the police. If she would testify against Bamber then a whole string of offenses will be forgotten. Strange how documents went missing just before they were going to be investigated. Those cops stink of corruption. First the documents concerning her deal with that corrupt newspaper the NOTW were lost and then the judge by some legal twisting of the law rules that she should not be cross examined. Justice or injustice. Judge for yourself.
What string of offences ?
There was the 1984 minor bank fraud with someone else.
When had she paid the money back ?
-
its not the only thing - its one thing. If Adam is going to protest that she always told the truth in everything she said then I personally don't see a problem with mentioning it. To me the most chilling bit is about her WS about the night it happened and when she went to bed . Scary .
It was 3am. She was half asleep & never believed Jeremys rants. She said herself that she later started to realise what Jeremy may have done.
-
What string of offences ?
There was the 1984 minor bank fraud with someone else.
When had she paid the money back ?
4/10/1985 - what is the relevance of the date in your mind then ?
-
4/10/1985 - what is the relevance of the date in your mind then ?
Thanks. I like to find out new things on the case.
-
Jeremy went to Amsterdam to bring Cannabis into the country after the murders.
Oh yes, the 1984 bank fraud. Committed with a friend. Money she paid back a long time before the trial.
Does anyone know exactly when she paid it back ?
Your comment about Amsterdamn and cannabis shows your total lack of understanding of 20 somethings. Jeremy had a dreadful trauma to deal with, he smoked cannabis and no doubt a haze of it dulled his pain. He wanted to get away from the area, the press etc. Someone suggested Amsterdamn, cheap if they share one room. Dope on tap in the cafes and on the street..... made sense. Young cannabis smokers (maybe older ones too) smuggled cannabis back into this country. Its what happenned back then, rightly or wrongly. These kids were criminals in the eres of the law but it was accepted to a point. Dyou know anything about life Adam or can you just not think in a joined up way?
-
jansus Jeremy had been telling Julie for about a year that he intended to murder his family and when he had said tonights the night then phoned her later hardly call that a rant it would be loud alarm bells ringing methinks.
-
Your comment about Amsterdamn and cannabis shows your total lack of understanding of 20 somethings. Jeremy had a dreadful trauma to deal with, he smoked cannabis and no doubt a haze of it dulled his pain. He wanted to get away from the area, the press etc. Someone suggested Amsterdamn, cheap if they share one room. Dope on tap in the cafes and on the street..... made sense. Young cannabis smokers (maybe older ones too) smuggled cannabis back into this country. Its what happenned back then, rightly or wrongly. These kids were criminals in the eres of the law but it was accepted to a point. Dyou know anything about life Adam or can you just not think in a joined up way?
Thank you Maggie. I actually laughed out loud when I read that.
My family has been massacred. I should go on holiday & buy some cannabis to bring home.
-
Thank you Maggie. I actually laughed out loud when I read that.
My family has been massacred. I should go on holiday & buy some cannabis to bring home.
Glad it amused you, how thick are you?
-
Adam,,why did you laugh at Maggies' post ?
-
Thanks. I like to find out new things on the case.
Its not new - what are your comments n the date then and the fact that the police took her in to the bank?
-
I showed you the OS. He also wrote a 2012 article blaming the relatives for trying to frame him. Already posted.
But he never said anything against Julie Mugford.
-
What string of offences ?
There was the 1984 minor bank fraud with someone else.
When had she paid the money back ?
You don't read things thoroughly do you. Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity.
Also a person paying any monies back does not acquit a person of any crime. Sometimes a person is instructed to pay back monies taken, plus compensation. But are still charged for the crime.
-
Isn't it possible that an early childhood memory is never truly forgotten and measures taken even if only subliminally to guard against any future recurrence..
Not only is it POSSIBLE, Steve, it actually is TRUE for each and every one of us. Only the memories are different.
-
The funeral footage has Jeremy looking down, his hand covering his face. His crying seems to be more of a groan & there were no tears. It is an OTT performance after failing to attend a memorial service & realising the cameras were there.
I think you'll find that none of the wider family is shown as shedding tears, either.
-
I don't think Jeremy ever truly bonded with his parents. If only there were something I could put my finger on I might question the title of this thread,but all I see is a boy starved of love,compensating this for sexual promiscuity after Gresham's and tragically not settling down to family life with Suzette Ford due to her miscarriages,June's disapprobation or a combination of both.
Can exactly the same not be applied to Sheila?
-
Hello steve poor Jeremy must have felt starved of love by Julie as well :'(
-
Hello steve poor Jeremy must have felt starved of love by Julie as well :'(
So that's why he asked another woman out while Julie was there
-
You don't read things thoroughly do you. Also a person paying any monies back does not acquit a person of any crime. Sometimes a person is instructed to pay back monies taken, plus compensation. But are still charged for the crime.
You keep quoting the official site where Jeremy never slates Julie.
The caravan break in she told the police about. So basically said charge me if you want. Drug smuggling. She sold a bit of cannabis in college. Alledgedly. Let's charge her in 1991.
-
So that's why he asked another woman out while Julie was there
Yep, I agree, not very nice!! But I think in no uncertain terms, the message is 'you're dumped'
-
You keep quoting the official site where Jeremy never slates Julie.
The caravan break in she told the police about. So basically said charge me if you want. Drug smuggling. She sold a bit of cannabis in college. Alledgedly. Let's charge her in 1991.
You must be completely naive!! As a prosecution witness the police will have asked her to come clean on ANYTHING that the defence could use to discredit her as a witness and question her honesty. They would also have made it clear that if she did come clean, they would do everything in their power to make sure the she didn't face prosecution. Hence why she admitted to the caravan robbery and the cheque book fraud!!
-
You must be completely naive!! As a prosecution witness the police will have asked her to come clean on ANYTHING that the defence could use to discredit her as a witness and question her honesty. They would also have made it clear that if she did come clean, they would do everything in their power to make sure the she didn't face prosecution. Hence why she admitted to the caravan robbery and the cheque book fraud!!
Can you discuss the case rather than call me naive please.
Julie said to the police. Let me start from the beginning. And told them about the caravan robbery, which they had no idea about.
What was said before between the police & Julie is just gossip.
-
Yep, I agree, not very nice!! But I think in no uncertain terms, the message is 'you're dumped'
Dumped or glad to get away ?
Either way do you really think she would dare purjure herself in such a serious crime for such trivial reasons. She was a young student for goodness sake.
-
Dumped or glad to get away ?
Either way do you really think she would dare purjure herself in such a serious crime for such trivial reasons. She was a young student for goodness sake.
Glad to get away? I don´t think so! She tried to smother Jeremy, she was livid!
Julie was a young student with a criminal career, yes.
-
Can you discuss the case rather than call me naive please.
Julie said to the police. Let me start from the beginning. And told them about the caravan robbery, which they had no idea about.
What was said before between the police & Julie is just gossip.
If you don't wish to be called naive, or ANY other applicable adjective, I suggest you stop acting as such, as in your statement which makes it appear as if Julie walked into the police station and told them how she was going to play it..
-
Glad to get away? I don´t think so! She tried to smother Jeremy, she was livid!
Julie was a young student with a criminal career, yes.
She did not try to smother him. She said herself she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off.
Criminal record. Oh yes I forgot.
-
She did not try to smother him. She said herself she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off.
Criminal record. Oh yes I forgot.
And what, pray IS the descriptive word for the placing of something over someones head with the intent, even if it wasn't carried out, of suffocating them?
-
And what, pray IS the descriptive word for the placing of something over someones head with the intent, even if it wasn't carried out, of suffocating them?
Even then,,Jeremy didn't use any brute force by giving her a wallop,,as when JM went to clout him,,all he did was restrain her by bending her arm behind her back to avoid it.
The man could easily have " lost it " and whacked her one,,which shows that Jeremy had great control over a situation like that and obviously had NO intention of using violence !
-
You keep quoting the official site where Jeremy never slates Julie.
The caravan break in she told the police about. So basically said charge me if you want. Drug smuggling. She sold a bit of cannabis in college. Alledgedly. Let's charge her in 1991.
Well you told me to go there. But I still can't find anything on there where Jeremy does say hateful things against Julie Mugford. So please back up your accusations against him. Or is this another lie? As far as I can see it is just mud slinging from you?
-
From previous posts:
She is a mother and respected teacher living abroad. She did her duty, telling the truth in court & has resisted twisting the knife into Jeremy over the ladt 29 years. Something she can easily do to cause him a lot of damage.
So could he to her. But hasn't.
He does on the OS.
Then you say the complete opposite. You tell me he slates Julie on the official site. Tell me to look for it myself and then inform you that he said nothing against Julie Mugford on the official site and you come up with this:
You keep quoting the official site where Jeremy never slates Julie.
Explain your contradiction.
-
She did not try to smother him. She said herself she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off.
Criminal record. Oh yes I forgot.
nice one adam ;D ;D ;D - I bet if JB had done the same it would have been attempted murder at least
-
She did not try to smother him. She said herself she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off.
Criminal record. Oh yes I forgot.
She tried to smother him in fit of jealous rage, you aren´t getting anywhere by saying she put a pillow over his head, then removed it. I call BS on that one. Have you ever put a pillow over someone´s head - I haven´t, but if I did, I would know I was smothering that person. What an utterly crazy thing to do!
She also stabbed a teddy bear Jeremy´s friend, Brett had given her as a gift. She also rammed something of Jeremy´s into a mirror.
She sounds like a hysterical, childish person - or maybe even worse: she has histtrionic personality disorder.
-
Adam why did she put a pillow over his head was it a new game they were playing ;D
-
Alias don't forget she threw a bar of soap at his head which she removed from the trolley in the supermarket ;D ;D ;D quite a hot tempered little madam was our Julie never put a pillow over anyone's head but the thought is becoming quite appealing.
-
Actually when you look at the bigger picture she was definitely more emotional about his "womanising" than the murders or identifying the bodies . Quite odd really.
-
She tried to smother him in fit of jealous rage, you aren´t getting anywhere by saying she put a pillow over his head, then removed it. I call BS on that one. Have you ever put a pillow over someone´s head - I haven´t, but if I did, I would know I was smothering that person. What an utterly crazy thing to do!
She also stabbed a teddy bear Jeremy´s friend, Brett had given her as a gift. She also rammed something of Jeremy´s into a mirror.
She sounds like a hysterical, childish person - or maybe even worse: she has histtrionic personality disorder.
She said she put a pillow over his head. Then removed it.
She didn't have to say this. But did.
-
Actually when you look at the bigger picture she was definitely more emotional about his "womanising" than the murders or identifying the bodies . Quite odd really.
I would have said vicious,Jansus. Good job he didn't marry her,he'd have had a dogs life.
-
Actually when you look at the bigger picture she was definitely more emotional about his "womanising" than the murders or identifying the bodies . Quite odd really.
Not when we consider that the murders didn't touch HER personally, but Jeremy's "womanizing" threatened HER future.
-
Well you told me to go there. But I still can't find anything on there where Jeremy does say hateful things against Julie Mugford. So please back up your accusations against him. Or is this another lie? As far as I can see it is just mud slinging from you?
He writes a lot about Julie. Several pages worth. None of it complimentary.
Can you not accuse me of lying. Everything you have asked me to provide something, I have. Such as today.
I asked you to provide proof today. You said you read it in the paper.
-
Alias don't forget she threw a bar of soap at his head which she removed from the trolley in the supermarket ;D ;D ;D quite a hot tempered little madam was our Julie never put a pillow over anyone's head but the thought is becoming quite appealing.
Where did you read about the soap. It is not online or in Wilkes's book.
-
Jeremy was looking for the more mature woman who wouldn't throw a wobbly at the drop of a hat.
-
Actually when you look at the bigger picture she was definitely more emotional about his "womanising" than the murders or identifying the bodies . Quite odd really.
Yes, very odd.
LOL susie about the smothering...
-
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them. ‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he apparently jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial. Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
From the Spectator. It is amazing that people think Julie has lied so seriously for the last 29 years.
-
He writes a lot about Julie. Several pages worth. None of it complimentary.
Can you not accuse me of lying. Everything you have asked me to provide, I have. Such as today.
I asked you to provide proof today. You said you read it in the paper.
Prove it! You have provided NOTHING. Prove to me that you are not lying.
-
She did not try to smother him. She said herself she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off.
Criminal record. Oh yes I forgot.
It appears you have the memory of a goldfish?
-
Eh ?
You asked for proof that Jeremy has spoken about Julie since conviction. I gave you a long chapter on his site.
You just tell me you read something in a newspaper 12 years ago.
-
Can you discuss the case rather than call me naive please.
Julie said to the police. Let me start from the beginning. And told them about the caravan robbery, which they had no idea about.
What was said before between the police & Julie is just gossip.
Oh it's all gossip if it pertains to Julie Mugford. But it's all gospel truth when it applies to Jeremy.
-
Graheme. You are a liar. Julie has not said anything abou Jeremy since the NOTW article.
Prove she has.
-
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them. ‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he apparently jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial. Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
From the Spectator. It is amazing that people think Julie has lied so seriously for the last 29 years.
-
She did not try to smother him. She said herself she put a pillow over his head. Then took it off.
Criminal record. Oh yes I forgot.
Muttering the words, "If I cannot have you nobody will". Oh I see she didn't try to smother him. But she put a pillow over his head. ;D ;D ;D
-
Graheme & the other 20 odd fierce Jeremy supporters on here. Julie did not perjure herself.
Accept it.
-
"If you were dead, you would always be with me."
Julie´s answer to Jeremy when he asked why she had put a pillow over his head.
I don´t know about you people, but I have never been even close to such actions and contemplation. She strikes me as having issues, serious issues!
-
Graheme you said lots of people testified in support of Jeremy at court. Who ?
You said Jeremy played with the twins a lot. Source please.
Otherwise I will have to call you a liar. As you do to me. Even though I always support my statements.
-
Muttering the words, "If I cannot have you nobody will". Oh I see she didn't try to smother him. But she put a pillow over his head. ;D ;D ;D
Think she may have pulled the wool over his eyes as well, Grahame.
-
Eh ?
You asked for proof that Jeremy has spoken about Julie since conviction. I gave you a long chapter on his site.
You just tell me you read something in a newspaper 12 years ago.
Where? I keep seeing you referring me to other places. But when I get there I find nothing. No proof. No nothing. WHERE HAS JEREMY SAID BAD THINGS ABOUT jULIE MUGFORD?
-
Bored now & I have a date.
But I will be back.
-
Graheme & the other 20 odd fierce Jeremy supporters on here. Julie did not perjure herself.
Accept it.
You prove it.
-
Graheme. You are a liar. Julie has not said anything abou Jeremy since the NOTW article.
Prove she has.
I NEVER SAID THAT AT ALL. I SAID THAT JEREMY NEVER SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT HER. oPEN YOUR FEEBLE BRAIN YOU TWERP.
-
Graheme & the other 20 odd fierce Jeremy supporters on here. Julie did not perjure herself.
Accept it.
And you're a fool. Accept it. Bone head. You haven't the mental capacity to hold a logical debate.
-
Bored now & I have a date.
But I will be back.
OK, that is a coward´s way out.
Conclusion: you cannot prove that Jeremy is badmouthing Julie, because he isn´t.
-
"If you were dead, you would always be with me."
Julie´s answer to Jeremy when he asked why she had put a pillow over his head.
I don´t know about you people, but I have never been even close to such actions and contemplation. She strikes me as having issues, serious issues!
I can give you a list as long as Adam's two as to why she could fit the histrionic personality disorder type.
-
Bored now & I have a date.
But I will be back.
More like sour grapes and cowardice.
-
Graheme you said lots of people testified in support of Jeremy at court. Who ?
You said Jeremy played with the twins a lot. Source please.
Otherwise I will have to call you a liar. As you do to me. Even though I always support my statements.
Whats all this about. Changing the subjecxt are we? SHOW ME THE PROOF TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THAT JEREMY HAS SAID BAD THINGS TO JULIE MUGFORD. I said he didn't you said you have showed me a whole page where he did. Where is it? Have you been on the LSD again?
-
I can give you a list as long as Adam's two as to why she could fit the histrionic personality disorder type.
Go on April,;she deffo has a personality disorder, no doubt about that. ;D
-
Bored now & I have a date.
But I will be back.
I hope your date comes to her senses.
-
He just throws out these accusations against Jeremy without anything to back it up. It isn't for us to prove it. He made the accusation the logical thing is to prove his accusations. But no. Without that proof we and everybody else who reads his accusations this just amounts to mudslinging on his part.
-
Bored now & I have a date.
But I will be back.
This is so childish, and I doubt you have a date. If you had said: Got to go, I have a date, I would have believed you.
I am bored AND have a date, nah. You should have been more clever, there Adam!
-
He writes a lot about Julie. Several pages worth. None of it complimentary.
Can you not accuse me of lying. Everything you have asked me to provide something, I have. Such as today.
I asked you to provide proof today. You said you read it in the paper.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+PUT+BAMBER+IN+PRISON...+AND+THAT%27S+WHERE+HE+SHOULD+STAY%3B+Ex-love%27s...-a072593685
-
God help the " date ".That's all I can say.
-
God help the " date ".That's all I can say.
There is no date, he just can´t prove what Grahame asks him to, so he acts like a coward and slithers out with the excuse that he has a date.
-
Alias it is not me honest I never went for my dinner that is why I am still alive ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Go on April,;she deffo has a personality disorder, no doubt about that. ;D
OK, Maggie, just for you :D
Those with histrionic personality disorder have excellent social skills which are used to manipulate others in order to make themselves the centre of attention. Other traits they may exhibit are as follows:
They feel uncomfortable when they are not the centre of attention.
They like to dress provocatively. Their behaviour is often seductive and over sexualized.
They have emotional shifts.
They act dramatically, as if for an audience. Exaggerate emotions and gestures but appear to lack sincerity.
They are overly concerned with physical appearance.
There is a constant need for reassurance and approval.
Gullible and easily influenced by others. Excessively sensitive to criticism and disapproval.
Self centred with no concern for others.
Difficulties with relationships.
Can either threaten or attempt suicide to gain attention.
-
They fell in love but it was a long, long time before she could bring herself to tell him about her life," the friend said. "It was only after he asked her to marry him and move to his home town of Winnipeg that she began to open up.
"He knew she was running away from something but it took her a long time to tell him. Gradually Glen coaxed it out of her and, bit by bit, the whole sorry story came out.
The above is from the link.
If she was responsible eventually for putting a mass murderer behind bars - why would she be reluctant to tell people and be running away?
-
There is no date, he just can´t prove what Grahame asks him to, so he acts like a coward and slithers out with the excuse that he has a date.
Yes,,I thought it was something like that,Alias,,because he suddenly disappeared like the phony individual that he is. Point-scoring for who,I wonder ?
-
Can you discuss the case rather than call me naive please.
Julie said to the police. Let me start from the beginning. And told them about the caravan robbery, which they had no idea about.
What was said before between the police & Julie is just gossip.
Then stop being naive! And your last statement is just silly.
-
Alias it is not me honest I never went for my dinner that is why I am still alive ;D ;D ;D ;D
We´d better keep it that way! Also safer for Adam, since you have aired some thoughts about the appeal of smothering....
-
We´d better keep it that way! Also safer for Adam, since you have aired some thoughts about the appeal of smothering....
Yes, especially as he's probably peeking in at us from the sidelines. The date was most likely to have been in his fantasies.
-
Alias what would april do without Adam ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, especially as he's probably peeking in at us from the sidelines. The date was most likely to have been in his fantasies.
He´s dreaming about Susie, all men do! ;D
-
Alias what would april do without Adam ;D ;D ;D ;D
She would do very well!
-
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+PUT+BAMBER+IN+PRISON...+AND+THAT%27S+WHERE+HE+SHOULD+STAY%3B+Ex-love%27s...-a072593685
I can't find the original article. But this proves I didn't invent it. It was also on the evening news at that time. There is my proof. Now where's yours where you said that Jeremy has said bad things about Julie Mugford. You will not find anything.
But what you may find, if you can be bothered to extricate yourself from your laziness is a letter from Jeremy to Julie Mugford pleading her to tell the truth and he addressed her in a loving way as I recall?
-
Alias I wish if only one would dream about me it would be nice I have lost all my men they have run a mile ;D must be the effect I have on them ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias I wish if only one would dream about me it would be nice I have lost all my men they have run a mile ;D must be the effect I have on them ;D ;D ;D
Aww, susie, their loss!!!
-
Alias bet it is a date at local fish and chip shop ;D with salt and vinegar of course ;D
-
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+PUT+BAMBER+IN+PRISON...+AND+THAT%27S+WHERE+HE+SHOULD+STAY%3B+Ex-love%27s...-a072593685
bump
-
Alias :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
Alias bet it is a date at local fish and chip shop ;D with salt and vinegar of course ;D
I bet too, the cheapest in town. And while they enjoy their meal in the neonlit, harshly turquise one table restaurant, Adam entertains the lucky girl with quotes from Wilkes´ book, like a copy/pasted one sided conversation.
The girl must feel very blessed! 8)
-
OK, thought I´d do some copy/pasting myself. There are three reviews of Roger Wilkes´ book on Amazon.
Adam said they were good, and they are, but hey ho, people think that Jeremy may be innocent. Here they are:
An excellent read, going into most detail, very gripping, but after reading it, and finding the evidence Jeremy was convicted on, I have my doubts. Theres a difference between fiction and fact, and young people bragging, its one of those cases that really should have every shed of evidence pulled out again, (although some has been destroyed) and gone over in detail to establish the exact truth what really did go on that day at the farm.
This is an excellent balanced assessment of the White House Farm Murders which may yet be under further review if and when Jeremy Bamber appeals again. Wilkes clearly and succinctly assesses and accounts for all forensic evidence and witness statements available. Another more recent book does not achieve such balance.
Long term, Wilkes's book should remain a very useful addition to anyone's true crime collection. If, and only if, any further appeal against the original verdict fails, this book deserves to be republished so that a wider audience can appreciate all aspects of a distressing but also fascinating murder case.
after reading this book i felt like i wanted to do something to help jeremy its so obvious he is innocent
-
OK, thought I´d do some copy/pasting myself. There are three reviews of Roger Wilkes´ book on Amazon. Adam said they were good, and they are, but hey ho, people think that Jeremy may be innocent. Here they are:
If Adam swallows that information with his chip butty, it'll choke him.
-
If Adam swallows that information with his chip butty, it'll choke him.
Unfortunately he hasn't the brain capacity to hold much information. My goldfish has a greater memory span than he. And he's dead. ;D
-
Ha Ha Ha Alias wait till he gets back and see's your posts from the book how will he get out of that one probably post 3 against or the like hope he does not get stains on the posh suit he hired for the date ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha Ha Grahame you are on form tonight I like it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha Ha Alias wait till he gets back and see's your posts from the book how will he get out of that one probably post 3 against or the like hope he does not get stains on the posh suit he hired for the date ;D ;D ;D
Well, if, as I suspect, he has little more interest in the case than scoring points against us, he should have stayed and defended his position rather than skulking off like a coward giving Alias time to ferret out the bits he DIDN'T quote. Ooops, I forgot, they're all his own words, aren't they 8)
-
does anyone have the link to Jeremys court transcript - I cant see it in the archives? or any police interviews after the 8/9 sept ones?
Just something bugging me.
-
its ok - I found what was bugging me - I know I keeping harping on about the window :- but I saw a statement fromJB that the windows did not self lock - so he left a not on 16th sept to secure the window which he had gone in or out of? this post confirms I was not going mad 8)
The windows were checked and there is no doubt about that. Taff Jones and a colleague went round the house and all windows and doors were locked from the inside. A forensic team came in on the 8th and found no evidence to support anyone had entered the house or got out via the windows. Another forensic team did a further extensive search of the windows September 8th to the 10th and again found nothing.
By late September the pressure was placed on the police by a third party who insisted that Sheila could not have used a rifle and shot her family.
A 3rd extensive examination took place of the windows on the 1st of October where according to Elliott he found a catch in the downstairs bathroom that had been scratched. See his account in the 2002 COA.
Yet, the exhibit was labelled RWC/8 If you look into this you will find that Elliot mislead the COA for he was not the one that had found this catch, Cook found it on the 28th September and had taken the catch from the window and had it labelled RWC/8 So what was Elliott and his team looking at on the 1st of October?
I find this totally unacceptable that 2 forensic teams failed to establish that the windows had not been used to gain access to the farm and nor did they establish and exit from any window in the house.
Yet, they knew Jeremy had entered the farm via a window on the 16th of September after the first 2 forensic examinations....So, on the 3rd examination it was established that the downstairs bathroom window had been used. Of course it had been used, Jeremy left a note on the 16th to BW to ask her to secure the window....The police knew he had gained entry, because at this point he was being watched.
-
Jansus the window is a red herring. They are always on about this window that could be locked from outside. But faile always to mention that there was a window open anyway. If Jeremy was supposed to have used that kitchen window why on earth didn't he first close the open window which was never mentioned in court. The window was just a ruse in order to make their theory of Jeremy doing the murder work. All carefully derived from RWB's thoughts from tne very first day. Check it out. It is the truth and I can prove it.
-
Jansus the window is a red herring. They are always on about this window that could be locked from outside. But faile always to mention that there was a window open anyway. If Jeremy was supposed to have used that kitchen window why on earth didn't he first close the open window which was never mentioned in court. The window was just a ruse in order to make their theory of Jeremy doing the murder work. All carefully derived from RWB's thoughts from tne very first day. Check it out. It is the truth and I can prove it.
I thought the open window was not on the ground floor?
-
I thought the open window was not on the ground floor?
No it wasn't. It was on the first floor. But it was the window Jeremt used to get into the house later on. So why didn't they use that window in court? Because it didn't look so dramatic and cloak and dagger as the ground floor window that was supposed to be locked from the outside. Not a mention of the upper floor window though. Why? Red herrings is what they is fond of. Red herrings. ;)
-
No it wasn't. It was on the first floor. But it was the window Jeremt used to get into the house later on. So why didn't they use that window in court? Because it didn't look so dramatic and cloak and dagger as the ground floor window that was supposed to be locked from the outside. Not a mention of the upper floor window though. Why? Red herrings is what they is fond of. Red herrings. ;)
there are certainly a lot of them - maybe we should start a red herring thread?
-
There is no date, he just can´t prove what Grahame asks him to, so he acts like a coward and slithers out with the excuse that he has a date.
I have already proved it. It is on Jeremys OS under Julies NOTW deal.
Jeremy accusing Julie lying, being a woman scorned & giving false statements. It's several pages long. Maybe you should read it.
Next.
-
There is no date, he just can´t prove what Grahame asks him to, so he acts like a coward and slithers out with the excuse that he has a date.
And I did have a date. I looked very dapper & butch in my bow tie & stetson.
-
Yes,,I thought it was something like that,Alias,,because he suddenly disappeared like the phony individual that he is. Point-scoring for who,I wonder ?
I do things in the evening. Rather than stay on this board trying to argue someone is innocent who has been convicted & failed three appeals.
-
OK, thought I´d do some copy/pasting myself. There are three reviews of Roger Wilkes´ book on Amazon. Adam said they were good, and they are, but hey ho, people think that Jeremy may be innocent. Here they are:
-
Very funny. Just to confirm to anyone who has not bothered reading the Amazon 5 star reviews, none of them believe Jeremy to be innocent.
-
Well, if, as I suspect, he has little more interest in the case than scoring points against us, he should have stayed and defended his position rather than skulking off like a coward giving Alias time to ferret out the bits he DIDN'T quote. Ooops, I forgot, they're all his own words, aren't they 8)
Oh yes. I am really scared of you April. Which is why I am here now answering you're post.
I have just created a thread on what Sheila was actually doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' call to Jeremy.
Look forward to you enlightening me.
-
I thought the open window was not on the ground floor?
The only open window was found upstairs.
-
bump
Thank you Graheme. Interesting.
-
Then stop being naive! And your last statement is just silly.
You are the naive one. Continually having digs at me whenever I say something that highlights Bambers guilt. I am entitled to my opinion.
-
Unfortunately he hasn't the brain capacity to hold much information. My goldfish has a greater memory span than he. And he's dead. ;D
Yes I wish I had you're memory Graheme. And good looks.
-
Yes I wish I had you're memory Graheme. And good looks.
oh Adam - did your date not stay over then? And before you insult the posters on here I suggest you have the courage to put your photo up.
posters were only reacting to your posts - but you are getting personal - so I for once today have now decided enough is enough. I know you wont miss me - but it is too nicer day to answer someone as rude as you so today I will be :-X
-
jansus I will miss you :'( come back soon :)
-
oh Adam - did your date not stay over then? And before you insult the posters on here I suggest you have the courage to put your photo up.
posters were only reacting to your posts - but you are getting personal - so I for once today have now decided enough is enough. I know you wont miss me - but it is too nicer day to answer someone as rude as you so today I will be :-X
Me personal. Graheme said I have no memory.
-
Thank you Graheme. Interesting.
It is not only interesting Adam. It proves that I am not a liar. It didn't come from my own lying imagination as you seemed to suggest.
-
It is not only interesting Adam. It proves that I am not a liar. It didn't come from my own lying imagination as you seemed to suggest.
Everyone should back up their statements. Myself included. Which I do.
-
I have already proved it. It is on Jeremys OS under Julies NOTW deal.
Jeremy accusing Julie lying, being a woman scorned & giving false statements. It's several pages long. Maybe you should read it.
Next.
Well I've read and re-read through the whole lot and I cannot find it. I've proved that what I said about JM. Now it is your turn to prove that Jeremy has said bad things about her since the trial. That was your accusation. Now prove it.
-
The only open window was found upstairs.
If there was an open window upstairs and there was as you rightly agree, then why would Jeremy need to go through a small closed window in the kitchen? It doesn't make sense.
-
oh Adam - did your date not stay over then? And before you insult the posters on here I suggest you have the courage to put your photo up.
posters were only reacting to your posts - but you are getting personal - so I for once today have now decided enough is enough. I know you wont miss me - but it is too nicer day to answer someone as rude as you so today I will be :-X
Yes it is a nice spring day. I think I'll go for a walk as well. Perhaps along the canal, or the Blackwater?
-
Well I've rerad through the whole lot and I cannot find it. I've proved that what I said about JM. Now it is your turn to prove that Jeremy has said bad things about her since the trial. That was your accusation. Now prove it.
I have. You said you read it.
Several pages worth. Jeremy saying Julie lied, gave false statements & sent him to prison because acvording to Bamber he jilted her.
Are you saying they are not bad things ?
Feel free to contribute to my thread created this morning. I am dying to know what Sheila was supposed to be doing when Neville made his mysterious phone call to Jeremy
-
Yes I wish I had you're memory Graheme. And good looks.
I'll have to check on that one.....Now where did I put that mirror? ;D
-
Everyone should back up their statements. Myself included. Which I do.
Which I did. But you still haven't backed up yours about Jeremy saying bad things about JM since the trial?
-
I have. You said you read it.
Several pages worth. Jeremy saying Julie lied, gave false statements & sent him to prison because acvording to Bamber he jilted her.
Are you saying they are not bad things ?
Feel free to contribute to my thread created this morning. I am dying to know what Sheila was supposed to be doing when Neville made his mysterious phone call to Jeremy
Since the trial I said. I repeat he has never said anything bad about her. He in fact sent her a letter gently encouraging her to tell the truth. But he has never said anything bad about her since the trial which I suggest is what you are getting at. I even quoted you.
You asked for proof that Jeremy has spoken about Julie since conviction. I gave you a long chapter on his site.
-
Which I did. But you still haven't backed up yours about Jeremy saying bad things about JM since the trial?
I have. Read above. Why do you keep asking the same question ?
Jeremy also called Julie a liar in the Sunday Times interview & his interview transcripts.
Calling someone a liar is bad.
Anyway. I have created a new thread. Feel free to answer it. You believe 100% that Jeremy is innocent. So it won't be hard to give me a good answer.
-
Now show me Adam Where Jeremy said bad things about JM since his conviction.
-
Since the trial I said. I repeat he has never said anything bad about her. He in fact sent her a letter gently encouraging her to tell the truth. But he has never said anything bad about her since the trial which I suggest is what you are getting at. I even quoted you.
Err. He created his OS after the trial. The Sunday Times interview was after the trial.
Plank.
-
I have. Read above. Why do you keep asking the same question ?
Jeremy also called Julie a liar in the Sunday Times interview & his interview transcripts.
Calling someone a liar is bad.
Anyway. I have created a new thread. Feel free to answer it. You believe 100% that Jeremy is innocent. So it won't be hard to give me a good answer.
Show me then!!! No at the moment I am not interested in your NEW thread. I keep asking you the same question because you have not ansered me by backing up your accusations.
-
Graheme please show me the 2012 thread where a whole class of students found Jeremy innocent.
You failed to do it before.
-
Err. He created his OS after the trial. The Sunday Times interview was after the trial.
Plank.
-
I have. Read above. Why do you keep asking the same question ?
Jeremy also called Julie a liar in the Sunday Times interview & his interview transcripts.
Calling someone a liar is bad.
Anyway. I have created a new thread. Feel free to answer it. You believe 100% that Jeremy is innocent. So it won't be hard to give me a good answer.
Yes it is Adam. So stop calling me a liar ans come up with your proof. She said that she put him in prison and there he will stay in 2002. Jeremy said nothing against her.
-
Err. He created his OS after the trial. The Sunday Times interview was after the trial.
Plank.
So where has he said anything bad about JM? You can't prove it can you? You're all mouth and nothing more.
-
I have. You said you read it.
Several pages worth. Jeremy saying Julie lied, gave false statements & sent him to prison because acvording to Bamber he jilted her.
Are you saying they are not bad things ?
Feel free to contribute to my thread created this morning. I am dying to know what Sheila was supposed to be doing when Neville made his mysterious phone call to Jeremy
Sadly,,Sheila would have been upstairs shooting at her mother when Neville hurriedly rang Jeremy. He also rang the police too you know !
Car no. CAO7 was sent to WHF as a result of Nevilles' call to them.
Car No.CAO5 was sent after Jeremy made his call to the police,as it was PC.West who took his call,as was said in the statement,which was recorded at 03.36.
Nevilles' call was at 03.26,,before Jeremys.
These two SEPARATE calls were then " morphed into one call " which set up the chain of events that followed,accusing Jeremy of lying about the phone call.
Years later,,it emerged among police files/documents,,that there were indeed TWO calls made !
-
Yes it is Adam. So stop calling me a liar ans come up with your proof. She said that she put him in prison and there he will stay in 2002. Jeremy said nothing against her.
So you agree Jeremy calling Julie a liar, fraudster & creating false witness statements is bad.
All done on Jeremys OS & the Sunday Times interview. AFTER CONVICTION.
Now shut up.
-
Graheme please show me the 2012 thread where a whole class of students found Jeremy innocent.
You failed to do it before.
No. Why have you changed the subject? I have backed up everything with documentary proof. You have not given one iota of proof yourself about where Jeremy has said something bad about JM since the trial. And by the way Jeremy has no access to the internet. He has supporters to do that. The only thing he does write is his blog.
-
So you agree Jeremy calling Julie a liar, fraudster & creating false witness statements is bad.
All done on Jeremys OS & the Sunday Times interview. AFTER CONVICTION.
Now shut up.
Show me proof that he said that Adam? Come on I want documentary proof.
-
So you agree Jeremy calling Julie a liar, fraudster & creating false witness statements is bad.
All done on Jeremys OS & the Sunday Times interview. AFTER CONVICTION.
Now shut up.
Oy,,stop telling people to shut up. Go away and learn how to debate in an adult fashion,,if you are an adult !
-
Your a fraud Adam. You cannot even back up what you had said. It just amounts to mud slinging on your part and nothing else. You have continually avoided giving any documentary proof. I have given documentary proof.
-
Sadly,,Sheila would have been upstairs shooting at her mother when Neville hurriedly rang Jeremy. He also rang the police too you know !
Car no. CAO7 was sent to WHF as a result of Nevilles' call to them.
Car No.CAO5 was sent after Jeremy made his call to the police,as it was PC.West who took his call,as was said in the statement,which was recorded at 03.36.
Nevilles' call was at 03.26,,before Jeremys.
These two SEPARATE calls were then " morphed into one call " which set up the chain of events that followed,accusing Jeremy of lying about the phone call.
Years later,,it emerged among police files/documents,,that there were indeed TWO calls made !
So Sheila had a gun upstairs. Neville & June could not talk her around or get the gun because she was so uncontrollable. However Sheila let Neville go downstairs. Neville left his family upstairs with a crazy woman holding a gun.
Try harder.
-
Oy,,stop telling people to shut up. Go away and learn how to debate in an adult fashion,,if you are an adult !
In fact,,if your sole intention is to sabotage this forum,,you can P*** Off-----------now ! Because it's looking that way to me.
-
So Sheila had a gun upstairs. Neville & June could not talk her around or get the gun because she was so uncontrollable. However Sheila let Neville go downstairs. Neville left his family upstairs with a crazy woman holding a gun.
Try harder.
Haha thats a good one. You haven't tried at all. Come on. Still waiting for that documentary proof.
-
Haha thats a good one. You haven't tried at all. Come on. Still waiting for that documentary proof.
In fact you cannot even back up your scenario by bullet allocation as you said. Where does the missing bullet casing come in your equation? Even your sceario is a sham and not properly worked out.
-
In fact you cannot even back up your scenario by bullet allocation as you said. Where does the missing bullet casing come in your equation? Even your sceario is a sham and not properly worked out.
Still waiting for the classroom full of law students who all said they found Jeremy innocent proof.
I will post the OS & find the Sunday times forum now. Even though you have read both.
You said Jeremy played with the twins & lots of people testified on his behalf in court. Sources please.
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
Under the heading Julie Mugfords NOTW deal.
Jeremy accussing her of lying, committing fraud, being a criminal & making false witness statements. All because he apparently jilted her.
In my view, saying 'bad things'.
-
And please tell me what Sheila could have realistically been doing when Neville made his mysterious call to Jeremy.
Or you can't.
-
In fact you cannot even back up your scenario by bullet allocation as you said. Where does the missing bullet casing come in your equation? Even your sceario is a sham and not properly worked out.
Jeremy said Sheila shot herself downstairs. But why were two cartridges found next to her ?
Video already posted upon request, or are going to claim you have not seen it.
-
Jeremy said Sheila shot herself downstairs. But why were two cartridges found next to her ?
Video already posted upon request, or are going to claim you have not seen it.
Actually Adam, no, he didn't say that - the campaign/legal team have suggested it to explain WHY the police logs don't add up - such as the 'one dead male. one dead female' entry. Jeremy doesn't have access to the internet, he doesn't specifically write the information on his website. Surely you must know that?
-
Actually Adam, no, he didn't say that - the campaign/legal team have suggested it to explain WHY the police logs don't add up - such as the 'one dead male. one dead female' entry. Jeremy doesn't have access to the internet, he doesn't specifically write the information on his website. Surely you must know that?
He must authorise it and engage with them. It is his OS.
-
Very funny. Just to confirm to anyone who has not bothered reading the Amazon 5 star reviews, none of them believe Jeremy to be innocent.
That is not true. There were three, all five stars, I copy/pasted them here for all to see. Two of them think that Jeremy, first review, may be innocent and should have a new trial, third review: Jeremy is definitely innocent.
Here, I post them again:
1.
n excellent read, going into most detail, very gripping, but after reading it, and finding the evidence Jeremy was convicted on, I have my doubts. Theres a difference between fiction and fact, and young people bragging, its one of those cases that really should have every shed of evidence pulled out again, (although some has been destroyed) and gone over in detail to establish the exact truth what really did go on that day at the farm.
2.
This is an excellent balanced assessment of the White House Farm Murders which may yet be under further review if and when Jeremy Bamber appeals again. Wilkes clearly and succinctly assesses and accounts for all forensic evidence and witness statements available. Another more recent book does not achieve such balance.
Long term, Wilkes's book should remain a very useful addition to anyone's true crime collection. If, and only if, any further appeal against the original verdict fails, this book deserves to be republished so that a wider audience can appreciate all aspects of a distressing but also fascinating murder case.
3.
after reading this book i felt like i wanted to do something to help jeremy its so obvious he is innocent
Are you still going to say that none of the reviewers think that Jeremy is innocent???
P.S. I´d better put up the link, so that YOU and others can see for themselves. You are spreading lies.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1854872214/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
-
Feb 2009This is an excellent who-dun-it true life crime mystery. This is an excellent non-biased book about Jeremy Bamber and the murder at White House Farm. Did Jeremy Bamber carry out this awful massacre of his family - although I believe he may well have, am not entirely convinced. If he did, then I feel sure his girlfriend at that time Julie Mugford, knew more than she let on and only went to the police when he dumped her as she did not want to be implicated in any way. Also, if he did commit the crime he would not have been able to say she had known of his plans, otherwise that would have been admitting his guilt. I was very concerned when reading this very intriguing story that the young Caffell children should ever have been allowed to stay in a house where guns were kept loaded or unloaded in shower rooms, kitchen, den, etc., although no comment was ever made in book about this. I found this book almost impossible to put down, extremely well-written and easy and straight-forward to read. Would recommend to all real-life crime readers - best book I've read in years
-
Oct 2010who 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.7 of 11 people found this review helpful
-
aseGreat 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'.
-
These are the only reviews I have found on Amazon. I cannot bring up you're link. Which is a fault with my phone.
-
The three reviews I posted above are on Amazon.uk, there is one review at the Amazon main page (American I guess.)
It is also a five star review, but this person also doubts Jeremy´s guilt.
I remember I was 10yrs old when these murders took place and it seemed like a pretty open and shut case. After reading this book, I'm not so sure anymore. The police really did screw up this investigation and were extremely sloppy. I don't think this book proves that Jeremy Bamber is innocent beyond doubt, but I don't think the evidence proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt either. Many people including members of Bamber's family commented on his behavior, which they found suspicious. To be honest, I found the behavior of the Eatons and Beautflours to be far more unusual, and in some cases quite appalling. The fact that they were going in and out of that house and helping themselves to stuff was pretty tacky. The fact that Ann Eaton moved into the farmhouse so soon after a horrific crime took place was quite disturbing too. I don't believe for one minute that Bamber's family are guilty of murder, but I wouldn't be surprised if they saw this as an opportunity to get their hands on his inheritance, which was quite substantial. I believe that it is quite plausible that Bamber's sister committed these murders and from reading this book I developed my own theory. Bamber knew his sister was mentally ill and it is possible he knew that she was on the verge of a relapse. Bamber did leave the gun in the kitchen in view full of everyone and at the time it seemed normal, but something about it didn't seem quite right. What if he left the gun out in the hope that Sheila might do something crazy. He wouldn't be guilty of murder, and he would be free to live the life he wanted. One thing that is notable, is that Bamber has a magnetic personality and has the ability to manipulate people. Jeremy Bamber seems like someone who is good at getting other people to do things for him, whilst he keeps his hands clean. I know, it's a long shot, but I do Bamber shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence that was presented, and he should be allowed a retrial.
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Murders-Penguin/product-reviews/0140242007/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1
WHERE ARE YOUR REVIEWS FROM, ADAM???
-
Still waiting for the classroom full of law students who all said they found Jeremy innocent proof.
I will post the OS & find the Sunday times forum now. Even though you have read both.
You said Jeremy played with the twins & lots of people testified on his behalf in court. Sources please.
No I didn't. As for the other. Do your own work like you told me to. I found documentary proof that JM said what I said she said. Don't be lazy now.
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/
Under the heading Julie Mugfords NOTW deal.
Jeremy accussing her of lying, committing fraud, being a criminal & making false witness statements. All because he apparently jilted her.
In my view, saying 'bad things'.
Adam can you be a bit more specific and pinpoint what it is I am supposed to be looking at please. I cannot see anything there that you are saying? I pinpointed a newspaper article so that it was very clear to you. Please show me the same courtesy.
-
Jeremy said Sheila shot herself downstairs. But why were two cartridges found next to her ?
Video already posted upon request, or are going to claim you have not seen it.
This shows why you haven't read statement properly. Two of the raid team both stated that sheila was shot twice. But there was only one cartridge case found next to her. Would you like me to spoon feed you those two statements for you as well?
Now just that one discrepancy throws out your whole scenario. If you cannot find that one cartridge case then that immediately disrupts you whole bullet placement on which you have based your scenario.
-
Jeremy said Sheila shot herself downstairs. But why were two cartridges found next to her ?
Video already posted upon request, or are going to claim you have not seen it.
Yes I have seen it. Now give the reference in that video where Bamber accused JM.
-
He must authorise it and engage with them. It is his OS.
No he does not authorise anything the campaign tean put up on that website. The only thing he contributes is his blog. As I have said before. Good grief! You're hard work. I wish you'd used your own brain for a change instead of getting others to do your work for you. ::)
-
That is not true. There were three, all five stars, I copy/pasted them here for all to see. Two of them think that Jeremy, first review, may be innocent and should have a new trial, third review: Jeremy is definitely innocent.
Here, I post them again:
1.
n excellent read, going into most detail, very gripping, but after reading it, and finding the evidence Jeremy was convicted on, I have my doubts. Theres a difference between fiction and fact, and young people bragging, its one of those cases that really should have every shed of evidence pulled out again, (although some has been destroyed) and gone over in detail to establish the exact truth what really did go on that day at the farm.
2.
This is an excellent balanced assessment of the White House Farm Murders which may yet be under further review if and when Jeremy Bamber appeals again. Wilkes clearly and succinctly assesses and accounts for all forensic evidence and witness statements available. Another more recent book does not achieve such balance.
Long term, Wilkes's book should remain a very useful addition to anyone's true crime collection. If, and only if, any further appeal against the original verdict fails, this book deserves to be republished so that a wider audience can appreciate all aspects of a distressing but also fascinating murder case.
3.
after reading this book i felt like i wanted to do something to help jeremy its so obvious he is innocent
Are you still going to say that none of the reviewers think that Jeremy is innocent???
P.S. I´d better put up the link, so that YOU and others can see for themselves. You are spreading lies.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1854872214/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
It's no good Alias. I think Adam should be registered blind. ::)
-
It's no good Alias. I think Adam should be registered blind. ::)
I am just curious where Adam´s reviews are from. As I said, the reviews I put up are from Amazon.uk and from the Amazon main page.
He is always a little stingy with the links - prefers to keep things foggy when it comes to backing up his claims with links/proof.
-
Jeremy said Sheila shot herself downstairs. But why were two cartridges found next to her ?
Video already posted upon request, or are going to claim you have not seen it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4954.0.html
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X ::)