Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on March 15, 2014, 08:13:AM
-
My last thread established that Jeremy is certainly guilty.
There was no credible answer to the question of what Sheila was doing when Neville made his 3.20am phone call to Jeremy. Even if there was a realistic situation there are 19 reasons/facts why Jeremy would not be called. Nevilles words 'come quickly', 'crazy' & 'gun' suggest shots were being or about to be fired. There was not a spare 30 seconds, never mind five minutes. Jeremy arriving 20 minutes later would be no use.
I created a thread called 'An alibi from a dead person is better than no alibi at all'. However it is possible phoning the police was not part of the original plan. Jeremy would know phoning the police would round the suspects down to two.
Ideally everyone would be shot in bed. Sheila either shot in bed and given the gun. Or taken to the twins bedroom & shot on the floor. However things went pear shaped when Neville got downstairs and had to be beaten. Jeremy realised this could be explained by an aborted phone call from Neville to Jeremy, providing there was no phone in the main bedroom.
The judge called the phone call mysterious. The jury would have discussed the liklihood of the phone call happening, the reasons why it would or would not happen, together with a credible situation where Neville felt safe & confident enough to spend five minutes making the call. In the spur of the moment Jeremy may not have considered this. But had to improvise, rather than go back to bed & then to work as usual. Waiting for someone else to find the bodies.
Do other people believe the phone call was part of the original plan ?
-
And this is ALL YOUR OWN WORK ???
-
Morning Lookout of course it is not all his own work why do you think he has not been posting and some posters thought he had done a runner ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout just read his posts and I do think it is his own work ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Phone-calls aside,,as this has been done to death.Let's ask another question.
Sheila was still alive at 6am,,until at least another hour later,,Jeremy was outside the farmhouse,,so how could he possibly have killed Sheila,as the house had been surrounded by police and Jeremy had been with them for over 2 hours at this point,and NOBODY left that house either through a window,or indeed a door ?
Also outside,was an alsation dog,trained in the scent of gunpowder,,which is easily detectable-------even after washing,,,but guess what,,no traces of residue were picked up from Jeremy after allegedly firing ALL those shots.
-
Phone-calls aside,,as this has been done to death.Let's ask another question.
Sheila was still alive at 6am,,until at least another hour later,,Jeremy was outside the farmhouse,,so how could he possibly have killed Sheila,as the house had been surrounded by police and Jeremy had been with them for over 2 hours at this point,and NOBODY left that house either through a window,or indeed a door ?
Also outside,was an alsation dog,trained in the scent of gunpowder,,which is easily detectable-------even after washing,,,but guess what,,no traces of residue were picked up from Jeremy after allegedly firing ALL those shots.
Sheila was alive at 6 ? Was she waving from the bedroom window ?
What sniffer dogs ? Jeremy was not a suspect & was sitting in the car. He would have also showered.
-
Adam is judge and jury on conjecture, assumption, embellishment and a narrow mind.
I for one will not be answering his questions over and over again. Not once has even acknowledged the possibility that there is any alternative than his "scenario" . So there is no "discussion" only lecturing and that is not the point of this forum.
-
Sheila was alive at 6 ? Was she waving from the bedroom window ?
What sniffer dogs ? Jeremy was not a suspect & was sitting in the car. He would have also showered.
You stupid boy. Of course he wasn't a suspect at that point,,just think about it. A sniffer dog outside,,who is trained in gun residue,,that if Jeremy had killed his family,,the dog would have picked up the scent and gone straight for Jeremy.
However,,it's procedure anyway,,that when ONE member of a family happens to have reported an incident,,the police by their very nature are suspicious characters and so in having the dog there,they can discount that person as having been involved,,,which is what initially happened.
-
lookout well said the sniffer dog was taken to the farm as normal police procedure and showed no interest in Jeremy at all probably found the rabbits more interesting ;D ;D ;D Have you noticed how Adam shows no respect for the dead at all with his suggestions of cheese and pickle sandwich waving from the window quite disgusting in my way of thinking suppose it is all in the upbringing or maybe not old enough yet to know right from wrong.
-
My last thread established that Jeremy is certainly guilty.
There was no credible answer to the question of what Sheila was doing when Neville made his 3.20am phone call to Jeremy. Even if there was a realistic situation there are 19 reasons/facts why Jeremy would not be called. Nevilles words 'come quickly', 'crazy' & 'gun' suggest shots were being or about to be fired. There was not a spare 30 seconds, never mind five minutes. Jeremy arriving 20 minutes later would be no use.
I created a thread called 'An alibi from a dead person is better than no alibi at all'. However it is possible phoning the police was not part of the original plan. Jeremy would know phoning the police would round the suspects down to two.
Ideally everyone would be shot in bed. Sheila either shot in bed and given the gun. Or taken to the twins bedroom & shot on the floor. However things went pear shaped when Neville got downstairs and had to be beaten. Jeremy realised this could be explained by an aborted phone call from Neville to Jeremy, providing there was no phone in the main bedroom.
The judge called the phone call mysterious. The jury would have discussed the liklihood of the phone call happening, the reasons why it would or would not happen, together with a credible situation where Neville felt safe & confident enough to spend five minutes making the call. In the spur of the moment Jeremy may not have considered this. But had to improvise, rather than go back to bed & then to work as usual. Waiting for someone else to find the bodies.
Do other people believe the phone call was part of the original plan ?
With so many people believing this to be a miscarriage of justice nothing has been "established" as you put it. What you think those who believe him to be innocent do so because they like him? Why then do so many lawyers believe him to be innocent? You have succeeded in establishing nothing.
-
I wonder, to whom, other than himself, did Adam mistakenly believe his cockeyed thread had established Jeremy's certain guilt.
-
lookout well said the sniffer dog was taken to the farm as normal police procedure and showed no interest in Jeremy at all probably found the rabbits more interesting ;D ;D ;D Have you noticed how Adam shows no respect for the dead at all with his suggestions of cheese and pickle sandwich waving from the window quite disgusting in my way of thinking suppose it is all in the upbringing or maybe not old enough yet to know right from wrong.
Hi Susan,,Adam has no respect-----------full stop,,neither for the dead nor the living !
-
Jeremys' phone-call was NOT a last minute decision anyway. He had been trying to ring his father back,,probably to ask if there was need to help,as happened in the past. Because Jeremy was getting an engaged tone,meant that the person on the other end of the phone was already speaking to someone,,,and that someone was the police,who Neville had rang at 03.26. Because Jeremy wasn't getting through to his father,,he too rang the police at 03.36.
So a simple answer to Jeremy having been unable to speak to his father was because his father was contacting the police. So what,10 minutes ? Jeremy would have been re-dialling which can take time if he had an older phone with the circular dial.
-
At first Jeremy claimed that there was a click and the phone call was disconnected which would mean it was hung up at White House Farms, presumably by the killer.
The phone company though said the phone was never hung up and simply remained off the hook. This prompted Jeremy to change his story from hearing a click to hearing various sounds including struggling and maybe gun shots being fired.
He changed his story muliple times of what he heard.
-
At first Jeremy claimed that there was a click and the phone call was disconnected which would mean it was hung up at White House Farms, presumably by the killer.
The phone company though said the phone was never hung up and simply remained off the hook. This prompted Jeremy to change his story from hearing a click to hearing various sounds including struggling and maybe gun shots being fired.
He changed his story muliple times of what he heard.
My word,,if Jeremy " had " changed his story,it would have been a genuine slip,,unlike others who not only changed their stories,,but also had statements altered too !!!
-
My word,,if Jeremy " had " changed his story,it would have been a genuine slip,,unlike others who not only changed their stories,,but also had statements altered too !!!
And so easy for EP to sort all this mess out by releasing the tape copies and original logs . For them just to be criticised for changing police logs is not good enough IMO
-
My last thread established that Jeremy is certainly guilty.
Adam you are a very naughty boy lol.
Personally speaking I think if you had really planned a murder over some months or years as it is alleged Jeremy did, then you would think it down to the last detail. So if Jeremy DID kill his family then I would seriously doubt the phone call to police was a last minute decision. It was more likely an attempt to start the blame going towards Sheila....as it did until other events took over.
To be honest rather than mysterious I think that Jeremy (if guilty) simply didn't think that part through.
-
Adam you are a very naughty boy lol.
Personally speaking I think if you had really planned a murder over some months or years as it is alleged Jeremy did, then you would think it down to the last detail. So if Jeremy DID kill his family then I would seriously doubt the phone call to police was a last minute decision. It was more likely an attempt to start the blame going towards Sheila....as it did until other events took over.
Jeremy was not expecting Neville to put up a fight. So had to make an instant decision to explain him in the kitchen.
Similar to having to make an instant decision about taking the silencer off after realising Sheilas arms were too short.
But a previous thread of mine states, Jeremy may have planned to phone the police.
-
At first Jeremy claimed that there was a click and the phone call was disconnected which would mean it was hung up at White House Farms, presumably by the killer.
The phone company though said the phone was never hung up and simply remained off the hook. This prompted Jeremy to change his story from hearing a click to hearing various sounds including struggling and maybe gun shots being fired.
He changed his story muliple times of what he heard.
I don't think he ever mentioned hearing any shots fired or any struggling? Could you please reference where you read that?
-
Jeremy was not expecting Neville to put up a fight. So had to make an instant decision to explain him in the kitchen.
Similar to having to make an instant decision about taking the silencer off after realising Sheilas arms were too short.
But a previous thread of mine states, Jeremy may have planned to phone the police.
If there was a murderer other than Sheila who was in a psychotic state, then I should think that the strongest person would have been put out of action first of all. Probably a shot to the temple at close range?
-
Jeremy was expecting Neville to put up a fight. So had to make an instant decision.
Similar to having to make an instant decision about taking the silencer off after realising Sheilas arms were too short.
But a previous thread of mine states, Jeremy may have planned to phone the police.
Firstly,,there was no fight. A struggle,perhaps as Neville tried to wrestle the gun from Sheila,,possibly the time a chunk was taken out of the rifle as Sheila jolted backwards when Neville released his hold,,and not that he was hit with the butt of it,as he'd have shown a fracture about the head.
The silencer was NOT used at all. Though which of the 5 silencers are you referring to,particularly ?
Jeremy did NOT plan to ring the police at all.He rang them as a matter of course and urgency after not receiving a reply from WHF.
-
Adam had Jeremy Bamber committed the murders at WHF his main adversary would have been his Father so he would have got a shot at close range to take him out . According to you Jeremy was so good at planning everything he had the common sense to know his Father would have put up a fight. Now I would love to hear your theory how the three burn marks appeared on Ralph Bambers back would Jeremy have hung around to carry out this act and don't say he did it to see if he was dead because had he wished to confirm that he could have pumped more bullets in to the poor man your post does not make sense even to somebody who thinks Jeremy is guilty.
-
Adam had Jeremy Bamber committed the murders at WHF his main adversary would have been his Father so he would have got a shot at close range to take him out . According to you Jeremy was so good at planning everything he had the common sense to know his Father would have put up a fight. Now I would love to hear your theory how the three burn marks appeared on Ralph Bambers back would Jeremy have hung around to carry out this act and don't say he did it to see if he was dead because had he wished to confirm that he could have pumped more bullets in to the poor man your post does not make sense even to somebody who thinks Jeremy is guilty.
Jeremy did go into the main bedroom first in my view. Fully loaded in my opinion as Neville was shot five times before reaching the kitchen. June was also shot before she could leave the room.
Neville woke up before Jeremy could get a head shot.
How & when Neville got the burn marks are neither here or there.
-
Firstly,,there was no fight. A struggle,perhaps as Neville tried to wrestle the gun from Sheila,,possibly the time a chunk was taken out of the rifle as Sheila jolted backwards when Neville released his hold,,and not that he was hit with the butt of it,as he'd have shown a fracture about the head.
The silencer was NOT used at all. Though which of the 5 silencers are you referring to,particularly ?
Jeremy did NOT plan to ring the police at all.He rang them as a matter of course and urgency after not receiving a reply from WHF.
The rifle was used for shooting vermin. Why an earth take the silencer off. Ever ?
-
"How & when Neville got the burn marks are neither here or there" :o :o :o :o :o
Well I have got to say that is one of the most sweeping and indicative statement made by Adam.
If it does not fit into his "scenario" then it is not relevant . Just ignore the bits that don't fit , change timings to suit your own personal crime scene and ignore factual documents .
-
I don't think he ever mentioned hearing any shots fired or any struggling? Could you please reference where you read that?
exactly - where did that little fact come from?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.0
-
A distorted mind equals a more distorted view of the real facts in this case.
Adam,,consider that Neville could have used the phone in his office in which to ring Jeremy. If Sheila had been downstairs at the time,,which she could well have been,allowing Neville that short time to ring Jeremy,,,but,Sheila being downstairs,would have heard any conversation on the kitchen phone and belted upstairs to Neville pointing the rifle.
Neville would have replaced the office phone back on its cradle,but the kitchen one would have still been off its hook,so therefore Jeremy wouldn't have got an answer. Simple ? The engaged tone when Jeremy tried ringing again.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.0
just stay on that forum then .
-
A distorted mind equals a more distorted view of the real facts in this case.
Adam,,consider that Neville could have used the phone in his office in which to ring Jeremy. If Sheila had been downstairs at the time,,which she could well have been,allowing Neville that short time to ring Jeremy,,,but,Sheila being downstairs,would have heard any conversation on the kitchen phone and belted upstairs to Neville pointing the rifle.
Neville would have replaced the office phone back on its cradle,but the kitchen one would have still been off its hook,so therefore Jeremy wouldn't have got an answer. Simple ? The engaged tone when Jeremy tried ringing again.
If the phone downstairs was taken off the hook, it disables all phones.
Why would Sheila be downstairs if she wanted to massacre them ? And why didn't Neville & June get ready for her to come upstairs & then converge on her ? Neville was defenceless in his PJ's. June in bed.
-
If the phone downstairs was taken off the hook, it disables all phones.
Why would Sheila be downstairs if she wanted to massacre them ? And why didn't Neville & June get ready for her to come upstairs & then converge on her ? Neville was defenceless in his PJ's. June in bed.
The phone downstairs disabled all others as soon as Sheila took it off its cradle. Indications are,with having just one line,that use of another phone in the house,causes others to make a "ding ",which Sheila would have heard.
Sheila would initially have gone downstairs knowing that was where the guns/rifles were.
It wouldn't matter if you were in your bare skin,,you'd still be defenceless against someone brandishing a gun.
June wouldn't have been sleeping either,as she was a bad sleeper at the best of times and used to read her bible in bed.
-
The phone downstairs disabled all others as soon as Sheila took it off its cradle. Indications are,with having just one line,that use of another phone in the house,causes others to make a "ding ",which Sheila would have heard.
Sheila would initially have gone downstairs knowing that was where the guns/rifles were.
It wouldn't matter if you were in your bare skin,,you'd still be defenceless against someone brandishing a gun.
June wouldn't have been sleeping either,as she was a bad sleeper at the best of times and used to read her bible in bed.
So Neville rang Jeremy upstairs before Sheila had gone downstairs to get a gun. Neville telling Jeremy 'Sheila has got the gun'.
-
Adam Sheila IMO was restless and was not sleeping but downstairs helping herself to food and poor Sheila was in her own mind planning how she could put the situation right Ralph was in bed sleeping as was June Ralph went downstairs to see what Sheila was doing the rest his history.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.0
Well at least we all know now where you get all that regurgitated rubbish from. Straight from the piggies mouths.
-
So Neville rang Jeremy upstairs before Sheila had gone downstairs to get a gun. Neville telling Jeremy 'Sheila has got the gun'.
NO ! Sheila was downstairs,giving Neville the chance to use the office phone upstairs. FGS,,use your loaf.
-
NO ! Sheila was downstairs,giving Neville the chance to use the office phone upstairs. FGS,,use your loaf.
So Sheila was already downstairs holding a rifle.
Why an earth would she pick the downstairs phone up ?
-
My last thread established that Jeremy is certainly guilty.
OK, I have had it with this moron. I went to his profile to put him on ignore, but I couldn´t figure out what to do, can anyone help me?
-
So Sheila was already downstairs holding a rifle.
Why an earth would she pick the downstairs phone up ?
I've just said ! Because Sheila would have been listening to her father having a conversation.
-
Adam Sheila IMO was restless and was not sleeping but downstairs helping herself to food and poor Sheila was in her own mind planning how she could put the situation right Ralph was in bed sleeping as was June Ralph went downstairs to see what Sheila was doing the rest his history.
I am confused.
Neville got attacked & shot downstairs. Ran upstairs. Then got shot 5 more times upstairs. Then ran downstairs again.
-
To which point Sheila would have hurtled upstairs,and began prodding her father on his way downstairs,to where he sadly ended his life.
-
Alias don't let him get to you and don't take him seriously I have told you he is a programmed parrot ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam as I have told you before the upstairs can be accessed by two different staircases work it out.
-
Adam as I have told you before the upstairs can be accessed by two different staircases work it out.
oh no - he has not forgotten about the staircases again has he ? How convenient.
-
Alias don't let him get to you and don't take him seriously I have told you he is a programmed parrot ;D ;D ;D
He is not really getting to me, he is like a little mosquito I want to swat away. Isn´t it possible to put people on ignore now? I did it once with another member that was an irritant to me.
-
oh no - he has not forgotten about the staircases again has he ? How convenient.
So Sheila ran upstairs with the rifle after hearing Neville call Jeremy on the office phone.
Nevilles call was cut off/went silent.
So why was Neville shot in the bedroom ?
-
I am confused.
Neville got attacked & shot downstairs. Ran upstairs. Then got shot 5 more times upstairs. Then ran downstairs again.
Well admitting that you are is the first step towards recovery as they say. ;D
-
Ha Ha Grahame that was a brilliant post and you have made my day as usual ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias a folded newspaper is a good tool for swatting irritants ;D ;D ;D
-
Well admitting that you are is the first step towards recovery as they say. ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D he is running himself in circles and hopefully will soon fall down the holes he is so fond of .
-
Alias it is possible to put somebody on ignore but if you did that just think of the laughs you would miss ;)
-
Alias a folded newspaper is a good tool for swatting irritants ;D ;D ;D
I am afraid he cannot feel me swatting away at my computer-screen.
-
Alias it is possible to put somebody on ignore but if you did that just think of the laughs you would miss ;)
Do you know how to do it? Please tell me, I want him out of my way.
Never mind, I figured it out. Had to go to MY profile to do it, not his. Now a breath of relief!
-
This is a ridiculous question! For those who think Jeremy is guilty 'no, the call to police wouldn't have been a 'last minute decision' because apparently he 'planned' the whole thing and being home was part of his alibi. For those who think he's innocent, yes, it was a last minute decision because it was the result of a phone call from his father in the early hours of the morning!! Where is the debate?
-
This is a ridiculous question! For those who think Jeremy is guilty 'no, the call to police wouldn't have been a 'last minute decision' because apparently he 'planned' the whole thing and being home was part of his alibi. For those who think he's innocent, yes, it was a last minute decision because it was the result of a phone call from his father in the early hours of the morning!! Where is the debate?
debate? discuss? consider? open mind?
I am afraid these are not words in the "Dictionary Adamitus"
-
Interesting article on the phones:
According to the prosecution the phone call that Bamber claimed to have received from his father had clearly been intended to establish Bamber’s whereabouts at the time of the crime, placing him away from the scene and also placing the blame firmly with Sheila. Yet if it was intended as an alibi, the phone call – besides narrowing guilt to either himself or Sheila – actually left Bamber open to several difficult questions.
If Sheila had indeed gone berserk with a gun, wounding Nevill and June Bamber in bed, why had Nevill Bamber left his wife alone, at Sheila Caffell’s mercy, to go to the kitchen and telephone Jeremy ? And why, having reached downstairs to the phone, would he call Jeremy instead of dialling 999 ? It was suggested that Nevill Bamber would not have wanted to involve the police with the family’s problems, though this would seem unlikely, especially as Jeremy was not close enough to Sheila to be the most obvious person to pacify her.
Furthermore, Jeremy Bamber told the police that his father’s call had ended abruptly (“the line went dead”) and that when he phoned his father back “it was engaged each time”. Would it technically have been possible for Jeremy Bamber to dial out and call the police if his phone was still connected to his father’s line? And, if the telephone was, as Bamber said, engaged, who else did his father phone ?
According to a police statement, the British Telecom telephonist on duty that night said that when she was asked by the police to check the line, she could “tell that the receiver was off the hook… I could hear a dog barking.”Shortly before police entered the house, the telephonist was asked to check again. “The line was still open. The only thing I could hear was a very slight moving sound.”In order for this statement to be true, Nevill Bamber must have abruptly ended his call to his son, and called someone else, who was never identified and never came forward. If he simply dropped the receiver while talking to his son, Jeremy Bamber would not have been able to get a line and phone the police.
-
This is a ridiculous question! For those who think Jeremy is guilty 'no, the call to police wouldn't have been a 'last minute decision' because apparently he 'planned' the whole thing and being home was part of his alibi. For those who think he's innocent, yes, it was a last minute decision because it was the result of a phone call from his father in the early hours of the morning!! Where is the debate?
What is to discuss is whether the fight with Neville persuaded Jeremy to phone the police ?
-
debate? discuss? consider? open mind?
I am afraid these are not words in the "Dictionary Adamitus"
That hurts.
-
If the kitchen phone was working, why was it unplugged & underneath newspapers ?
The bedroom phone was working, so why was that not in the bedroom ?
There had been storms several weeks earlier & phones had been fixed & returned to WHF. If so why not just take the bedroom phone back upstairs to the bedroom ? There is no reason to plug it into the kitchen phone socket as the kitchen phone was already working.
The phone locations were mysterious enough to be discussed at trial.
-
Interesting article on the phones:
According to the prosecution the phone call that Bamber claimed to have received from his father had clearly been intended to establish Bamber’s whereabouts at the time of the crime, placing him away from the scene and also placing the blame firmly with Sheila. Yet if it was intended as an alibi, the phone call – besides narrowing guilt to either himself or Sheila – actually left Bamber open to several difficult questions.
If Sheila had indeed gone berserk with a gun, wounding Nevill and June Bamber in bed, why had Nevill Bamber left his wife alone, at Sheila Caffell’s mercy, to go to the kitchen and telephone Jeremy ? And why, having reached downstairs to the phone, would he call Jeremy instead of dialling 999 ? It was suggested that Nevill Bamber would not have wanted to involve the police with the family’s problems, though this would seem unlikely, especially as Jeremy was not close enough to Sheila to be the most obvious person to pacify her.
Furthermore, Jeremy Bamber told the police that his father’s call had ended abruptly (“the line went dead”) and that when he phoned his father back “it was engaged each time”. Would it technically have been possible for Jeremy Bamber to dial out and call the police if his phone was still connected to his father’s line? And, if the telephone was, as Bamber said, engaged, who else did his father phone ?
According to a police statement, the British Telecom telephonist on duty that night said that when she was asked by the police to check the line, she could “tell that the receiver was off the hook… I could hear a dog barking.”Shortly before police entered the house, the telephonist was asked to check again. “The line was still open. The only thing I could hear was a very slight moving sound.”In order for this statement to be true, Nevill Bamber must have abruptly ended his call to his son, and called someone else, who was never identified and never came forward. If he simply dropped the receiver while talking to his son, Jeremy Bamber would not have been able to get a line and phone the police.
Perhaps this will help to salve the hurt :) In your suggestion that Nevill may have phoned someone else, you raise an interesting point. I think it's been fairly well established that calls in 1985 couldn't be traced so there would have been no need for anyone to come forward and admit to having received the call, IF, in fact they had ever heard a phone ringing OR heard it and chose to ignore it OR it stopped ringing before they got to it.
Just an aside, I really don't believe that Nevill, under those circumstances, would have taken the time to intellectualize the relationship between Jeremy and his sister. In any case what HE may have believed could have been TOTALLY different from what Jeremy FELT.
-
Adam nothing sinister in the phones June preferred the phone from the bedroom and that is why it was in the kitchen as that is where the phone was used the most.
-
Adam nothing sinister in the phones June preferred the phone from the bedroom and that is why it was in the kitchen as that is where the phone was used the most.
Ohhh. June did not like the bedroom phone being in the bedroom. She preferred it to be in the kitchen. Strange.
So why not put the kitchen phone upstairs. Or dump it ?
-
Adam I had never thought of that ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam nothing sinister in the phones June preferred the phone from the bedroom and that is why it was in the kitchen as that is where the phone was used the most.
Where did you read this please. Who did June tell ?
No one testified, saying this at trial.
-
When all phones are coming off one line,,it becomes,,as the housekeeper once remarked," musical phones ",,as in musical chairs,,they could land anywhere.It's NOT an issue !!
-
Adam I read about June and the phones in the same place you read your information ;D
-
Jeremy could not say Neville ended the conversation & put the phone down, as he knew he had left the phone off the hook.
The police finding the phone off the hook would then mean Neville phoned someone else. But no one would have come forward.
-
Hello lookout very well said the phones are not an issue only with Adam ;)
-
Jeremy could not say Neville ended the conversation & put the phone down, as he knew he had left the phone off the hook.
The police finding the phone off the hook would then mean Neville phoned someone else. But no one would have come forward.
How do you know whether the police left the phone off the hook,or not ? Afterall,,they used that same phone themselves. There's quite a lot that they did,,but Jeremy still got the blame. He was their patsy,you see,,an easy target.
-
When all phones are coming off one line,,it becomes,,as the housekeeper once remarked," musical phones ",,as in musical chairs,,they could land anywhere.It's NOT an issue !!
It was an issue. Discussed in court, meaning it was discussed by the jury.
-
Adam I read about June and the phones in the same place you read your information ;D
Disussion, yes, opinion, yes.
Making statements without providing a link upon request. Noooo.
-
How do you know whether the police left the phone off the hook,or not ? Afterall,,they used that same phone themselves. There's quite a lot that they did,,but Jeremy still got the blame. He was their patsy,you see,,an easy target.
That's it the police apparently used the phone. Why would they not put the phone back on the hook ?
-
It was an issue. Discussed in court, meaning it was discussed by the jury.
An unnecessary issue just to stretch the case ! The whole thing was a farce,besides being a tissue of lies.
-
That's it the police apparently used the phone. Why would they not put the phone back on the hook ?
I'm not sure if they left the phone off the hook or not? But it is a fact that they did use that phone to phone headquarters, thus altering the crime scene by that very act.
-
If the police can move a body around,,they can also leave a phone off the hook.
-
I'm not sure if they left the phone off the hook or not? But it is a fact that they did use that phone to phone headquarters, thus altering the crime scene by that very act.
Why would they not use their radios ?
And why did they need to use the phone. There were several police at the scene. Were they ordering a pizza ?
-
The constant use of rhetoric, either in statements or questions does nothing to enhance debate. NO ONE here knows why June didn't throw away a phone or prefer one over the other. NO ONE knows why the police didn't put the phone back on its' cradle.
-
There you go again with your ridiculous and distasteful one-liners,,unless you can copy and paste,,you're at a complete loss !
-
The constant use of rhetoric, either in statements or questions does nothing to enhance debate. NO ONE here knows why June didn't throw away a phone or prefer one over the other. NO ONE knows why the police didn't put the phone back on its' cradle.
No one knows why.
But courts & juries discuss facts.
Fact, the kitchen phoned worked but was not plugged in & found hidden underneath magazines.
Fact. The bedroom was found plugged into the kitchen phone socket. Off the hook with no blood attached.
All discussed in court.
-
There you go again with your ridiculous and distasteful one-liners,,unless you can copy and paste,,you're at a complete loss !
Don't talk to April like that.
-
No one knows why.
But courts & juries discuss facts.
Fact, the kitchen phoned worked but was not plugged in & found hidden underneath magazines.
Fact. The bedroom was found plugged into the kitchen phone socket. Off the hook with no blood attached.
Of COURSE!!! It's beyond intelligent reckoning to think that in a HUGELY muddled kitchen, ANY item would be placed in a position where it could immediately be seen.
To the best of my VERY limited technical knowledge, non working phones can be moved to another socket in which they will work.
Why WOULD a phone have blood on it if no blood had been shed?
-
Don't talk to April like that.
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
-
Of COURSE!!! It's beyond intelligent reckoning to think that in a HUGELY muddled kitchen, ANY item would be placed in a position where it could immediately be seen.
To the best of my VERY limited technical knowledge, non working phones can be moved to another socket in which they will work.
Why WOULD a phone have blood on it if no blood had been shed?
So Neville phoned Jeremy while fully fit. Then went upstairs to get his 5 shots. So why did he then go back downstairs. And why leave the phone off the hook, Jeremy claiming the call went abruptly dead.
Phones work in some sockets but not in others ? I do not think so.
-
So Neville phoned Jeremy while fully fit. Then went upstairs to get his 5 shots. So why did he then go back downstairs. And why leave the phone off the hook ?
Phones work in some sockets but not in others ? I do not think so.
My own feeling has always been that Sheila never rushed around like a demented dodo. I think she retreated further and further in to herself until "Sheila" ceased to exist and couldn't be "reached" verbally. Witnessing such behaviour would, I imagine, be chilling. It MAY have been around that point that Sheila went -MOVED- WITH gun? from where she'd been to go, WHERE? This may have been the point when the call was made and I think it can be accepted that her behaviour COULD have been described as having "gone crazy" but I don't, for a moment believe Nevill thought she'd use the gun. The chances are that the shooting may have already started by the time Nevill got upstairs and it may have been his intention to draw fire away from June. I can't get away from feeling that any marksman would have made a cleaner job of it AND that only ONE shot was deliberately placed and it was the one received by June and it MAY be that she uttered something which triggered a deeply seated painful and angry memory.
-
Disussion, yes, opinion, yes.
Making statements without providing a link upon request. Noooo.
You're the WORST offender for that!! Where is the link to the article you posted earlier? Just posting 'An interesting article' tells the reader nothing about where it came from or about who wrote it.
-
Don't talk to April like that.
You know full well who I meant.
-
You're the WORST offender for that!! Where is the link to the article you posted earlier? Just posting 'An interesting article' tells the reader nothing about where it came from or about who wrote it.
-
http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber/
-
http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber/
So what it boils down to is that he was jailed for evidence which was,,and still remains,inconclusive ! Therefore,,he has no right whatsoever to be where he is and it was his relatives who put him there------out of the way so that they could all get on with their lives.Sod Jeremy,,he was never part of the family anyway.
-
Imagine a judge in his summing up,saying " well it was either one or the other who did it ",,and seeing that Sheila could no longer answer,Jeremy was left with the short straw. This is what the case amounted to. He may as well have tossed a coin for all the time and effort it took. What a disgrace.
My God,,I hope Jeremy " has his day " after this lot.
What on earth was the case built on,,apart from lies and corroboration,,because it certainly wasn't with any forensic evidence !
-
I think I feel more bitter than the man himself who's been festering in prison for nigh on 30 years.
Bitter at the thought that there was no case to answer.Everything was fabricated so that the police could be proud,and give themselves a pat on the back for securing, albeit, a " false " conviction on the back of an unsolved murder previously. Just to keep themselves in a job,,and pension,of course.
-
http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber/
Thanks but who is 'Jimmy Shelly'?
-
Thanks but who is 'Jimmy Shelly'?
If it's the same guy,Caroline,,he writes for the Daily Mail----------------enough said,eh ?
-
they do sometimes have the odd good writtar usually a freelancer though.
-
That was actually a fantastic article and really sums up both sides well.
-
http://jimshelley.com/crime/jeremy-bamber/
Many thanks for the link, Adam. That has to be one of the best, most unbiased pieces I've read.
-
Many thanks for the link, Adam. That has to be one of the best, most unbiased pieces I've read.
yes me too.
Just a question - how much evidence did the police take from the house to test for whose blood was where ? did they take sheets and pillow cases from the beds? And samples of blood trails down the stairs etc? And wonder why if they could ID the blood on the silencer ( which from this report though seems inaccurate) why could they not ID the blood on the rifle.
if NB had of been shot in bed before he phoned you think he would have said something in the call?
-
yes me too.
Just a question - how much evidence did the police take from the house to test for whose blood was where ? did they take sheets and pillow cases from the beds? And samples of blood trails down the stairs etc? And wonder why if they could ID the blood on the silencer ( which from this report though seems inaccurate) why could they not ID the blood on the rifle.
if NB had of been shot in bed before he phoned you think he would have said something in the call?
Jansus, in the beginning, certain they were looking at 4 murders and a suicide, would they have thought it necessary to do ANY testing? Would they not have thought the tableau told its' own story? Maybe this is why they disposed of it so quickly.
I don't believe any shots had been fired when he made the call to Jeremy and I think he felt the situation was containable.
-
the article said he was shot in the bed - but I had not heard that was a definite fact ? And if they did not test all the bedding how did they know whos blood was where. The blood on the bed could have belonged to SC , after all it seems all the relatives were told she was found on the bed with one shot - and that is what JM was told by the police as well.
-
the article said he was shot in the bed - but I had not heard that was a definite fact ? And if they did not test all the bedding how did they know whos blood was where. The blood on the bed could have belonged to SC , after all it seems all the relatives were told she was found on the bed with one shot - and that is what JM was told by the police as well.
You raise some valid points, Jansus. The articles stated some "facts" of which I'd previously been unaware :D but unless they stated whose blood was found where, I would imagine that they would have accepted that the blood on the bed was "an intimate mix" of June's and Sheila's. :D
-
the article said he was shot in the bed - but I had not heard that was a definite fact ? And if they did not test all the bedding how did they know whos blood was where. The blood on the bed could have belonged to SC , after all it seems all the relatives were told she was found on the bed with one shot - and that is what JM was told by the police as well.
There are a few inaccuracies in the article, but overall very balanced. Reading it, it becomes so glaringly obvious that Jeremy´s sentence is based on WAY too flimsy "evidence".
-
There are a few inaccuracies in the article, but overall very balanced. Reading it, it becomes so glaringly obvious that Jeremy´s sentence is based on WAY too flimsy "evidence".
Flimsy to the point where there WAS no real evidence.
-
In fact,according to PC Collins and Delgado when querying the position of Sheilas' body,also mentioned that they had no recollection of a gun being on the body ? That the bible was near to Sheilas' waist,on the floor,,when it was originally reported to have been on her chest.
Someone's been lying. S.Jones had bitten off more than he could chew with this case for the simple reason that every step of the way he was gleaning information from JM and the relatives,instead of doing the right and proper thing. To share confidential information with the relatives,is/was a breach for starters.
I wonder if he was one of the officers who was taken to task concerning the case. It would certainly have been interesting to find out. There were 3 senior officers who were hauled over the coals.
-
In fact,according to PC Collins and Delgado when querying the position of Sheilas' body,also mentioned that they had no recollection of a gun being on the body ? That the bible was near to Sheilas' waist,on the floor,,when it was originally reported to have been on her chest.
Someone's been lying. S.Jones had bitten off more than he could chew with this case for the simple reason that every step of the way he was gleaning information from JM and the relatives,instead of doing the right and proper thing. To share confidential information with the relatives,is/was a breach for starters.
I wonder if he was one of the officers who was taken to task concerning the case. It would certainly have been interesting to find out. There were 3 senior officers who were hauled over the coals.
If EP have photographs that show Sheil's body in a completely different position then logically that represents new evidence that will push through Bamber's appeal. That is of course if the CCRC don't rule that the police statements represent stronger evidence than any photographic evidence. AS THEY DID BEFORE.
-
Why would they not use their radios ?
And why did they need to use the phone. There were several police at the scene. Were they ordering a pizza ?
security. radio could in the 1980s be easily listened into using an ordinary fm radio I used to do it regularly (yes its illegal but the airwaves are open to all when not encripted its called scanning) the police were well aware of this and you would often hear "can you contact on landline please"
wilf
-
security. radio could in the 1980s be easily listened into using an ordinary fm radio I used to do it regularly (yes its illegal but the airwaves are open to all when not encripted its called scanning) the police were well aware of this and you would often hear "can you contact on landline please"
wilf
Actually you just bought back some memories for me - we used to listen to the police on our radio at home . My dad was a amateur radio buff as well.
We had great amusement one night when the police were chasing a loose pig.
Wonder if there were people listening in on the night?
-
Why would they not use their radios ?
And why did they need to use the phone. There were several police at the scene. Were they ordering a pizza ?
Don't ask me why they used the phone. But they did. Probably ran out of donuts.
-
You're the WORST offender for that!! Where is the link to the article you posted earlier? Just posting 'An interesting article' tells the reader nothing about where it came from or about who wrote it.
I am always posting links, videos or sources.
The reason I did not post the link was because most of it is already known. The thread is about Jeremys phone call. Whether it was planned or improvised due to the kitchen fight.
What do you think ?
-
Jeremy certainly entered Neville & Junes bedroom fully or virtually fully loaded.
Neville being shot five times before reaching the kitchen. June being shot enough times to prevent her leaving the bedroom.
That is why my scenario has the twins being shot last. Jeremy going upstairs, shooting the twins, then going back downstairs to reload increases the chance of being heard. The twins posed least risk if they woke.
There is a possibility Jeremy fired one bullet each into the twins before going across the hall to the the main bedroom. After realising how weak the rifle was, he returned to the twins again at the end.
-
Jeremy certainly entered Neville & Junes bedroom fully or virtually fully loaded.
Neville being shot five times before reaching the kitchen. June being shot enough times to prevent her leaving the bedroom.
That is why my scenario has the twins being shot last. Jeremy going upstairs, shooting the twins, then going back downstairs to reload increases the chance of being heard. The twins posed least risk if they woke.
There is a possibility Jeremy fired one bullet each into the twins before going across the hall the the main bedroom. After realising how weak the rifle was, he returned to the twins again at the end.
How weak the rifle was?????
Do you mean that after a years planning and using the rifle himself he chose the wrong weapon????
So where was Sheila whilst this was going on as it does not look like her bed had been slept in?
-
It was the right weapon.
Holding ten bullets & a silencer could be attached.
If Jeremy re shot the twins again at the end, or shot them 8 times at the end, it would have been to make it look like a frenzid attack. It is doubtful a 6 year old would survive one bullet. But Jeremy also had to make sure.
There had been a struggle downstairs & both Sheila & June were going to be found out of bed.
Perhaps Sheila slept on top of the bed. It was August. Or Jeremy made it afterwards to suggest Sheila had not slept. As you said he had been planning the massacre for months.
-
It was the right weapon.
Holding ten bullets & a silencer could be attached.
If Jeremy re shot the twins again at the end, or shot them 8 times at the end, it would have been yo make it look like a frenzid attack. It is doubtful a 6 year old would survive one bullet. But Jeremy also had to make sure.
There had been a struggle downstairs & both Sheila & June were going to be found out of bed.
I think you're playing sick games if you're suggesting Jeremy shot experimentally at each of the twins, left them, still alive, but wounded and in pain, and went back to kill them later.
-
I think you're playing sick games if you're suggesting Jeremy shot experimentally at each of the twins, left them, still alive, but wounded and in pain, and went back to kill them later.
My scenario has them being shot last. Based partly on the evidence that Jeremy had between 5 - 10 bullets when entering the main bedroom.
But there is a slim chance they were shot first. Either 8 times or intially once each before Jeremy returned to them at the end. I have already said why he may have returned. The first bullet would have killed a 6 year old & it was confirmed they did not suffer.
-
My scenario has them being shot last. Based partly on the evidence that Jeremy had between 5 - 10 bullets when entering the main bedroom.
But there is a slim chance they were shot first. Either 8 times or intially once each before Jeremy returned to them at the end. I have already said why he may have returned. The first bullet would have killed a 6 year old & it was confirmed they did not suffer.
or to keep it brief - you have not got a clue ::)
-
I know that Sheila or Jeremy entered the main bedroom fully or virtually fully loaded.
Neville not using his one arm to restrain Sheila, if it was her.
-
Those children would have been shot first,as in Sheilas' mind,,they would have to have been protected from seeing the rest of the bloodshed that followed. Sheila knew that all the family would have to go,for obvious reasons,that if one was left,then her cover would have been blown,,she may have been sick,but she wasn't stupid.
I've often wondered that when Neville rang Jeremy,that Neville had purposely delayed phoning in case Jeremy too became a target,,as could easily have happened.
-
lookout I agree the little boys would have been shot first and in Sheila's mind maybe that is all she thought she had to do till Ralph intervened then she knew what she had to do so so sad :'(
-
Those children would have been shot first,as in Sheilas' mind,,they would have to have been protected from seeing the rest of the bloodshed that followed. Sheila knew that all the family would have to go,for obvious reasons,that if one was left,then her cover would have been blown,,she may have been sick,but she wasn't stupid.
I've often wondered that when Neville rang Jeremy,that Neville had purposely delayed phoning in case Jeremy too became a target,,as could easily have happened.
Two good points.
Sheila would have wanted her whole family gone. But knew her brother, who did not like her or understand her illness, who she did not like & who was present during the alledged fostering conversation was not at WHF ?
With Neville & four of his immediate family in danger, why an earth also put his only son in danger ?
-
Neville, June, Daniel & Nicholas getting shot & killed in bed while sleeping. And Sheila shot & killed in the twins bedroom. All with only 10 bullets being used, only one for Sheila. All possible.
Someone else finding the bodies, Jeremy did not have a key & probably knew what his job on the farm was on that day. So had no reason to look for anyone.
That is a much more believable murder/suicide crime scene. This is what Jeremy would have attempted.
However the kitchen fight, two rifle reloads & two phone call suggestions makes murder/suicide a lot less likely. Which makes me believe the phone call decision was made on the night to justify Nevilles kitchen presence.
-
Adam would say struggle in the kitchen and I suspect two rifles were used.
-
Two good points.
Sheila would have wanted her whole family gone. But knew her brother, who did not like her or understand her illness, who she did not like & who was present during the alledged fostering conversation was not at WHF ?
With Neville & four of his immediate family in danger, why an earth also put his only son in danger ?
Adam,,show me a young man of 24 who's interested in his sister. Jeremy was enjoying working hard and also playing hard,so his interests,like any other young 24 year old,were taken up with going out and partying,,but at the same time,he saw Sheila when he was able and hadn't cast her aside.Both of them became closer as they got older.
Surely,Jeremys' alleged remarks about his family would have proved his lack of interest with his involvement in age and illness,so therefore,he wouldn't have studied any existing illnesses in any of them. ( This remark is on the back of what you posted about Jeremy knowing about the fostering situation .)
Pam knew about the fostering arrangements,who in turn would have told RWB,who had the brass-neck to deny that it was ever mentioned !
Both Sheila and Jeremy weren't strangers to being looked after by people other than their parents,while growing up.There were a number of different au-pairs in situ on account of Junes inability at times,,so for others to take turns in looking after the twins,wasn't a big deal,,although it was twisted into a criminal act when Jeremy happened to mention it.
Everything that man said was twisted beyond recognition.
-
Adam would say struggle in the kitchen and I suspect two rifles were used.
I agree,Susan,, including a shotgun too. I rather feel that poor June tried her best too,but came off the worst.
-
Neville, June, Daniel & Nicholas getting shot & killed in bed while sleeping. And Sheila shot & killed in the twins bedroom. All with only 10 bullets being used, only one for Sheila. All possible.
Someone else finding the bodies, Jeremy did not have a key & probably knew what his job on the farm was on that day. So had no reason to look for anyone.
That is a much more believable murder/suicide crime scene. This is what Jeremy would have attempted.
However the kitchen fight, two rifle reloads & two phone call suggestions makes murder/suicide a lot less likely. Which makes me believe the phone call decision was made on the night to justify Nevilles kitchen presence.
-
For this to work it would also help if Jeremy did not ring Julie at 3am. Something her flatmates would also witness.
-
lookout Sheila had the shotgun to start with and I suspect Ralph took it from her. Poor June was taken by surprise and had no chance what a sad sad state of affairs. I think of Chris Foster who appeared to be fine next thing everyone and animal he loved were shot then himself and people say Sheila would not be capable of killing her family and she showed no signs that this could happen need I say more :(
-
Exactly,Susan. The girls' mind was so disturbed,,though sadly,the jury weren't told the extent of her illness,,nor what Doctor Ferguson had confirmed.Instead,,the judge who thought he knew everything,poo-pooed the idea of even mentioning how ill the girl was,latterly.
I wonder if Justice Drake ever dealt with a girl/woman in later cases who'd murdered her children ??
-
Exactly,Susan. The girls' mind was so disturbed,,though sadly,the jury weren't told the extent of her illness,,nor what Doctor Ferguson had confirmed.Instead,,the judge who thought he knew everything,poo-pooed the idea of even mentioning how ill the girl was,latterly.
I wonder if Justice Drake ever dealt with a girl/woman in later cases who'd murdered her children ??
It seems like you have the court transcript as you know a lot about what the jury were or were not told.
Everyone would love it if it were posted on here.
Thank you.
-
How do you know Sheila had to reload? Is it not possible that TWO weapons were used? After all,Fletcher could not positively match ten of the bullets to the Anschutz.
-
You'd do as well to start reading about the case,instead of coming out with inane comments.
What I've posted,is common knowledge from when the forum first began. Why not take those blinkers off for just a while and read Bambergates' posts,,where at least the man has been doing his own investigations,physically,then compiling notes including his own thoughts on the case.
As April mentioned earlier about the " herd mentality ",,well I'm afraid,,you're one of the sheep who find it easier to disagree without knowing the full history of something,,whatever it might be.
The same with the prosecution at Jeremys' trial.Because of all the twists and turns of everyone concerned who were putting in their sixpenn'orth,,there was no proof whatsoever in half of what Jeremy was accused of.
They picked holes in his " large breakfast "-------------which was a lie. What did that have to do with anything ? He could have been a diabetic for all anyone knew,and needed to boost his blood sugar. But we know he wasn't/isn't a diabetic,,and we also know that it was no hearty breakfast.
Apparently,,it was reported that Jeremy had appeared calm at one point outside WHF. That was BEFORE he knew what had happened,,and not after. But that was to add to the " psychopathic mind " of the" killer",,which was to be mentioned at a later date.
In actual fact,,on being told what had happened,he cried uncontrollably,but that was conveniently omitted,,as they were talking about a " killer " here,,and killers don't fall in a heap,crying.
Speaking of crying,,he was even criticised at the funerals,for " pretending " to cry,,so even his sorrow and mourning was ripped to shreds.
Jeremys' every move was being scrutinised.
Then horror of horrors,,RWB nearly broke his neck,hurtling to the police station because Jeremys' friend was homosexual. A dreadful " crime " back in the early 80's.That was as well as mud on the bicycle,,the rusty file,,scouring the nearby fields for fresh wheel marks,,blood on a cobweb.
Adam,,this is only part of their nit-picking in order to secure his conviction after the abysmal investigation into Diane Jones's murder,previously.Heads were already rolling after that,at EP.
Don't you see what I'm getting at ? A witchhunt,pure and simple to justify EP's " marvellous deductions ".
Now if you're as clever as you think you are,,please,please produce the forensic evidence that got him convicted.
-
You'd do as well to start reading about the case,instead of coming out with inane comments.
What I've posted,is common knowledge from when the forum first began. Why not take those blinkers off for just a while and read Bambergates' posts,,where at least the man has been doing his own investigations,physically,then compiling notes including his own thoughts on the case.
As April mentioned earlier about the " herd mentality ",,well I'm afraid,,you're one of the sheep who find it easier to disagree without knowing the full history of something,,whatever it might be.
The same with the prosecution at Jeremys' trial.Because of all the twists and turns of everyone concerned who were putting in their sixpenn'orth,,there was no proof whatsoever in half of what Jeremy was accused of.
They picked holes in his " large breakfast "-------------which was a lie. What did that have to do with anything ? He could have been a diabetic for all anyone knew,and needed to boost his blood sugar. But we know he wasn't/isn't a diabetic,,and we also know that it was no hearty breakfast.
Apparently,,it was reported that Jeremy had appeared calm at one point outside WHF. That was BEFORE he knew what had happened,,and not after. But that was to add to the " psychopathic mind " of the" killer",,which was to be mentioned at a later date.
In actual fact,,on being told what had happened,he cried uncontrollably,but that was conveniently omitted,,as they were talking about a " killer " here,,and killers don't fall in a heap,crying.
Speaking of crying,,he was even criticised at the funerals,for " pretending " to cry,,so even his sorrow and mourning was ripped to shreds.
Jeremys' every move was being scrutinised.
Then horror of horrors,,RWB nearly broke his neck,hurtling to the police station because Jeremys' friend was homosexual. A dreadful " crime " back in the early 80's.That was as well as mud on the bicycle,,the rusty file,,scouring the nearby fields for fresh wheel marks,,blood on a cobweb.
Adam,,this is only part of their nit-picking in order to secure his conviction after the abysmal investigation into Diane Jones's murder,previously.Heads were already rolling after that,at EP.
Don't you see what I'm getting at ? A witchhunt,pure and simple to justify EP's " marvellous deductions ".
Now if you're as clever as you think you are,,please,please produce the forensic evidence that got him convicted.
You come out with inane comments.
Common knowledge since the forum began ? You mean other people on the forum said it ?
-
You'd do as well to start reading about the case,instead of coming out with inane comments.
What I've posted,is common knowledge from when the forum first began. Why not take those blinkers off for just a while and read Bambergates' posts,,where at least the man has been doing his own investigations,physically,then compiling notes including his own thoughts on the case.
As April mentioned earlier about the " herd mentality ",,well I'm afraid,,you're one of the sheep who find it easier to disagree without knowing the full history of something,,whatever it might be.
The same with the prosecution at Jeremys' trial.Because of all the twists and turns of everyone concerned who were putting in their sixpenn'orth,,there was no proof whatsoever in half of what Jeremy was accused of.
They picked holes in his " large breakfast "-------------which was a lie. What did that have to do with anything ? He could have been a diabetic for all anyone knew,and needed to boost his blood sugar. But we know he wasn't/isn't a diabetic,,and we also know that it was no hearty breakfast.
Apparently,,it was reported that Jeremy had appeared calm at one point outside WHF. That was BEFORE he knew what had happened,,and not after. But that was to add to the " psychopathic mind " of the" killer",,which was to be mentioned at a later date.
In actual fact,,on being told what had happened,he cried uncontrollably,but that was conveniently omitted,,as they were talking about a " killer " here,,and killers don't fall in a heap,crying.
Speaking of crying,,he was even criticised at the funerals,for " pretending " to cry,,so even his sorrow and mourning was ripped to shreds.
Jeremys' every move was being scrutinised.
Then horror of horrors,,RWB nearly broke his neck,hurtling to the police station because Jeremys' friend was homosexual. A dreadful " crime " back in the early 80's.That was as well as mud on the bicycle,,the rusty file,,scouring the nearby fields for fresh wheel marks,,blood on a cobweb.
Adam,,this is only part of their nit-picking in order to secure his conviction after the abysmal investigation into Diane Jones's murder,previously.Heads were already rolling after that,at EP.
Don't you see what I'm getting at ? A witchhunt,pure and simple to justify EP's " marvellous deductions ".
Now if you're as clever as you think you are,,please,please produce the forensic evidence that got him convicted.
Jeremys breakfast was discussed at court.
You must have the court transcripts. Or did someone else say it on here ?
-
You'd do as well to start reading about the case,instead of coming out with inane comments.
What I've posted,is common knowledge from when the forum first began. Why not take those blinkers off for just a while and read Bambergates' posts,,where at least the man has been doing his own investigations,physically,then compiling notes including his own thoughts on the case.
As April mentioned earlier about the " herd mentality ",,well I'm afraid,,you're one of the sheep who find it easier to disagree without knowing the full history of something,,whatever it might be.
The same with the prosecution at Jeremys' trial.Because of all the twists and turns of everyone concerned who were putting in their sixpenn'orth,,there was no proof whatsoever in half of what Jeremy was accused of.
They picked holes in his " large breakfast "-------------which was a lie. What did that have to do with anything ? He could have been a diabetic for all anyone knew,and needed to boost his blood sugar. But we know he wasn't/isn't a diabetic,,and we also know that it was no hearty breakfast.
Apparently,,it was reported that Jeremy had appeared calm at one point outside WHF. That was BEFORE he knew what had happened,,and not after. But that was to add to the " psychopathic mind " of the" killer",,which was to be mentioned at a later date.
In actual fact,,on being told what had happened,he cried uncontrollably,but that was conveniently omitted,,as they were talking about a " killer " here,,and killers don't fall in a heap,crying.
Speaking of crying,,he was even criticised at the funerals,for " pretending " to cry,,so even his sorrow and mourning was ripped to shreds.
Jeremys' every move was being scrutinised.
Then horror of horrors,,RWB nearly broke his neck,hurtling to the police station because Jeremys' friend was homosexual. A dreadful " crime " back in the early 80's.That was as well as mud on the bicycle,,the rusty file,,scouring the nearby fields for fresh wheel marks,,blood on a cobweb.
Adam,,this is only part of their nit-picking in order to secure his conviction after the abysmal investigation into Diane Jones's murder,previously.Heads were already rolling after that,at EP.
Don't you see what I'm getting at ? A witchhunt,pure and simple to justify EP's " marvellous deductions ".
Now if you're as clever as you think you are,,please,please produce the forensic evidence that got him convicted.
The police did say Jeremy seemed very calm.
After finding out he went into a field to be sick. But said himself nothing came up.
His funeral crying was more of groan. Looking down & covering his face with his hand.
-
You'd do as well to start reading about the case,instead of coming out with inane comments.
What I've posted,is common knowledge from when the forum first began. Why not take those blinkers off for just a while and read Bambergates' posts,,where at least the man has been doing his own investigations,physically,then compiling notes including his own thoughts on the case.
As April mentioned earlier about the " herd mentality ",,well I'm afraid,,you're one of the sheep who find it easier to disagree without knowing the full history of something,,whatever it might be.
The same with the prosecution at Jeremys' trial.Because of all the twists and turns of everyone concerned who were putting in their sixpenn'orth,,there was no proof whatsoever in half of what Jeremy was accused of.
They picked holes in his " large breakfast "-------------which was a lie. What did that have to do with anything ? He could have been a diabetic for all anyone knew,and needed to boost his blood sugar. But we know he wasn't/isn't a diabetic,,and we also know that it was no hearty breakfast.
Apparently,,it was reported that Jeremy had appeared calm at one point outside WHF. That was BEFORE he knew what had happened,,and not after. But that was to add to the " psychopathic mind " of the" killer",,which was to be mentioned at a later date.
In actual fact,,on being told what had happened,he cried uncontrollably,but that was conveniently omitted,,as they were talking about a " killer " here,,and killers don't fall in a heap,crying.
Speaking of crying,,he was even criticised at the funerals,for " pretending " to cry,,so even his sorrow and mourning was ripped to shreds.
Jeremys' every move was being scrutinised.
Then horror of horrors,,RWB nearly broke his neck,hurtling to the police station because Jeremys' friend was homosexual. A dreadful " crime " back in the early 80's.That was as well as mud on the bicycle,,the rusty file,,scouring the nearby fields for fresh wheel marks,,blood on a cobweb.
Adam,,this is only part of their nit-picking in order to secure his conviction after the abysmal investigation into Diane Jones's murder,previously.Heads were already rolling after that,at EP.
Don't you see what I'm getting at ? A witchhunt,pure and simple to justify EP's " marvellous deductions ".
Now if you're as clever as you think you are,,please,please produce the forensic evidence that got him convicted.
There is a mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence which has convicted Jeremy & failed to get him released. Already posted.
-
I have come to the conclusion that you're either effing stupid altogether,,or just an aggravating troll who spends his time picking holes in posts all over the internet. You're unbelievably thick as well !
-
The police did say Jeremy seemed very calm.
After finding out he went into a field to be sick. But said himself nothing came up.
His funeral crying was more of groan. Looking down & covering his face with his hand.
Please stop being facetious. There probably WAS a moment when Jeremy "seemed very calm". A moment out of MANY others.
If his last meal had been around 9 pm the previous evening, it would have been digested and therefore FAR more likely to have exited South as opposed to North.
I wasn't aware that there was a "set piece" for the display of grief at a funeral. I recall that at the funeral of his beloved son, my partner was completely dry eyed.
-
Jeremy was calm to the point of waiting for news from within the farmhouse. It was when he was told what had happened, that his calmness reverted to him crying uncontrollably,,which is the most normal function of anyone who is given this kind of news.
-
I have come to the conclusion that you're either effing stupid altogether,,or just an aggravating troll who spends his time picking holes in posts all over the internet. You're unbelievably thick as well !
You stupid, thick, ignorent poster.
I do not post on any other forums. I do believe Jeremy is guilty. If I win the argument, deal with it.
-
For this to work it would also help if Jeremy did not ring Julie at 3am. Something her flatmates would also witness.
Why did they change the timing of the phone call several times in their different statements?
-
You stupid, thick, ignorent poster.
I do not post on any other forums. I do believe Jeremy is guilty. If I win the argument, deal with it.
My oh my,,you don't like the truth either,do you ?
-
Jeremy was calm to the point of waiting for news from within the farmhouse. It was when he was told what had happened, that his calmness reverted to him crying uncontrollably,,which is the most normal function of anyone who is given this kind of news.
It did not say he cried much in Wilkes book. He just kept saying the same thing. Although he was very percific about what to do with the dog, - kill it.
Soon afterwards he annonced he was starving & cooked a nice brekkie. Then said to the police 'right, lets get on with it, I am ready to start when you are'.
-
You stupid, thick, ignorent poster.
I do not post on any other forums. I do believe Jeremy is guilty. If I win the argument, deal with it.
It's you who can't deal with the fact that there's always two sides to a coin,,not me. Your attitude stinks !
-
Adam is on the forum just to blacken Jeremy Bamber as much as possible he cares not if what he posts is true it suits his game and he is totally oblivious to other posters point of views he is not interested even if he is shown documented evidence it goes right over his head as it is not want he wants to hear. He is not even clever as he repeats the same things verbatim style.
-
It did not say he cried much in Wilkes book. He just kept saying the same thing. Although he was very percific about what to do with the dog, - kill it.
Soon afterwards he annonced he was starving & cooked a nice brekkie. Then said to the police 'right, lets get on with it, I am ready to start when you are'.
So, in Wilkes book "it did not say he cried much". What do you think that proves, IF anything?
Does ANY author describe to us, in the terms YOU choose, exactly WHAT quality of breakfast it was that Jeremy cooked.
I imagine that the police, NOT all noted for their empathy, would have been overjoyed by his matter of fact attitude.
-
Adam it is obvious when you start insulting and being abusive to other posters you are loosing the argument try to act with a little more decorum and don't show your hand so much ;D
-
It did not say he cried much in Wilkes book. He just kept saying the same thing. Although he was very percific about what to do with the dog, - kill it.
Soon afterwards he annonced he was starving & cooked a nice brekkie. Then said to the police 'right, lets get on with it, I am ready to start when you are'.
The word is SPECIFIC by the way ! Two can play at picking holes,,but I'm afraid you've picked the wrong person with which to do your nit-picking with.
-
Adam did you see Wills and Harry cry at their dear Mothers funeral or the evening before when they were looking at the floral tributes and chatting to the crowds and actually smiling. People with breeding don't show their emotions in public i.e. sorrow anger peevishness ;D
-
Doubtless Jeremy would have had the bacon since the previous weekend which he made a sandwich of that morning. See how the police exaggerate ? Jeremy had most,if not all his meals at the farmhouse,particularly during harvest-time when he was there for the majority of the time.Like all young,single men,,his fridge would have had more beers in it than food.
-
The word is SPECIFIC by the way ! Two can play at picking holes,,but I'm afraid you've picked the wrong person with which to do your nit-picking with.
May I add to that by saying that the word is "allege" NOT alledge.
-
May I add to that by saying that the word is "allege" NOT alledge.
Serpently,April. ;D ;D He who thinks he knows everything and knows nothing.
-
Adam I have not yet seen you win an argument but keep trying you may get there but not against lookout you wont concede defeat whilst you are still standing ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You stupid, thick, ignorent poster.
I do not post on any other forums. I do believe Jeremy is guilty. If I win the argument, deal with it.
Adam, that is QUITE enough. It's FINE that you believe Jeremy is guilty. That's NOT what anyone has a problem with. The problem is a situation which arises from cause and effect. Your facetiousness and sarcasm, amongst other things, being the CAUSE of the EFFECT we experience. Now, it seems you've added RUDENESS to the mix
You complain that we focus on you but I suspect that you've contrived, through your attitude to the case, to MAKE yourself the focus. I also suspect it's something you enjoy doing along with point scoring and your need to be SEEN to win an argument.
-
I am wondering if "Adam" was at the funeral? Surely no-one would believe that a couple of photos would show everything that would happened that day? or even over those few days. Or newspaper reports either?
If you read some of the WS rather than books it would appear he was very up and down over that period of time .
As has been said before there is no set script for grief.
-
Adam, that is QUITE enough. It's FINE that you believe Jeremy is guilty. That's NOT what anyone has a problem with. The problem is a situation which arises from cause and effect. Your facetiousness and sarcasm, amongst other things, being the CAUSE of the EFFECT we experience. Now, it seems you've added RUDENESS to the mix
You complain that we focus on you but I suspect that you've contrived, through your attitude to the case, to MAKE yourself the focus. I also suspect it's something you enjoy doing along with point scoring and your need to be SEEN to win an argument.
-
I have come to the conclusion that you're either effing stupid altogether,,or just an aggravating troll who spends his time picking holes in posts all over the internet. You're unbelievably thick as well !
-
Who called who thick first ?
Lookout.
Unbelievably thick as well. Also called me a troll.
I was very hurt !
-
I am wondering if "Adam" was at the funeral? Surely no-one would believe that a couple of photos would show everything that would happened that day? or even over those few days. Or newspaper reports either?
If you read some of the WS rather than books it would appear he was very up and down over that period of time .
As has been said before there is no set script for grief.
Err. The funeral was also filmed.
Lookout claimed Jeremy was blubbing like a baby on the massacre night. Wilkes's book says otherwise.
-
Err. The funeral was also filmed.
Lookout claimed Jeremy was blubbing like a baby on the night. Wilkes's book says otherwise.
Have you watched the whole film of the funeral?
Yes the information that lookout refers to is from a written statement from a police officer saying he was crying and distressed when he was told that his family were all dead.
-
Have you watched the whole film of the funeral?
Yes the information that lookout refers to is from a written statement from a police officer saying he was crying and distressed when he was told that his family were all dead.
Jeremy would have cried a bit. Didn't he also ask for some whisky in his tea ?
He stop crying after being asked about the dog. There was no way Crispy was going to mess up his stero equipment. 'Put it down, get rid of it. I hate the thing'.
He had also made a remarkable recovery by the time he got back to his cottage. Driving back himself if I remember rightly. Annoncing he was starving & cooking a nice brekkie.
-
Have you watched the whole film of the funeral?
Yes the information that lookout refers to is from a written statement from a police officer saying he was crying and distressed when he was told that his family were all dead.
I have seen bits of the funeral on video.
If you have a link to the whole funeral video, that would be good.
-
Jeremy would have cried a bit. Didn't he also ask for some whisky in his tea ?
He stop crying after being asked about the dog. There was no way Crispy was going to mess up his stero equipment.
He had also made a remarkable recovery by the time he got back to his cottage. Driving back himself if I remember rightly.
Adam - do you know I think I agree with you. You have changed my mind . Never trust people who don't like dogs . They are all wicked and quite capable of murder . As a dog lover - that is my mantra in life.
Did you watch the whole film of the funeral? Just interested ?
-
Who called who thick first ?
Lookout.
Unbelievably thick as well. Also called me a troll.
I was very hurt !
Adam, if you understand what it's like to feel hurt, you'll know how some of us have felt when you've acted similar to a bull in a china shop when it comes to our sensitivities. You are entitled to whatever view you wish to hold, but it's possible to do it without the addition of facetiousness and sarcasm, both of which are guaranteed to get under peoples' skins.
If this was just a problem I experienced with you, I could brush it off as personal, but I can't name one person here who you haven't at least rubbed up the wrong way, or offended by your tone. Sandwiches and hot beverages do little to further either your cause or your popularity.
-
his word of the day springs to mind "Did ums" :)
I think he is what is known as a "fisherman" throw out the line and then reel in.
The day he apologises we will put the flags out.
But as I said before if JB is proved innocent - I am willing to put a monetary bet on that he will not apologise and we will not see him for dust. I will donate the money to a charity of his choice.
-
Err. The funeral was also filmed.
Lookout claimed Jeremy was blubbing like a baby on the massacre night. Wilkes's book says otherwise.
Jeremy would have cried a bit. Didn't he also ask for some whisky in his tea ?
He stop crying after being asked about the dog. There was no way Crispy was going to mess up his stero equipment. 'Put it down, get rid of it. I hate the thing'.
He had also made a remarkable recovery by the time he got back to his cottage. Driving back himself if I remember rightly. Annoncing he was starving & cooking a nice brekkie.
Just how trivial can you get? You now appear to be trying to split hairs with Lookout over how man tears Jeremy did or didn't shed.
-
Adam would you like a dog messing up your equipment ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just how trivial can you get? You now appear to be trying to split hairs with Lookout over how man tears Jeremy did or didn't shed.
It is not trivial. Jeremys actions made some police suspicious straight away.
-
Adam would you like a dog messing up your equipment ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan you willing to put up a bet as well? Actually thinking about it - it would be nice to a charity specifically involved in mental health problems for young women what do you think?
If JB gets released and Adam posts a full written apology for all his posts we will donate to charity.
-
It is not trivial. Jeremys actions made some police suspicious straight away.
So how do you intend to work out how many tears he shed? What may seem like copious amounts to one person may seem minimal to another dependent on their life experiences and their age and sex.
-
jansus count me in ;D ;D ;D ;D if Jeremy gets released we will not see Adam for dust ;D
-
Jeremy would have cried a bit. Didn't he also ask for some whisky in his tea ?
He stop crying after being asked about the dog. There was no way Crispy was going to mess up his stero equipment. 'Put it down, get rid of it. I hate the thing'.
He had also made a remarkable recovery by the time he got back to his cottage. Driving back himself if I remember rightly. Annoncing he was starving & cooking a nice brekkie.
Considering that Jeremy didn't like the dog,,why didn't he shoot it ? After all,if he's supposed to have shot all his family,,what else was there to lose in shooting the dog as well ?
Jeremy didn't ask for whisky.He was offered it from the PC's hip-flask. Neither did he enjoy a " slap-up " breakfast,as all that there was in the fridge,were two rashers of bacon,,which were probably curled up at the edges.
-
Considering that Jeremy didn't like the dog,,why didn't he shoot it ? After all,if he's supposed to have shot all his family,,what else was there to lose in shooting the dog as well ?
Jeremy didn't ask for whisky.He was offered it from the PC's hip-flask. Neither did he enjoy a " slap-up " breakfast,as all that there was in the fridge,were two rashers of bacon,,which were probably curled up at the edges.
The dog was not important to Jeremy in his mission. Unless it was messing up his stero equipment. A moving dog would be hard to shoot anyway.
Where did you read it was two rashers of bacon ?
-
The dog was not important to Jeremy in his mission. Unless it was messing up his stero equipment. A moving dog would be hard to shoot anyway.
Where did you read it was two rashers of bacon ?
Where did you read that there was enough food to constitute a "Nice/hearty" breakfast?
-
The dog was not important to Jeremy in his mission. Unless it was messing up his stero equipment. A moving dog would be hard to shoot anyway.
Where did you read it was two rashers of bacon ?
I read about the bacon in a link that spoke the truth. Young men living the life of a bachelor,usually have empty fridges,,as they go elsewhere to eat.As in Jeremys' case,it was either the farmhouse or a restaurant,or even the local pub if it served food.
I wish you had an insight to life,instead of living a sheltered existance. Then you'd learn not to ask so many questions and use your own common sense.
-
I read about the bacon in a link that spoke the truth. Young men living the life of a bachelor,usually have empty fridges,,as they go elsewhere to eat.As in Jeremys' case,it was either the farmhouse or a restaurant,or even the local pub if it served food.
I wish you had an insight to life,instead of living a sheltered existance. Then you'd learn not to ask so many questions and use your own common sense.
A link that spoke the truth ????
I do not lead a sheltered existance. Do not make things up.
-
A link that spoke the truth ????
I do not lead a sheltered existance. Do not make things up.
"Do not make things up ?" That's rich coming from you !! Even if you don't lead a sheltered life,,you're not very high-up in the world when it comes to life as we all know it. Then again,it comes with experience,,so you've got a long way to go yet !
-
A link that spoke the truth ????
I do not lead a sheltered existance. Do not make things up.
In which case you can undoubtedly tell me from where you received the information that there was enough food in the house AND which items, could be combined to create a "nice/hearty" breakfast.
-
"Do not make things up ?" That's rich coming from you !! Even if you don't lead a sheltered life,,you're not very high-up in the world when it comes to life as we all know it. Then again,it comes with experience,,so you've got a long way to go yet !
I do not need to make things up. I have read a book and lots of information
Jeremy has spent 29 years in prison. Correctly in my view.
So I am not high in the world - making things up.
-
I do not need to make things up. I have read a book and lots of information
Jeremy has spent 29 years in prison. Correctly in my view.
So I am not high in the world - making things up.
Reading "A book and lots of information" doth not a full story make.
-
In which case you can undoubtedly tell me from where you received the information that there was enough food in the house AND which items, could be combined to create a "nice/hearty" breakfast.
Jeremy annonced he was starving after driving back to the cottage.
Jeremy cooked fried bacon, toast & coffee. Coffee was also made for the police who watched Jeremy happily eat.
'Right' said Jeremy, pushing away his empty plate and wiping crumbs from his face. 'Lets get on with it. I'm ready to start when you are'.
-
Jeremy annonced he was starving after driving back to the cottage.
Jeremy cooked fried bacon, toast & coffee. Coffee was also made for the police who watched Jeremy happily eat.
'Right' said Jeremy, pushing away his empty plate and wiping crumbs from his face. 'Lets get on with it. I'm ready to start when you are'.
Fried bacon,toast and coffee isn't my idea of a hearty breakfast,,though it might be yours as well as what the police thought of as hearty. I bet their ideas of a hearty breakfast is different from a bit of bacon and toast too. It's called elaborating,,something that the police are reknowned for.
Yes,,Jeremy was eager to get cracking,,as I would have been too. This was because his conscience was clear.
-
Adam none of which you have stated makes Jeremy Bamber a murderer.
-
Jeremy annonced he was starving after driving back to the cottage.
Jeremy cooked fried bacon, toast & coffee. Coffee was also made for the police who watched Jeremy happily eat.
'Right' said Jeremy, pushing away his empty plate and wiping crumbs from his face. 'Lets get on with it. I'm ready to start when you are'.
I fully expect that he was starving. He hadn't eaten since the previous night at the farm causing dry retching.
So he fried bacon. As you appear to know everything/embroider the facts/make it up as you go -please note I refrained from saying you lie- I feel certain you'll be able to say how many rashers he cooked along with how many slices of bread he toasted. Most of us can lay our hands on a jar of coffee. Surely you won't condemn him for that. Breakfast AND coffee. Does that add up to guilt in your eyes?
Now do you imagine that a young man bought up to show a stiff upper lip is going to allow a PLOD to see him cry, apart from which, NOT having to deal with an emotional young man would have made the job of the police so much easier.
-
I fully expect that he was starving. He hadn't eaten since the previous night at the farm causing dry retching.
So he fried bacon. As you appear to know everything/embroider the facts/make it up as you go -please note I refrained from saying you lie- I feel certain you'll be able to say how many rashers he cooked along with how many slices of bread he toasted. Most of us can lay our hands on a jar of coffee. Surely you won't condemn him for that. Breakfast AND coffee. Does that add up to guilt in your eyes?
Now do you imagine that a young man bought up to show a stiff upper lip is going to allow a PLOD to see him cry, apart from which, NOT having to deal with an emotional young man would have made the job of the police so much easier.
I do not know how many rashes he cooked. But Jeremy did annonce he was starving. So it could have been several.
The source was Wilkes's book.
-
Was it also noted as to how many crumbs dropped off the toast,,or whether his coffee had left a brown moustache ?
Why did AE query as to whether Jeremy was dead or not ?? Did she expect him to be,,or was she hoping ??
-
I di not know how many rashes he cooked. But Jeremy did annonce he was starving. So it could have been several.
The source was Wilkes's book.
I have no argument with that he was "starving." So are you telling us that you know for a fact there were "several" rashers in the fridge, as opposed to the last one/two in the pack and that there was a whole loaf of bread as opposed to the last crust or was Wilkes not privy to such information.
-
Adam - do you know I think I agree with you. You have changed my mind . Never trust people who don't like dogs . They are all wicked and quite capable of murder . As a dog lover - that is my mantra in life.
Did you watch the whole film of the funeral? Just interested ?
OK. I am a murderer, I hate dogs - I really do! The only dogs I like are dogs with "jobs", like herding dogs, guide dogs for the blind - such kind of dogs. Otherwise, keep them far away from me!!!
I must be a killer. So must Ann Eaton, she didn´t want the dog either, the dog called "the Pest".
-
I have no argument with that he was "starving." So are you telling us that you know for a fact there were "several" rashers in the fridge, as opposed to the last one/two in the pack and that there was a whole loaf of bread as opposed to the last crust or was Wilkes not privy to such information.
If it was me my fridge would be full. I do my weekly shop at the weekend.
-
If it was me my fridge would be full. I do my weekly shop at the weekend.
I wonder if your lifestyle could be a little different from how Jeremy's was. It's very possible that there had been food aplenty at the weekend when Julie was there but I doubt that he'd replenished it since then.
-
I wonder if your lifestyle could be a little different from how Jeremy's was. It's very possible that there had been food aplenty at the weekend when Julie was there but I doubt that he'd replenished it since then.
Maybe Jeremy will include this in his next appeal.
-
OK. I am a murderer, I hate dogs - I really do! The only dogs I like are dogs with "jobs", like herding dogs, guide dogs for the blind - such kind of dogs. Otherwise, keep them far away from me!!!
I must be a killer. So must Ann Eaton, she didn´t want the dog either, the dog called "the Pest".
nooooo! - I was not a dog lover because I ended up in hospital after being attacked. But I love my rescue dog . Its ok I was luring Adam into thinking I agreed with him, and I wont hold it against you :)
-
nooooo! - I was not a dog lover because I ended up in hospital after being attacked. But I love my rescue dog . Its ok I was luring Adam into thinking I agreed with him, and I wont hold it against you :)
I'm sorry I don't quite follow.
-
Maybe Jeremy will include this in his next appeal.
There really is little point in attempting ANY sort of intelligent conversation with you, is there.
-
I'm sorry I don't quite follow.
I was talking to Alias - not you and it was an ironic comment - I am sure you understand what one of those is.
-
BTW Adam you ignored my post about why at 8.10am the police only counted three bodies and not four?
-
BTW Adam you ignored my post about why at 8.10am the police only counted three bodies and not four?
Did I ?
They found only three bodies upstairs ? So only 4 people died ?
-
Did I ?
They found only three bodies upstairs ? So only 4 people died ?
yes according to police at 8.10 three bodies - who were they do you think? Who was missing ? as only NB downstairs according to you?
Must rush now - more interesting things to do. :)
-
yes according to police at 8.10 three bodies - who were they do you think? Who was missing ? as only NB downstairs according to you?
Must rush now - more interesting things to do. :)
I told you I won't answer my front door until you read a book on the case.
-
I told you I won't answer my front door until you read a book on the case.
Actually watching the sewing bee - infinitely more interesting than you repeating yourself. Then I have homework to do. ;)
-
Actually watching the sewing bee - infinitely more interesting than you repeating yourself. Then I have homework to do. ;)
That upset me.
-
That upset me.
Poor Baby :'(
-
Actually watching the sewing bee - infinitely more interesting than you repeating yourself. Then I have homework to do. ;)
did ums :)
-
Jeremy annonced he was starving after driving back to the cottage.
Jeremy cooked fried bacon, toast & coffee. Coffee was also made for the police who watched Jeremy happily eat.
'Right' said Jeremy, pushing away his empty plate and wiping crumbs from his face. 'Lets get on with it. I'm ready to start when you are'.
What absolute rubbish!
-
What absolute rubbish!
Page 22.
-
Page 22.
And you believe that the author was accurate in describing Jeremy "happily" eating? If this IS the case, PLEASE don't complain the next time you're referred to as being stupid. It will surely happen.
-
Page 22.
I'm not interested what page of Wilkes's book it's on - it's rubbish!!
-
As if it were some sort of Bible, good grief!
-
I'm not interested what page of Wilkes's book it's on - it's rubbish!!
i think the books is a lot better when its not selectively quoted
nothing really wrong with the book other than the fact it was written 20 years ago..
-
i think the books is a lot better when its not selectively quoted
nothing really wrong with the book other than the fact it was written 20 years ago..
I agree Nugs, I think Wilkes's book is pretty good. I'm not saying the book is rubbish, I'm saying Stan Jones's comment about Jeremy saying he was 'starving' is rubbish. Wilkes just wrote what was 'supposed' to have been said. I just don't believe anyone in that position would say they were starving even if they were guilty!! It is something someone else might saying if they were trying to make someone sound callous.
-
I agree Nugs, I think Wilkes's book is pretty good. I'm not saying the book is rubbish, I'm saying Stan Jones's comment about Jeremy saying he was 'starving' is rubbish. Wilkes just wrote what was 'supposed' to have been said. I just don't believe anyone in that position would say they were starving even if they were guilty!! It is something someone else might saying if they were trying to make someone sound callous.
It makes sense that Jeremy annonced he was starving. As straight afterwards he cooked a meal.
-
It makes sense that Jeremy annonced he was starving. As straight afterwards he cooked a meal.
.............And if you don't want to be treated like a child, please stop acting like a petulant one.............and there's a U in announced.
-
I'm not interested what page of Wilkes's book it's on - it's rubbish!!
It is a novel. What is a novel you may ask? A novel someone described is a non fictional book with fiction written into it where facts are not available. That describes Wilkes' book.
-
It makes sense that Jeremy annonced he was starving. As straight afterwards he cooked a meal.
Adam heaven forbid that you suffer the same loss as Jeremy has. But watching the contradictory feelings running through your body at that time should make an interesting spectacle. For whilst professing so, you appear to have no feelings of compassion towards those who have really lost someone and absolutely no understanding as to the mixed thoughts and feelings such a tragedy might bring to such a person. For whilst you examine every tiny detail (with Wilkes of course taking most of the blame by leading on such gullible minds) you fail to see the wood for the trees. That is the grief felt by Jeremy for the loss of his whole family. Shame on you for having such an immature sense of reality.
-
Adam heaven forbid that you suffer the same loss as Jeremy has. But watching the contradictory feelings running through your body at that time should make an interesting spectacle. For whilst professing so, you appear to have no feelings of compassion towards those who have really lost someone and absolutely no understanding as to the mixed thoughts and feelings such a tragedy might bring to such a person. For whilst you examine every tiny detail (with Wilkes of course taking most of the blame by leading on such gullible minds) you fail to see the wood for the trees. That is the grief felt by Jeremy for the loss of his whole family. Shame on you for having such an immature sense of reality.
Excellent post Gtahame, you have summed up Adam's attitude to the tragedy very fairly imo.
-
Adam heaven forbid that you suffer the same loss as Jeremy has. But watching the contradictory feelings running through your body at that time should make an interesting spectacle. For whilst professing so, you appear to have no feelings of compassion towards those who have really lost someone and absolutely no understanding as to the mixed thoughts and feelings such a tragedy might bring to such a person. For whilst you examine every tiny detail (with Wilkes of course taking most of the blame by leading on such gullible minds) you fail to see the wood for the trees. That is the grief felt by Jeremy for the loss of his whole family. Shame on you for having such an immature sense of reality.
Grahame, what a thoughtful and accurate observation of how Adam presents himself. If he is proud of the picture he paints of himself, one must assume that he is that person, non empathic, tunnel visioned, nit picking, thoughtless, one dimensional and having as much soul as a cardboard cutout. Why else would he judge a persons guilt by the amount, albeit, unknown, of the breakfast he consumed OR be gullible enough to believe the adjectives of the person who wrote it.
-
It is a novel. What is a novel you may ask? A novel someone described is a non fictional book with fiction written into it where facts are not available. That describes Wilkes' book.
It is a factual book of a real life event. Written by an investigative reporter.
Have you read it ? Whether you have or not, you will try to discredit it if any parts highlight Jeremys guilt. Just as you discredit Bob Woffinden, The Spectator, Mick Gradley & the red forum. The only thing you do not discredit is the totally biased Jeremy OS.
-
To me it seems quite clear that Jeremy did not plan to phone the police.
If everyone was shot while asleep in bed, no calls could have been made.
It was a decision made on the night after Neville got to the kitchen.
It was also the wrong decision & helped convict Jeremy. The judge was being diplomatic calling Nevilles call 'mysterious'. I call it ridiculous as my last thread showed there is no realistic situation where Neville would make the call.
-
It is a factual book of a real life event. Written by an investigative reporter.
Have you read it ? Whether you have or not, you will try to discredit it if any parts highlight Jeremys guilt. Just as you discredit Bob Woffinden, The Spectator, Mick Gradley & the red forum. The only thing you do not discredit is the totally biased Jeremy OS.
Hi Adam, I have read Wilkes' book and was pleasntly surprised thst it wasn"t nearly as biased as some quotes had lead me to believe. I have leant it to someone so cannot check quite what he wrote about breakfast but I am sure I have read in a statement on this forum that the police told Jeremy to eat because they were concerned for him. All he had to eat was 2 old slices of bacon, which he duly ate. I wonder if you have ever experienced the shock and confusion of one close family member dying and conclude you haven't ..... when my father died in his sleep my Mothrt had bteakfast and was laughing .... no she hadn't killed him, she had cared for him lovingly. Shock causes all kinds of protective emotions, sometimes for months or even years.
-
Great post Grahame. Very thought provoking and written with the feeling that could represent anyone who's lost their whole family under the same dreadful circumstances.
-
To me it seems quite clear that Jeremy did not plan to phone the police.
If everyone was shot while asleep in bed, no calls could have been made.
It was a decision made on the night after Neville got to the kitchen.
It was also the wrong decision & helped convict Jeremy. The judge was being diplomatic calling Nevilles call 'mysterious'. I call it ridiculous as my last thread showed there is no realistic situation where Neville would make the call.
Adam your rediculous posts and threads prove nothing. What a waste of time, all the hours you waste writing pointless posts trying to prove someone who has spent almost thirty years in prison is guilty. Why? Why?
-
Hi Adam, I have read Wilkes' book and was pleasntly surprised thst it wasn"t nearly as biased as some quotes had lead me to believe. I have leant it to someone so cannot check quite what he wrote about breakfast but I am sure I have read in a statement on this forum that the police told Jeremy to eat because they were concerned for him. All he had to eat was 2 old slices of bacon, which he duly ate. I wonder if you have ever experienced the shock and confusion of one close family member dying and conclude you haven't ..... when my father died in his sleep my Mothrt had bteakfast and was laughing .... no she hadn't killed him, she had cared for him lovingly. Shock causes all kinds of protective emotions, sometimes for months or even years.
Well the book said 'Jeremy annonced he was starving'.
If a police statement can be found saying they suggested Jeremy ate, then the book is wrong.
-
Adam your rediculous posts and threads prove nothing. What a waste of time, all the hours you waste writing pointless posts trying to prove someone who has spent almost thirty years in prison is guilty. Why? Why?
I do not have to prove he is guilty. That has already been proved.
However Jeremy is the only lifer still protesting his innocence. Blaming EP, Julie, the relatives , the judge, Sheila etc. All with outlandish reasons. Which I find distasteful as I believe him guilty.
However a few people have been taken in, resulting in this forum being created which I like to discuss on.
Jeremys call to the police helped convict him. So it is interesting to discuss whether it was planned or a decision made on the night. I have just said it was a decision made on the night. Feel free to discuss.
-
Well the book said 'Jeremy annonced he was starving'.
If a police statement can be found saying they suggested Jeremy ate, then the book is wrong.
As it well may be as the author wasn't present and the picture he paints is unlikely to be accurate. It is also, like your own description of Jeremy almost salivating over it, is THOROUGHLY objectionable. Like Maggie, I've been given to understand that it was the police who suggested that Jeremy should eat something and all that could be found was a couple(?) of curled up rashers of bacon, but YOU have chosen to repeatedly push the point that he "happily" sat in front of the police and stuffed his face with a full breakfast, as your use of the word "hearty" is guaranteed to imply.
-
Hi Adam, I have read Wilkes' book and was pleasntly surprised thst it wasn"t nearly as biased as some quotes had lead me to believe. I have leant it to someone so cannot check quite what he wrote about breakfast but I am sure I have read in a statement on this forum that the police told Jeremy to eat because they were concerned for him. All he had to eat was 2 old slices of bacon, which he duly ate. I wonder if you have ever experienced the shock and confusion of one close family member dying and conclude you haven't ..... when my father died in his sleep my Mothrt had bteakfast and was laughing .... no she hadn't killed him, she had cared for him lovingly. Shock causes all kinds of protective emotions, sometimes for months or even years.
Hi Maggie,,I think death hits harder as you get older because you've learned to appreciate who that person was and how much was done for you if they'd been a parent/spouse.
When you're young,like Jeremy was at the time,,and hadn't learned the true understanding of death/dying,then grieving/mourning takes on an entirely different stance. He would have been confused from the start,wondering how he should act or behave and because of the business side of things too,he'd have to remain steadfast and clear-headed,which is difficult to master when you've lost all your family.
Jeremy had been ridiculed and criticised when he allegedly sat in his fathers' office at WHF,feet on the desk calling himself " the boss ". Whether he did do this or not,,has no bearing on the case,nor did a lot of his other alleged modes of behaviour which certainly doesn't point to him being a murderer.
Then for his extended family to turn their backs on him was despicable,at a time when support was in short supply for him.
No two people are alike when it comes to grieving,,nor is there a right or wrong way of doing so,and it's not up to anyone to dictate how a person should behave. Thank goodness there are those of us who are individually-minded.
-
I do not have to prove he is guilty. That has already been proved.
However Jeremy is the only lifer still protesting his innocence. Blaming EP, Julie, the relatives , the judge, Sheila etc. All with outlandish reasons. Which I find distasteful as I believe him guilty.
However a few people have been taken in, resulting in this forum being created which I like to discuss on.
Jeremys call to the police helped convict him. So it is interesting to discuss whether it was planned or a decision made on the night. I have just said it was a decision made on the night. Feel free to discuss.
Unless you have ever been a member of a family in which you were disliked by ALL your relatives because they believed you'd get what was rightfully theirs, you can have NO idea what it would feel like. Bear in mind that it was THAT family, not the police who pushed Jeremy's guilt. With Sheila and the twins gone, the bulk, including any monies owed by the family, was Jeremy's. With Jeremy out of the way, it was all returned to where they thought it belonged and they are comfortable and debt free. Those who believe Jeremy guilty see that money as reason enough for him to kill. Those of us who remain unconvinced see that same amount as being reason enough for others to push for him to be convicted.
-
It is a factual book of a real life event. Written by an investigative reporter.
Have you read it ? Whether you have or not, you will try to discredit it if any parts highlight Jeremys guilt. Just as you discredit Bob Woffinden, The Spectator, Mick Gradley & the red forum. The only thing you do not discredit is the totally biased Jeremy OS.
That which you judge totally biased is in fact totally fact and has the documents to back them up. You unfortunately tend rather to believe the biased thoughts of a novelist. The character of his writing prove that he is a novelist. He is aiming to set people's emotions aflame. A true investigative journalist keeps tightly to the facts without giving his (however disguised) opinions about the subject matter. You on the other hand are one of those gullible people who hang on his every word.
As for Woffinden. I have already given my views on him. But kust for the record I will say it again. If this man can spend all those years defending Bamber, then changes his mind. Then this means that everything that he has written about him in the past was a waste of our time reading it. Also a man who can suddenly change his mind on something after si long a time, who's to say he will not change his mind again? Conclusion: A thoroughly unreliable man. In other words, what does he say that causes us to believe him? Answer: Nothing.
But of course unfortunately it appears that you yourself are not in possession of a free thinking and descerning mind. So whatever I write will fall upon blind eyes and whatever I say will land upon deaf ears.
-
As it well may be as the author wasn't present and the picture he paints is unlikely to be accurate. It is also, like your own description of Jeremy almost salivating over it, is THOROUGHLY objectionable. Like Maggie, I've been given to understand that it was the police who suggested that Jeremy should eat something and all that could be found was a couple(?) of curled up rashers of bacon, but YOU have chosen to repeatedly push the point that he "happily" sat in front of the police and stuffed his face with a full breakfast, as your use of the word "hearty" is guaranteed to imply.
Wilkes would have interviewed the two policemen present. He also interviewed Jeremy.
However if you can find a police statement...
-
Well the book said 'Jeremy annonced he was starving'.
If a police statement can be found saying they suggested Jeremy ate, then the book is wrong.
Now that just proves how far Wilkes has strayed from the actual facts doesn't it? He had completely misinterpreted the truth.
-
That which you judge totally biased is in fact totally fact and has the documents to back them up. You unfortunately tend rather to believe the biased thoughts of a novelist. The character of his writing prove that he is a novelist. He is aiming to set people's emotions aflame. A true investigative journalist keeps tightly to the facts without giving his (however disguised) opinions about the subject matter. You on the other hand are one of those gullible people who hang on his every word.
As for Woffinden. I have already given my views on him. But kust for the record I will say it again. If this man can spend all those years defending Bamber, then changes his mind. Then this means that everything that he has written about him in the past was a waste of our time reading it. Also a man who can suddenly change his mind on something after si long a time, who's to say he will not change his mind again? Conclusion: A thoroughly unreliable man. In other words, what does he say that causes us to believe him? Answer: Nothing.
But of course unfortunately it appears that you yourself are not in possession of a free thinking and descerning mind. So whatever I write will fall upon blind eyes and whatever I say will land upon deaf ears.
You did not say whether you have read the book. I will post a couple of reviews. Again.
-
I do not have to prove he is guilty. That has already been proved.
However Jeremy is the only lifer still protesting his innocence. Blaming EP, Julie, the relatives , the judge, Sheila etc. All with outlandish reasons. Which I find distasteful as I believe him guilty.
However a few people have been taken in, resulting in this forum being created which I like to discuss on.
Jeremys call to the police helped convict him. So it is interesting to discuss whether it was planned or a decision made on the night. I have just said it was a decision made on the night. Feel free to discuss.
Yes you do. Otherwise it makes no sense that you are here on this forum. If it had been "proved" as you state, then why do so many legal minds, including great minds like Simon McKay contend that verdict. If it is so cut and dried then why are there so many people who believe him to be innocent and a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice? What do you say to all those people? That we are all fools?
-
This 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
-
Wilkes would have interviewed the two policemen present. He also interviewed Jeremy.
However if you can find a police statement...
In actual fact that ball is in Wilkes' court. He must if he he is a true investigative journalist list all his sources somewhere in his book. So I throw that back to you. Prove to me that Wilkes' quote is true?
-
Who could forget this awful crime, a very well written book, couldnt put it down, very factual, allows you to make your own mind up, remember this case well, well i did back then, and my opinion is the same now, as far as im concerned, common sense prevailed at the trial and bamber was found guilty of all the murders, what i do believe is that jeremy believes he is innocent and will fight to the end to prove it, if he secures an appeal in the future and is released, it will be on a technicality, wait and see, i hope he rots in jail then onto hell. Rest in peace sheila, nicholas, daniel, neville and june.
-
Who could forget this awful crime, a very well written book, couldnt put it down, very factual, allows you to make your own mind up, remember this case well, well i did back then, and my opinion is the same now, as far as im concerned, common sense prevailed at the trial and bamber was found guilty of all the murders, what i do believe is that jeremy believes he is innocent and will fight to the end to prove it, if he secures an appeal in the future and is released, it will be on a technicality, wait and see, i hope he rots in jail then onto hell. Rest in peace sheila, nicholas, daniel, neville and june.
Look Adam. I'm not interested in your lame quotes from reviews from people that nobody knows. What, can't you judge the book by yourself? Do you always drink in the water that someone else has vomited up?
-
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'.0 of 1 people found this review helpful
-
In actual fact that ball is in Wilkes' court. He must if he he is a true investigative journalist list all his sources somewhere in his book. So I throw that back to you. Prove to me that Wilkes' quote is true?
Wilkes interviewed everyone, including Jeremy & excluding Julie.
Wilkes interviewed Jeremy & the two police officers. Jeremy did say he was starving.
Proved.
You still have not said whether you have read the book.
-
Look Adam. I'm not interested in your lame quotes from reviews from people that nobody knows. What, can't you judge the book by yourself? Do you always drink in the water that someone else has vomited up?
I have judged the book myself.
It is an excellent factual & unbiased book. Lots of detail from an investigative author who interviewed everyone except Julie but including Jeremy.
5 stars.
-
I have judged the book myself.
It is an excellent factual & unbiased book. Lots of detail from an investigative author who interviewed everyone except Julie but including Jeremy.
5 stars.
How the hell can ANYONE, let alone someone with tunnel vision, adjudge something to be unbiased when they're not privy to the original sequence of events. All that's been provided is other peoples' versions of what happened and they CAN'T be said to be unbiased.
-
How the hell can ANYONE, let alone someone with tunnel vision, adjudge something to be unbiased when they're not privy to the original sequence of events. All that's been provided is other peoples' versions of what happened and they CAN'T be said to be unbiased.
Errr. It is called writing a factual book. Interviewing the witnesses. Including Jeremy. As well as putting down factually what was said in court. Jeremy being the main witness.
-
I got the book after investigating about the case online & on Youtube.
So have a lot of knowledge on the case. However am still learning. Such as yesterday when I found out Jeremy has photos of a bizarre police banner at WHF.
-
Wilkes interviewed everyone, including Jeremy & excluding Julie.
Wilkes interviewed Jeremy & the two police officers. Jeremy did say he was starving.
Proved.
You still have not said whether you have read the book.
Where is the reference of Wilkes aluding to this event. Come on Wilkes must have had it referenced somewhere. So we can see what the police officers actually said?
-
Where is the reference of Wilkes aluding to this event. Come on Wilkes must have had it referenced somewhere. So we can see what the police officers actually said?
Read the book yourself. Something you clearly have not done.
I have. So there.
-
And we won't see your arse for dust when his conviction is quashed !!!
-
Read the book yourself. Something you clearly have not done.
I have. So there.
If you have read the book then give me the reference or what Wilkes wrote is nothing more than hearsay.
-
Read the book yourself. Something you clearly have not done.
I have. So there.
I see the petulant child has returned.
-
Adam just logged on and all you have banged on about is Jeremy said he was starving. So what. The point you are trying to make eludes me ???
-
If one is in denial then I'm sure feeling hungry and eating is not a problem. The relatives and Julie ate,along with Jeremy at lunchtime following the tragedy. Food was brought over on platters from the pub. They all must be murderers!
-
Adam just logged on and all you have banged on about is Jeremy said he was starving. So what. The point you are trying to make eludes me ???
Other people have been going on about it as well. Saying it is not true. Although it is on a critically acclaimed book which interviewed the two policemen & Jeremy.
Read the thread properly.
-
Other people have been going on about it as well. Saying it is not true. Although it is on a critically acclaimed book which interviewed the two policemen & Jeremy.
Read the thread properly.
Wilkes' hearsay. No proof.
-
Adam story telling with no credence ;D
-
Again,,it depends on the individual as to whether they feel like eating or not. It's certainly not a God-given right that you have to eat or you don't. So in effect,Adams' remark is irrelevent once again and has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at all. Nit-picking does NOT make for a conviction,,well it shouldn't do.
-
Wilkes' hearsay. No proof.
Yes. Jeremy may well have lied to Wilkes. Along with everyone else.
So why should anyone ever write a factual book ?
-
Yes. Jeremy may well have lied to Wilkes. Along with everyone else.
So why should anyone ever write a factual book ?
According to you it was the police officers he interviewed?
-
Adam story telling with no credence ;D
So Jeremy has no credence.
Unlike Mason Doyle's book which has not been published.
-
Ha Ha Ha Adam what has poor Mason Doyle got to do with this ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If one is in denial then I'm sure feeling hungry and eating is not a problem. The relatives and Julie ate,along with Jeremy at lunchtime following the tragedy. Food was brought over on platters from the pub. They all must be murderers!
Tyler, having just returned from an EXCELLENT lunch at what was Jeremy's local, I can vouch that one would never again feel hunger having once eaten there.
-
So glad you enjoyed your lunch,April,,good for you. :)
-
So glad you enjoyed your lunch,April,,good for you. :)
THANK YOU, Lookout xx :-*
-
Glad you enjoyed your lunch April. I will have to give the pub a tryout too one of these days x
-
Glad you enjoyed your lunch April. I will have to give the pub a tryout too one of these days x
Tyler, you really won't be disappointed.
-
I have never heard about a verdict based on that the defendant ATE.
This is just a waste of time. ::)
-
I rather think the title of this thread is very misleading. Jeremy's phone call to the police was the decision he made after his father phoned him.
-
I rather think the title of this thread is very misleading. Jeremy's phone call to the police was the decision he made after his father phoned him.
Like I said before, it's a silly question!! :)
-
Like I said before, it's a silly question!! :)
Then I guess to ask who started the thread would be an even sillier one.
-
Ha Ha Ha April do you think so are you implying Adam is silly ;D ;D ;D
-
Answer YES! because he did not know his father was going to call him in a panic at 3.10 Am, so no he did not plan it . End of thread .
-
jansus quite agree put this thread to bed it is becoming tiresome and non productive ;D and needs to sleep ;D ;D ;D
-
Answer YES! because he did not know his father was going to call him in a panic at 3.10 Am, so no he did not plan it . End of thread .
BTW - SOURCE - ME!!! ;)
-
BTW - SOURCE - ME!!! ;)
A more reliable one than Adam, Jansus :D
-
Answer YES! because he did not know his father was going to call him in a panic at 3.10 Am, so no he did not plan it . End of thread .
A pity Jeremy turned his answering machine off. The only person I have ever known to have ever done this.
A saved message from Neville would have cleared Jeremy.
-
A pity Jeremy turned his answering machine off. The only person I have ever known to have ever done this.
A saved message from Neville would have cleared Jeremy.
Adam, no offence but that is such a mundane ineffective reply, is that the bezt you can do?
-
Adam, no offence but that is such a mundane ineffective reply, is that the bezt you can do?
But he's right though isn't he. If Ralph's call was recorded then end of game. Bamber would be a free man today.
-
Grahame do we know for sure the answer machine was turned off or indeed if Ralph's message was not recorded. Where is this sourced I wonder did Jeremy say it was turned off.
-
But he's right though isn't he. If Ralph's call was recorded then end of game. Bamber would be a free man today.
Hi Grahame,Yes thats true but it wasn't, so Adam just repeats that answer over and over. We know the police examined the answer machine and found nothing suspect ie. evidence of some sort. It doesn't prove anything except that the message wasn't recorded, it's hypothetical and proves nothing.
Hope you're healing well and feeling better. :)
-
It's surprising what you come across on the internet as I've been reading a post from January this year,,and the poster went on to say that her very close friend went to the same secretarial college as Sheila. The friend,in her own words remarked that Sheila was " bonkers " and appeared quite capable of killing.???
The person who wrote the post is contactable.
-
It's surprising what you come across on the internet as I've been reading a post from January this year,,and the poster went on to say that her very close friend went to the same secretarial college as Sheila. The friend,in her own words remarked that Sheila was " bonkers " and appeared quite capable of killing.???
The person who wrote the post is contactable.
How interesting lookout. Where is the post? Can you remember,,maybe someone can post a link if we can find it and also maybe yourself or someone else contact her/him?
-
Grahame do we know for sure the answer machine was turned off or indeed if Ralph's message was not recorded. Where is this sourced I wonder did Jeremy say it was turned off.
Perhaps we'd better ask Adam for the source of his information that the answering machine was turned off?
-
Hi Grahame,Yes thats true but it wasn't, so Adam just repeats that answer over and over. We know the police examined the answer machine and found nothing suspect ie. evidence of some sort. It doesn't prove anything except that the message wasn't recorded, it's hypothetical and proves nothing.
Hope you're healing well and feeling better. :)
When was the last time I mentioned it prior to today ?
It is circumstantial evidence. Nevilles call is vital in establishing Jeremys innocence/guilt. It was mentioned by the judge in his summing up. If one member of the jury asks why a message was not left on the answering machine, the issue will be discussed.
Some jurors will not believe Jeremy would get to the downstairs phone within 3 - 5 rings. Or that Jeremy would have switched his answering machine off.
-
How interesting lookout. Where is the post? Can you remember,,maybe someone can post a link if we can find it and also maybe yourself or someone else contact her/him?
Hi Maggie,,it's on the Mumsnet Talk,and the posters' ID is " NearTheWindmill."
-
Perhaps we'd better ask Adam for the source of his information that the answering machine was turned off?
This issue was discussed on here. You contributed.
I asked about this. Another poster said Jeremy's phone was downstairs & he had an answering machine.
I questioned how Jeremy could have got to the downstairs phone from sleeping 'like a log' before Neville left a message on the answering machine. I was informed Jeremy turned his answering machine off for some reason. Which is rotten luck for Jeremy.
-
This issue was discussed on here. You contributed.
I asked about this. Another poster said Jeremy's phone was downstairs & he had an answering machine.
I questioned how Jeremy could have got to the downstairs phone from sleeping 'like a log' before Neville left a message on the answering machine. I was informed Jeremy turned his answering machine off for some reason. Which is rotten luck for Jeremy.
Fair enough.
-
The 'Crimes that shook Britain' video is quite funny.
The actor playing Neville is filmed phoning Jeremy at 3.20am. Even he looks embarressed in the scene.
Bob Miller made sure he said the word 'apparently' when mentioning Jeremys recieved call from Neville.
-
Hi Maggie,,it's on the Mumsnet Talk,and the posters' ID is " NearTheWindmill."
OK Will try post link when on laptop unless someone does it before I get there. Thanks lookout.
-
OK Will try post link when on laptop unless someone does it before I get there. Thanks lookout.
Some interesting posts on it too Maggie,,even though most posters go for guilty. If you do visit the site,,you'll maybe recognise a familiar poster. ;D
I liked the bit about the hair that was found on the silencer,," tested and belonging to Bamber " ! It just goes to prove either what's reported in the first place,or a persons' imagination on reading about it,,with no reference to it having been Jeremys',but just fits their own theories. A bit like Adams'.
Then there are others who admit to not knowing either way,and who don't put their arguments forward,possibly because of lack of knowledge about the case,which is fair enough.
The poster that I previously mentioned,,recommended that everyone come and read this forum. ;D
-
Some interesting posts on it too Maggie,,even though most posters go for guilty. If you do visit the site,,you'll maybe recognise a familiar poster. ;D
I liked the bit about the hair that was found on the silencer,," tested and belonging to Bamber " ! It just goes to prove either what's reported in the first place,or a persons' imagination on reading about it,,with no reference to it having been Jeremys',but just fits their own theories. A bit like Adams'.
Then there are others who admit to not knowing either way,and who don't put their arguments forward,possibly because of lack of knowledge about the case,which is fair enough.
The poster that I previously mentioned,,recommended that everyone come and read this forum. ;D
I have already created the Mumsnet thread.
-
I have already created the Mumsnet thread.
Oh,right,,you'll be the one which every other post you make,is an outright guilty,,without any reason why.
-
I've got news for you.You're on the wrong forum for picking brains.It's the guilty forum that you need !
The funny thing about the posters on the Mumsnet is that it's the innocent posters who contribute the most !
-
Oh,right,,you'll be the one which every other post you make,is an outright guilty,,without any reason why.
I have not posted on it. But put the link up on this forum - February 11th thread.
-
A pity Jeremy turned his answering machine off. The only person I have ever known to have ever done this.
A saved message from Neville would have cleared Jeremy.
You don't know him and I suspect turning off te machine isn't that uncommon!
-
You don't know him and I suspect turning off te machine isn't that uncommon!
Jeremy must have good ears. Being able to hear the phone & answer before the caller gives up when vaccuming, in the shower, in the garden, playing music & sleeping.
-
Jeremy would have been fast asleep when the phone rang !
Being young,,he wouldn't have known about the significance of a call at that time of the morning,until perhaps another 20 years hence. Most of us probably sadly know that it won't be good news,no matter what. What I'm saying is,that he was ill-prepared for such a call,whereas,when you're in your 40's,you have an inkling,especially if a family member has been,or is ill.
-
The answer machine - AGAIN.
I don't know if it was switched off or not - but I can assure you that some people turn them off when they are at home and turn it on when they are out .
Suprisingly human beings are all different and all do different things - it is a fact of life.
-
why would he have his ansering machene on he was avialeble to answer the phone.
-
That's right,nugs. It's something you leave switched on when you're out,usually.
-
why would he have his ansering machene on he was avialeble to answer the phone.
Why turn it off ? Just leave it on 24/7 in case he does not hear it or is on his sun bed, watching TV etc and does not want to speak.
Everyone else I knew did. All answering services are 24/7 now. Common sense.
It is a curious coincidence that Neville did not leave a message.
-
well how could he leave a message if jeremy answered the phone and why would he want to.
-
No time for long conversations when your family are being slaughtered. Another non-starter !
By the way,,it was years later, 2002, when Nevilles' call was found,anyway.But it was,and it should have been seen as proof of Jeremys' innocence then,that his father did indeed ring him,,so why do you think it wasn't ?
Nevilles' phone-call was known,,but never shown to the jury,even though it had been entered at the trial. Why ?
-
Why turn it off ? Just leave it on 24/7 in case he does not hear it or is on his sun bed, watching TV etc and does not want to speak.
Everyone else I knew did. All answering services are 24/7 now. Common sense.
It is a curious coincidence that Neville did not leave a message.
curious co-incidence again - hardly enough to convict someone of murder is it ::)
Do you write scripts for Eastenders BTW
-
well how could he leave a message if jeremy answered the phone and why would he want to.
Jeremy woke up from sleeping like a log. Realised the phone was ringing. Decided to answer it. Got downstairs & answered it. Before the answer machine came on.
Get real.
-
Jeremy woke up from sleeping like a log. Realised the phone was ringing. Decided to answer it. Got downstairs & answered it. Before the answer machine came on.
Get real.
I thought you said it was switched off?
And stop being rude - you sound like a petulant child.
-
curious co-incidence again - hardly enough to convict someone of murder is it ::)
Do you write scripts for Eastenders BTW
Lots of curious coincidences results in a mountain of circumstancial evidence.
Not good.
-
I thought you said it was switched off?
And stop being rude - you sound like a petulant child.
It had to be switched off. Jeremy would not have reached it in time otherwise. He was sleeping like a log.
Hang on. He phoned Julie at 3am.
-
It had to be switched off. Jeremy would not have reached it in time otherwise. He was sleeping like a log.
Hang on. He phoned Julie at 3am.
not according to her OWS he did not - so which one of her statements do you want to pick?
-
One of her flat mates said it was 3.10. However she also said she always set her phone 10 minutes fast. So it was probably 3.00am.
Source available upon request.
-
So much conflicting evidence around these times,,especially where JM lived at the time.It would have been like Chinese Whispers as each person argued the toss over the time. Then as it was,JM was so interested that she told Jeremy to go back to bed !!!
Then AE would have written it in her " notebook " ( possibly a different time again ) so that when it was finally relayed to the police,,it would have been completely wrong. Secondhand information,,as a lot was.
-
The answer machine - AGAIN.
I don't know if it was switched off or not - but I can assure you that some people turn them off when they are at home and turn it on when they are out .
Suprisingly human beings are all different and all do different things - it is a fact of life.
well if your trying to go to sleep you might very well have it turnd off.
-
Jeremy woke up from sleeping like a log. Realised the phone was ringing. Decided to answer it. Got downstairs & answered it. Before the answer machine came on.
Get real.
if it was an emergency nevile wouldent of wanted to leave a message would he would want jeremy to pick up the phone.
-
Jeremy got home after 10pm. He was tired after a 14 hour day. He phoned Julie, watched a bit of telly and then slept like a log.
Unluckily on this night he remembered to turn the answer machine off. For some reason.
-
he do we know he rembered to turn it off he could of forgot to turn in it on.
-
he do we know he rembered to turn it off he could of forgot to turn in it on.
Turning it off, on, off, on. Just leave it on. Common sense.
But appreciate Jeremys supporters have to prove he recieved a call ftom Neville.
-
So there's one thing that you've established,,and that Jeremy was in bed that night and not out murdering his family. That's a start,anyway.
Yes,,he was tired, after his 17hrs in fact,,as it was harvest-time.Had a beer,shower/bath,and went to bed
-
So there's one thing that you've established,,and that Jeremy was in bed that night and not out murdering his family. That's a start,anyway.
Yes,,he was tired, after his 17hrs in fact,,as it was harvest-time.Had a beer,shower/bath,and went to bed
17 hours. No wonder he was fed up. But at least Sheila had a nice day on the farm.
I am going by what Jeremy said in his interview transcripts. Saying he slept like a log.
He also said he watched TV, but made errors regarding the times & programmes.
-
I am going by what Jeremy said in his interview transcripts. Saying he slept like a log.
He also said he watched TV, but made errors regarding the times & programmes.
Didn't everyone make errors,etc regarding times ? That's nothing new. But whatever Jeremy said in his interview,you could take it as being the truth.
Nice to know that you're perfect and would remember every detail put to you !
-
Turning it off, on, off, on. Just leave it on. Common sense.
But appreciate Jeremys supporters have to prove he recieved a call ftom Neville.
Common sense ---hmmm - it would be common sense for you not to be on this forum - so you obviously don't have any .
-
Didn't everyone make errors,etc regarding times ? That's nothing new. But whatever Jeremy said in his interview,you could take it as being the truth.
Nice to know that you're perfect and would remember every detail put to you !
Jeremy was very evasive in his interviews. Thread already created by me.
Even Graheme said people who say 'can't remember' are lying. Jeremy said it loads of times.
Together with dozens of other short, negative & evasive replies.
-
Common sense ---hmmm - it would be common sense for you not to be on this forum - so you obviously don't have any .
Thought I was supposed to be the rude one.
-
One of her flat mates said it was 3.10. However she also said she always set her phone 10 minutes fast. So it was probably 3.00am.
Source available upon request.
not in her OWS - source available on request
so who do you believe JM or her flat mate
-
Turning it off, on, off, on. Just leave it on. Common sense.
But appreciate Jeremys supporters have to prove he recieved a call ftom Neville.
do you ever think someone turn there answer machine off for what ever reason.
and then forget to turn it back on again.
-
Jeremy got home after 10pm. He was tired after a 14 hour day. He phoned Julie, watched a bit of telly and then slept like a log.
Unluckily on this night he remembered to turn the answer machine off. For some reason.
Perhaps he was one of these people who never used his answering machine and so it was permanently off?
-
Perhaps he was one of these people who never used his answering machine and so it was permanently off?
True,Grahame,,as everyone knew where he was in the daytime and once in his home,,there'd be no need anyway.
-
True,Grahame,,as everyone knew where he was in the daytime and once in his home,,there'd be no need anyway.
Also there were no witnesses to put him either on the way to WHF or at WHF.
-
There has been lots of developments since I posted my 19 reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy.
The WHF phones were in strange locations. The bedroom phone was plugged in the kitchen socket. The kitchen phone hidden under newspapers although it was in working order. There had been a storm a few weeks earlier, but why had the bedroom or even the kitchen phone not been put upstairs ? This was discussed in court, the prosecution claiming Jeremy re arranged the phones to explain Neville in the kitchen.
Jeremy told the police he watched TV until a certain time. Before going to bed. Although what he claimed to watch did not tally with the programme times. Did he really go to bed ?
Jeremy had an answering machine. However no message was left by Neville. Jeremy would certainly not have woken up, got up & got downstairs before Neville left a message. Answering machines would have been left on 24/7 in 1985, just as they are now. Not turned off and on. If the answering machine was really turned off, how long would Neville have realistically waited for until he got an answer ? Jeremy was in a deep sleep.
Three witnesses have said they were woken by a phone call from Jeremy. This was at 3.00am. Or even earlier. At least 20 minutes before the police were phoned & more importantly before Jeremy got his call from Neville. This contradicts Jeremys claim that he was awoken by Nevilles call. Jeremy himself intially said he phoned Julie before phoning the police. When asked why he phoned Julie, Jeremy said 'No comment'.
Jeremy took time to look for a number of a police station miles away. Rather than dial 999. When asked why he did not dial 999, he said it did not occur to him. He asked them to pick him up, probably aware there journey goes near his cottage, giving him an alibi of sorts. When this request was refused, he arrived after the police, looking very smartly dressed according to the police.
Jeremy has never said what Sheila could have been doing when Neville phoned him. It has also come to light that his supporters are also not able to do this. None of the recent answers were credible. The word 'crazy' suggests Sheila was firing bullets. In that case there was no time to make phone calls. However if she was not firing bullets what exactly was 'crazy' & why leave Sheila alone with a gun ?
This all points to Jeremys guilt. And also points to the phone call from Jeremy to the police being a last minute decision to explain Neville being in the kitchen.
-
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
I don't answer posts that are rubbish
-
I have merged this topic with another phone call thread in which the same points are mentioned by Adam. You don't need to keep making new threads to discuss issues for which threads already exist (Adam).
-
Hopefully people will respond to the post.
The facts are deeply incriminating for Jeremy.
-
Hopefully people will respond to the post.
The facts are deeply incriminating for Jeremy.
I'll respond with one word------------cobblers !
-
The police,by their very nature,are nearly always suspicious of people in general,,so it was of no surprise that they'd pointed out how calm Jeremy was when they'd arrived at WHF. Did it not occur to them that Jeremy wouldn't have had the slightest idea as to what may,or may not have happened ? No,,they had him down as the killer.Yeah ! So after slaughtering the family,,and the place looking like a bloodbath inside,,Jeremy is going to be calmly sitting in the car talking to the police ?
What didn't take place in that courtroom was the " psychology " of each individual,,least of all Sheila,,in which to work out who would have been responsible and capable of murder.
-
Hopefully people will respond to the post.
The facts are deeply incriminating for Jeremy.
people have been responding to your posts with theories ideas and oppinions very few you seem to consider but just dismiss out of hand quoting as fact ideas that are just ideas. this case is bedeviled by the shoddy police investigation and lack of forensic facts. we would all like to know the truth but
with what WE KNOW that truth, as much as we can find out, will need clear reasoned rational debate to be brought to light.
wilf
-
Hopefully people will respond to the post.
The facts are deeply incriminating for Jeremy.
garrulous young man.
-
The police,by their very nature,are nearly always suspicious of people in general,,so it was of no surprise that they'd pointed out how calm Jeremy was when they'd arrived at WHF. Did it not occur to them that Jeremy wouldn't have had the slightest idea as to what may,or may not have happened ? No,,they had him down as the killer.Yeah ! So after slaughtering the family,,and the place looking like a bloodbath inside,,Jeremy is going to be calmly sitting in the car talking to the police ?
What didn't take place in that courtroom was the " psychology " of each individual,,least of all Sheila,,in which to work out who would have been responsible and capable of murder.
C'mon,know-all,,answer as to why you think Jeremy remained calm after allegedly tearing round the farmhouse shooting everything that moved,,,apart from a dog yapping at his ankles every step of the way ? Which,by the way had bitten him in the past,,so why were there no bite marks on Jeremy,,or marks of any kind after his " ordeal " ? Hawkeye,JM knew there were no marks on his body,as soon after,,she'd scrutinised his bare skin and " reported back " on it.
Don't you think that Neville would have tried confronting his son ( with a backhander ) if he'd been faced with him,rather than his daughter ? Had that been the case,then there WOULD have been tell-tale signs of a fight/struggle ? However,,because it was the daughter,Neville thought on the lines that you don't hit,or attack a woman,and this is the way that Jeremy was brought up,,so why would he take it upon himself to annihilate all his family ?
Nope,,it wasn't Jeremy who murdered his family ! I worked this out in 1985 ! I'm 100% towards him being innocent . The same as I have been with a lot of others who've suffered injustice's.
-
There has been lots of developments since I posted my 19 reasons/facts why Neville would not phone Jeremy.
The WHF phones were in strange locations. The bedroom phone was plugged in the kitchen socket. The kitchen phone hidden under newspapers although it was in working order. There had been a storm a few weeks earlier, but why had the bedroom or even the kitchen phone not been put upstairs ? This was discussed in court, the prosecution claiming Jeremy re arranged the phones to explain Neville in the kitchen.
Jeremy told the police he watched TV until a certain time. Before going to bed. Although what he claimed to watch did not tally with the programme times. Did he really go to bed ?
Jeremy had an answering machine. However no message was left by Neville. Jeremy would certainly not have woken up, got up & got downstairs before Neville left a message. Answering machines would have been left on 24/7 in 1985, just as they are now. Not turned off and on. If the answering machine was really turned off, how long would Neville have realistically waited for until he got an answer ? Jeremy was in a deep sleep.
Three witnesses have said they were woken by a phone call from Jeremy. This was at 3.00am. Or even earlier. At least 20 minutes before the police were phoned & more importantly before Jeremy got his call from Neville. This contradicts Jeremys claim that he was awoken by Nevilles call. Jeremy himself intially said he phoned Julie before phoning the police. When asked why he phoned Julie, Jeremy said 'No comment'.
Jeremy took time to look for a number of a police station miles away. Rather than dial 999. When asked why he did not dial 999, he said it did not occur to him. He asked them to pick him up, probably aware there journey goes near his cottage, giving him an alibi of sorts. When this request was refused, he arrived after the police, looking very smartly dressed according to the police.
Jeremy has never said what Sheila could have been doing when Neville phoned him. It has also come to light that his supporters are also not able to do this. None of the recent answers were credible. The word 'crazy' suggests Sheila was firing bullets. In that case there was no time to make phone calls. However if she was not firing bullets what exactly was 'crazy' & why leave Sheila alone with a gun ?
This all points to Jeremys guilt. And also points to the phone call from Jeremy to the police being a last minute decision to explain Neville being in the kitchen.
Developments? Where? This is simply you regurgitating the same post, time and time again ....... You have not added ANY food for thought the entire time you have been here - nothing that would make someone consider their position (whatever that may be). You know nothing about the members here - you didn't even know that NGB was chief admin. There are hundreds of threads that people have contributed to (both guilty and innocent supporters) that you haven't even bothered to read (initially saying you couldn't be bothered), people who are a sight more knowledgeable than you (which wouldn't be difficult).
You have again mentioned the arrangement of the phones when you have been told (and it's well documented for any one who can be bothered to properly research it) that June preferred the dial type phone. Just because there is no message on the answer phone doesn't mean there was no call and it is ridiculous to claim to know what Jeremy would or wouldn't do or at what level of sleep he was in at the time! The residents at the flat ALL gave different timings in the beginning so they actually contradict themselves!! And how in gods name would he know what Sheila 'might' be doing - you keep asking this question as though it's the key to everything but as it can never be answered with ANY degree of certainty and the number of possibilities are infinite, the point is completely MOOT! Just like most of what you say.
-
Mason Doyle has studied court transcripts,statements etc and has also interviewed many people connected with the case,including members of EP. He has also been interviewing JB for the purpose of the book. So we can assume it will be factual then? And more up to date than Wilkes. So,once published,we can all quote from the new book then as being the gospel truth. Fantastic! I look forward to it.
My thoughts exactly and have been for a while. There'll be some fun to be had a quoting when that book comes out. I'm pretty sure it will be a warts n all account so I'm sure there'll be something there for the guilters to focus on also.
In the meantime and on topic, let us quote from Lomax Page 126 instead:
Ann Eaton's pencil written note card, not disclosed to the defence at trial:
Stan Jones talked to Julie about the phone call. Julie said her flatmate [Helen Eaton] said 3.30 am
-
My thoughts exactly and have been for a while. There'll be some fun to be had a quoting when that book comes out. I'm pretty sure it will be a warts n all account so I'm sure there'll be something there for the guilters to focus on also.
In the meantime and on topic, let us quote from Lomax Page 126 instead:
Ann Eaton's pencil written note card, not disclosed to the defence at trial:
Stan Jones talked to Julie about the phone call. Julie said her flatmate [Helen Eaton] said 3.30 am
exactly - I wonder whilst the police were interviewing JB it seemed so important to try and "twist" the times? As far as I can see the only time JB doubted his own timings and got confused was when the police said they could "prove" the times of the calls and it was not as per his OWS. At that point I think he commented that it was a good thing as they could prove his fathers call. I understand this is a police tactic to try and intimidate the witness into changing their story , but why would it suit them to have all the times changed? Was it just to make him look callous if he had phoned Julie before EP?
The original times were I think 3.10 NB phones JB - then he tries to all him back and then when no reply is still trying to think what to do and then phones the police - they seem to take an age to do anything - then 3.30 according to JB and JM OWS he phones JM just a very brief call and then gets in his car to meet EP as requested. Why did those timings not suit EP ? why did hey seem to want to change them when they were interviewing him.
-
Jansus, I imagine they were fudged until they slotted conveniently into place.
-
My thoughts exactly and have been for a while. There'll be some fun to be had a quoting when that book comes out. I'm pretty sure it will be a warts n all account so I'm sure there'll be something there for the guilters to focus on also.
In the meantime and on topic, let us quote from Lomax Page 126 instead:
Ann Eaton's pencil written note card, not disclosed to the defence at trial:
Stan Jones talked to Julie about the phone call. Julie said her flatmate [Helen Eaton] said 3.30 am
-
You've been told time out of number that those phones were moved around regularly ! This is why they were affectionately known as " musical phones " from the game of musical chairs,where you took pot-luck.
Would you mind very much reading the family background from when the children first arrived at the farmhouse,,and get a " feel " of how the farmhouse was run,etc etc. and how the rellies were seen only every " Preston Guild " ,therefore not really knowing the children,or seeing them growing up,,simply because they didn't want to !!
What the rellies did latterly,was very selective,as they mostly relied on hearsay,tittle-tattle and what they didn't know,they made up. They DIDN'T know either Sheila or Jeremy,FACT !
-
Interesting section from the 2002 appeal.
The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.
As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
-
Exactly, no one agreed on the time! So we don't know for sure what time he called Julie.
-
But Jeremy told the police he slept 'like a log'.
Either Julie or Jeremy are lying. But one thing is for sure. Jeremy phoned Julie, most probably before getting his alledged call from Neville.
Silly boy.
-
Exactly, no one agreed on the time! So we don't know for sure what time he called Julie.
;D
-
Funny with more than one clock with a discrepancy of ten minutes..... That sounds fishy to me, what are the chances?
So in other words, to make the timeline fit what the EP wanted, they had to rely on two clocks, which both showed the wrong time, but that was OK, because there was an explanation in both cases.
Bent and twisted "evidence" - again.
-
Funny with more than one clock with a discrepancy of ten minutes..... That sounds fishy to me, what are the chances?
So in other words, to make the timeline fit what the EP wanted, they had to rely on two clocks, which both showed the wrong time, but that was OK, because there was an explanation in both cases.
Bent and twisted "evidence" - again.
I completely agree!! Interesting that it was Susan Battersby's clock that was 10 mins fast - it just so happens that she too was involved in the bank fraud but never charged - another puppet? And - It's very unlikely that a police station clock would be 10 mins out!! West even said the clock was never wrong. Seems the powers that be weren't too happy with West as this letter shows.
-
I completely agree!! Interesting that it was Susan Battersby's clock that was 10 mins fast - it just so happens that she too was involved in the bank fraud but never charged - another puppet? And - It's very unlikely that a police station clock would be 10 mins out!! West even said the clock was never wrong. Seems the powers that be weren't too happy with West as this letter shows.
Susan Battersby was a puppet but also a proven liar and fraudster, therefore no problem for her to lie imo
-
I completely agree!! Interesting that it was Susan Battersby's clock that was 10 mins fast - it just so happens that she too was involved in the bank fraud but never charged - another puppet? And - It's very unlikely that a police station clock would be 10 mins out!! West even said the clock was never wrong. Seems the powers that be weren't too happy with West as this letter shows.
Seems like PC West wasn´t too happy about the whole thing either!
-
It was PC West who'd arranged a car to be sent to WHF after Jeremy had rang the police.This was CA/O5
-
I'm surprised that Jeremy wasn't also blamed for the THEFT of Nevilles' wallet,which,as Jeremy had said,,contained hundreds of pounds.Now why wasn't this fact included at trial ??
Not a thing was said about it !! Even though Jeremy had put it to the police that it was missing. How damn shocking is this ?
-
At first Jeremy claimed that there was a click and the phone call was disconnected which would mean it was hung up at White House Farms, presumably by the killer.
The phone company though said the phone was never hung up and simply remained off the hook. This prompted Jeremy to change his story from hearing a click to hearing various sounds including struggling and maybe gun shots being fired.
He changed his story muliple times of what he heard.
Interesting Adam!!! The telephone company (I assume you mean British Telecom?) did not say the phone was never hung up just that it was found to be off the hook later that morning when they were able to listen in to sounds in the house. It's quite possible Nevill either depressed the buttons or replaced the receiver therefore cutting the call before redialling, or prepared to redial and dropped the phone on the work surface, OR Nevill may have used the upstairs office phone and Sheila or some one else may have removed the receiver from the cream phone in the kitchen. With the phone off the hook, all the phones in WHF would have been engaged and Jeremy would have heard the engaged tone when he tried to redial.
Strange that DSI Ainsley claimed in September 2002 that there were two phone lines in WHF, although Jeremy Bamber states there was only one line and am sure he would know. DSI Ainsley stated before the Appeal in 2002 that one of the Tactical Firearms Officers used the office telephone to contact the police station, when he entered WHF on the morning of the tragedy, the station telephone number was found to be the last recorded number in the office phone memory facility.
It isn't known which phone Nevill used to phone Jeremy, it's just assumed it was the kitchen phone but did he use the office phone to call the police and is that why the police station number was in the memory facility or was the number there from DCI Harris phoning the station or did DCI Harris use the cream phone in the kitchen?
There is documentation to prove DCI Harris was in contact with ACC of EP Peter Simpson at 8.20 that morning, we know the photographs of the cream telephone in the kitchen were taken later therefore that phone must have been interfered with. Even if DCI Harris used the office phone to contact the station the receiver on the kitchen phone must have been replaced to open the line and removed after the phone call to reset the scene. Therefore, we don't know the original position of the cream telephone receiver. There are so many questions and possibilities, how can Adam know everything the way he does???
-
I must admit....Adam, I admire your spirit, but it reads like men against boys. Jeremy should count himself extremely lucky, to have Maggie and Caroline fighting his corner, making extremely balanced, fair and compelling arguments.
-
I must admit....Adam, I admire your spirit, but it reads like men against boys. Jeremy should count himself extremely lucky, to have Maggie and Caroline fighting his corner, making extremely balanced, fair and compelling arguments.
Thanks Neil but recently I'm leaning toward a guilty stance ;D. I DO still believe he was fitted up though.
-
I can understand how you feel Caroline,,having realised that a mild-mannered and non-violent person can,,and does carry out murders,,albeit on a whim ( if pushed over the edge ), as opposed to any pre-planning or foreward thinking.
I doubt very much that if Jeremy had actually spoken about murdering his family,,,chances are,that he wouldn't have,,,especially having allegedly told both RWB and Julie beforehand.
When asked by Susan,,JM's friend, if it was Jeremy,,JM had answered no,,he got Matthew to do it,,so in a way she was still protective of Jeremy by putting the blame onto someone else,,,knowing in her own mind that Jeremy didn't do it.
-
Thanks Neil but recently I'm leaning toward a guilty stance ;D. I DO still believe he was fitted up though.
I very much believe that he is guilty also, but there is no doubt in my mind that evidence was embellished/made up, in order to secure a conviction. It would just be nice if people would look at the evidence piece by piece and judge them on their own merits, rather than taking a holistic view, and automatically dismissing any 'pro' viewpoint.
Having said all that, since Adam has been 'on the scene', I have read more compelling evidence in Jeremy's favour, than I have read in a long time.
-
I very much believe that he is guilty also, but there is no doubt in my mind that evidence was embellished/made up, in order to secure a conviction. It would just be nice if people would look at the evidence piece by piece and judge them on their own merits, rather than taking a holistic view, and automatically dismissing any 'pro' viewpoint.
Having said all that, since Adam has been 'on the scene', I have read more compelling evidence in Jeremy's favour, than I have read in a long time.
Hi Neil,
I agree, a piece by piece approach is a good idea -I will try and think of a way to do that in a thread. Trouble is it doesn't take long for the conversation to go off topic and that would kill any such thread. However, that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't try!! I agree that Adam has actually done Jeremy more favours than harm because the points mentioned in his favour have been very valid. Perhaps Adam is actually an innocent supporter? ;)
-
I can understand how you feel Caroline,,having realised that a mild-mannered and non-violent person can,,and does carry out murders,,albeit on a whim ( if pushed over the edge ), as opposed to any pre-planning or foreward thinking.
I doubt very much that if Jeremy had actually spoken about murdering his family,,,chances are,that he wouldn't have,,,especially having allegedly told both RWB and Julie beforehand.
When asked by Susan,,JM's friend, if it was Jeremy,,JM had answered no,,he got Matthew to do it,,so in a way she was still protective of Jeremy by putting the blame onto someone else,,,knowing in her own mind that Jeremy didn't do it.
Hi Lookout, I find it VERY unlikely that he would have discussed such a plan in great detail - although he may have 'joked about it'. You make yourself VERY vulnerable if you tell someone. I don't think he's that stupid.
-
Caroline - can I ask you why you think he may be guilty? And why do you think he would have fought do hard for so long trying to prove his innocence?
-
Caroline - can I ask you why you think he may be guilty? And why do you think he would have fought do hard for so long trying to prove his innocence?
Hi Jansus, I don't want to say at the moment why I have doubts - I haven't thought it all out myself yet, but to answer the second part; IF he is guilty, it would probably do him no favours now to admit it. He is serving a whole life tariff so his only real hope of freedom is to win an appeal. As I said before, I do think he was well and truly set up and I would like to see the truth come out - he deserves a retrial which would still never be fair because they destroyed much of the evidence.
-
Thanks Neil but recently I'm leaning toward a guilty stance ;D. I DO still believe he was fitted up though.
:o
Really?
-
:o
Really?
Lets just say I'm not as certain as I used to be.
-
Interesting section from the 2002 appeal.
The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.
As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
Why would Jeremy call Julie to tell her that everything was going well and then in the next breath he tells her something is wrong at the farm, this does not makes much sense to me.
The times the calls were made are irrelevant because the times alone do not make Jeremy the killer and not only that, the original times quoted were changed when the trial began, therefore this means the times are unsafe and not to be classed as correct.
If for example the witness had said it was 3am at the onset and stuck to those times, then that's a different kettle of fish, but this did not happen. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Patti I am so so happy to see you on the forum we reallly need you. I agree with the points you have made to Adam and hope he takes them on board. Don't wander off again ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Patti I am so so happy to see you on the forum we reallly need you. I agree with the points you have made to Adam and hope he takes them on board. Don't wander off again ;D ;D ;D
Morning Susan :)
The facts don't change they simply get twisted. If I told you I was at Meadowhall on Saturday, then told someone else it was Monday and that person told you it was Monday, and you told them I had said Saturday then you and the other person would think I had lied.....But, the probability is that I might have forgot which day I was there 6 weeks later.....Hope you get that lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha Patti I will take your word for it as to where you were on Saturday ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha Patti I will take your word for it as to where you were on Saturday ;D ;D ;D ;D
The point is I don't really know. hahaha ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Morning Susan :)
The facts don't change they simply get twisted. If I told you I was at Meadowhall on Saturday, then told someone else it was Monday and that person told you it was Monday, and you told them I had said Saturday then I you and the other person would think I had lied.....But, the probability is that I might have forgot which day I was there 6 weeks later.....Hope you get that lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti, welcome back :) I think it's possible that Julie and her living companions eventually got together to come up with an average time to fit the crime. Originally their times were all over the place.
-
Patti, welcome back :) I think it's possible that Julie and her living companions eventually got together to come up with an average time to fit the crime. Originally their times were all over the place.
Morning April :)
That's exactly what I was trying to say. :)
The times calls weremade are less important in my opinion. What was important was the collection of concrete forensic evidence that was appallingly overlooked by Essex police. :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Patti
think all this about when the calls were made is just a "red herring" as what does it prove all the forensic evidence that was not collected or was collected and burnt would have been more use and that is not now available. Would love to see the late Taff Jones's notebook but guess that is being held under PII. So what can we do.
-
Hello Patti
think all this about when the calls were made is just a "red herring" as what does it prove all the forensic evidence that was not collected or was collected and burnt would have been more use and that is not now available. Would love to see the late Taff Jones's notebook but guess that is being held under PII. So what can we do.
Taff's note book has been posted on here and its on the red forum, if memory serves me right. This business about the notebook being stolen after Taff had died is not the truth Susan. I will try and post it all later on or bump the thread. I like to bump things lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti that would be great I would love to read it. Thanks for the bumping ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If I remember rightly Scott Lomax told me that Taff Jones' notebook was in the hands of the police? He told me this because at the time someone came on the forum claiming that it was in Australia and had been sold to a newspaper. Which turned out to be a lie told by a member who was just trying to stir things up. The so called red forum was not in existence then. But an equally obnoxious site was on Facebook at that time spreading all kinds of lies and rumours.
-
Grahame I have been told by a reliable source (not MD) that the notebook is being held under PII.
-
Grahame I have been told by a reliable source (not MD) that the notebook is being held under PII.
It may well be? But if it is then why are a few of its pages being posted on the forum?
-
If I remember rightly Scott Lomax told me that Taff Jones' notebook was in the hands of the police? He told me this because at the time someone came on the forum claiming that it was in Australia and had been sold to a newspaper. Which turned out to be a lie told by a member who was just trying to stir things up. The so called red forum was not in existence then. But an equally obnoxious site was on Facebook at that time spreading all kinds of lies and rumours.
Hi Grahame :)
Parts of the notebook are on here. I'm unsure if there are pages missing or any that are held by PII
If the police had the notebook then Jeremy's defence team must have applied for the notebook at some point because parts of it has been posted on here. :-\ ;D ;D ;D
-
2 sets of notes,Grahame ? I noted that among the notes which are there,,includes another crime which had no relevence to this one,,but was written on the same sheet.
I'd have thought that this should have been a separate entry from all others as this is how mistakes are made,and get misinterpreted.