Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Martin on April 27, 2014, 05:42:AM
-
The Noble Cause Framing Theory
This is the view that the police fabricated evidence, but only because they genuinely believed that Bamber was guilty. The most reprehensible version of it is one where the person who holds with this idea affects a neutral attitude, pretending to be unconvinced either way (while from a practical point of view fully supporting his guilter friends, because the position itself is really pro guilt through and through, even if not obviously so to everyone).
If Bamber is innocent some of the police MUST know it.
The view that Jeremy Bamber is innocent is inextricably linked to the view that a number of policeman know that he is innocent. There is no scenario which allows for even the possibility that he is innocent which can be separated from the view that he was framed by certain policeman, who know the truth is that Sheila was the killer.
The people who hold with that theory, assuming they are not quite clueless, realise that the belief that Bamber is innocent is inextricably linked to the belief that the police framed him, with some of them knowing the real truth that Sheila was the killer.
The sophisticated guilter
That is why some of the more sophisticated guilters try to sound sympathetic to Bamber’s cause, while at the same time rejecting out of hand the theory that the police intentionally framed an innocent man. These kind of people side with the guilters on every issue where the evidence of Bamber’s innocence is also at the same time evidence that they knew he was innocent. And yet they try to put themselves across as “fair” by admitting that the police faked evidence against him.
The point is that if you reject that assumption that the innocence of Bamber implies that the police know it, you might as well say he’s guilty as hell and put it in block capitals and without an apostrophe, since his innocence can’t be a fact without the conjoining fact that a whole bunch of policemen know about it.
The noble cause framing theory is a catch all, in that the person who holds with it, rejects all the evidence which points to innocence-because that evidence also implies that the police know he is innocent.
Some of the evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence which implies the police know he is.
1 The logs indicating that two bodies were found downstairs including one which has “One murder and one suicide”. If the police did find Sheila’s body downstairs and she regained consciousness and made her way upstairs then, of course, they know that Bamber is innocent.
2 If Sheila died after the police entered the house, then even to a person with no medical training, it would be obvious that her body could not have been dead for seven hours. It would be still warm for a start. If Sheila died after the police broke into the house, then a group of policemen know that Bamber is innocent.
3 If Sheila’s body was on the bed before the police stage managed it on the floor, the mere fact that they were able to do that implies that the body was not stiff like Nevill’s body was and that Sheila’s death must have occurred hours later.
4 If Nevill Bamber called the police, then the policeman who heard that call knows that Bamber is innocent.
5 Ann Eaton’s note that a policeman told her that Sheila’s body was, at one stage, on the bed with a bible on her chest. This is prima facie evidence that it was the police who stage managed Sheila’s body on the bedroom floor to make it look like she had shot herself in that position.
I could go on. The main point is that such evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence also at the same time points to the fact that the policemen at the scene know he is innocent. In many cases you just can’t separate the two.
Pro guilt by implication
The noble cause framing theory gives the superficial impression of being fair and of being willing to concede something. But it really implies a solid commitment to supporting the pro guilt group and this is shown in the way that such a supposedly fair minded person takes the pro guilt position on each crucial issue, right across the board. Like for example speaking dismissively of log entries which clearly point to Bamber’s innocence.
Such a person will typically support the rejection of evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence with expressions like “I just don’t believe that” being used a lot. They like to put themselves across as "sceptical" and as having an open mind.
1 I just don’t believe that the police found Sheila’s body downstairs,
2 I just don’t believe that it was the police who put Nevill’s head in the coal bucket.
3 I just don’t believe that Sheila’s body was ever on the bed with a bible on her chest.
4 I just don’t believe that the police stage managed Sheila’s body on the floor.
5 I just don’t believe that Nevill Bamber made a phone call.
6 I just don’t believe that there were two calls made to the police.
7 I just don’t believe that West and Bonnett would remain silent, if Nevill Bamber had called the police. The very thought of that is just too appalling.
8 I just don’t believe that all those people would have kept quiet for so long.
9 I just don’t believe that Mike Tesko has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed.
10 I just don’t believe that the police would knowingly frame an innocent man.
11 I just don’t believe that all those people could be lying.
Number 10 is of special significance because, with respect to this case, it is not really one opinion among the rest, but represents the basic position implied by the others and which a guilter realises he must always defend.
-
a very good post. covering their backs, fear of prosicution, loss of pension, we're all in it together, all these thing impede whistleblowing. a system of recourse open to officers should be in place to ensure justice can be the key objective.
as the players in this sorry story get older will their knowledge and feelings prey on their minds or will they fade into their past "it was the job"?
wilf
-
Morning wlf
it is my belief as person gets older they reflect on the wrong doings in previous years but fear any police officer who may have covered up facts still have too much to loose by spilling the beans so will remain silent.
-
Excellent post again,Martin,,and I understand how this works too. The police/NHS is a closed shop,which where genuine mistakes are made,,nobody is ever likely to hold their hands up and admit it.
As Wilf explained,,it's the fear of loss of job/pension,,which would inevitably be the case. When something goes on as long as the JB case has,,they're even less likely to come forward even if those concerned have retired,,,and usually,on the rare occasion that someone has opened up about " mistakes made ",,you'll find that that person has had an axe to grind about a certain colleague.
These people will have happily retired on their pensions,,paid off mortgages,etc etc,,,and because they're no longer involved,,can,and will quite easily forget that because of mistakes made,and bad ones at that,,,shrug off the fact that it no longer affects them.
What sort of a person can live with themselves,,knowing, at the back of their minds that they have wronged someone,badly and stolen their lives ?
Answer ? As in last nights programme.Someone in a high position,,who treads on everyones' toes to get where they are-------------Those with psychopathic tendencies ! Surgeons, and Police, at the top of their game. Ruthless individuals,decision-makers who are NOT always right,,but whatever you do,,don't suggest anything's wrong,,or argue with them,,as they're" always" right !
It's going to be a hard road in which to get justice for Jeremy,,faced with individuals who are convincing to many,,but thankfully most will see right through their tactics of covering up. The wording of excuses given, and if you're adept at reading between lines,,you can see for yourself,,,such as the replies from EP and even the e-mail from Theresa May,,to me was BS. NOBODY wants to know.It's as simple as that.
-
Morning lookout
sadly you are right the police/NHS/local councils are a closed shop and will defend one another irrespective of any wrong doings. Jeremy Bambers only hope is that evidence has been released accidently that will win him a new trial and the outcome could be entirely different to the last one.
-
Excellent post Lookout. You are correct cover ups are a common reaction in any large establishment, it has always been so and probably always will. Suddenly, notes are lost, diagnosis changed to accomodate new scenario, have seen it in action concerning a relative.
Hillsborough is often used as confirmation of the possibility to keep a police force quiet but Hillsborough was unique because in this instance a police force kept quiet in the face of hundreds if not thousands of witnesses who experienced and saw what happened. Even then the power of the establishment managed to override accusations and statements of fact by these witnesses. If powerful people repeat the same untruth continually the majority of uninformed people will believe it is the truth imo
-
Morning lookout
sadly you are right the police/NHS/local councils are a closed shop and will defend one another irrespective of any wrong doings. Jeremy Bambers only hope is that evidence has been released accidently that will win him a new trial and the outcome could be entirely different to the last one.
Hi susie, you are right. I also cannot see how JB can beat the system unless a document, person comes to light with overriding evidence which cannot be denied. Anything less will be dismissed imo.
-
The Noble Cause Framing Theory
This is the view that the police fabricated evidence, but only because they genuinely believed that Bamber was guilty. The most reprehensible version of it is one where the person who holds with this idea affects a neutral attitude, pretending to be unconvinced either way (while from a practical point of view fully supporting his guilter friends, because the position itself is really pro guilt through and through, even if not obviously so to everyone).
If Bamber is innocent some of the police MUST know it.
The view that Jeremy Bamber is innocent is inextricably linked to the view that a number of policeman know that he is innocent. There is no scenario which allows for even the possibility that he is innocent which can be separated from the view that he was framed by certain policeman, who know the truth is that Sheila was the killer.
The people who hold with that theory, assuming they are not quite clueless, realise that the belief that Bamber is innocent is inextricably linked to the belief that the police framed him, with some of them knowing the real truth that Sheila was the killer.
The sophisticated guilter
That is why some of the more sophisticated guilters try to sound sympathetic to Bamber’s cause, while at the same time rejecting out of hand the theory that the police intentionally framed an innocent man. These kind of people side with the guilters on every issue where the evidence of Bamber’s innocence is also at the same time evidence that they knew he was innocent. And yet they try to put themselves across as “fair” by admitting that the police faked evidence against him.
The point is that if you reject that assumption that the innocence of Bamber implies that the police know it, you might as well say he’s guilty as hell and put it in block capitals and without an apostrophe, since his innocence can’t be a fact without the conjoining fact that a whole bunch of policemen know about it.
The noble cause framing theory is a catch all, in that the person who holds with it, rejects all the evidence which points to innocence-because that evidence also implies that the police know he is innocent.
Some of the evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence which implies the police know he is.
1 The logs indicating that two bodies were found downstairs including one which has “One murder and one suicide”. If the police did find Sheila’s body downstairs and she regained consciousness and made her way upstairs then, of course, they know that Bamber is innocent.
2 If Sheila died after the police entered the house, then even to a person with no medical training, it would be obvious that her body could not have been dead for seven hours. It would be still warm for a start. If Sheila died after the police broke into the house, then a group of policemen know that Bamber is innocent.
3 If Sheila’s body was on the bed before the police stage managed it on the floor, the mere fact that they were able to do that implies that the body was not stiff like Nevill’s body was and that Sheila’s death must have occurred hours later.
4 If Nevill Bamber called the police, then the policeman who heard that call knows that Bamber is innocent.
5 Ann Eaton’s note that a policeman told her that Sheila’s body was, at one stage, on the bed with a bible on her chest. This is prima facie evidence that it was the police who stage managed Sheila’s body on the bedroom floor to make it look like she had shot herself in that position.
I could go on. The main point is that such evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence also at the same time points to the fact that the policemen at the scene know he is innocent. In many cases you just can’t separate the two.
Pro guilt by implication
The noble cause framing theory gives the superficial impression of being fair and of being willing to concede something. But it really implies a solid commitment to supporting the pro guilt group and this is shown in the way that such a supposedly fair minded person takes the pro guilt position on each crucial issue, right across the board. Like for example speaking dismissively of log entries which clearly point to Bamber’s innocence.
Such a person will typically support the rejection of evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence with expressions like “I just don’t believe that” being used a lot. They like to put themselves across as "sceptical" and as having an open mind.
1 I just don’t believe that the police found Sheila’s body downstairs,
2 I just don’t believe that it was the police who put Nevill’s head in the coal bucket.
3 I just don’t believe that Sheila’s body was ever on the bed with a bible on her chest.
4 I just don’t believe that the police stage managed Sheila’s body on the floor.
5 I just don’t believe that Nevill Bamber made a phone call.
6 I just don’t believe that there were two calls made to the police.
7 I just don’t believe that West and Bonnett would remain silent, if Nevill Bamber had called the police. The very thought of that is just too appalling.
8 I just don’t believe that all those people would have kept quiet for so long.
9 I just don’t believe that Mike Tesko has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed.
10 I just don’t believe that the police would knowingly frame an innocent man.
11 I just don’t believe that all those people could be lying.
Number 10 is of special significance because, with respect to this case, it is not really one opinion among the rest, but represents the basic position implied by the others and which a guilter realises he must always defend.
You're setting yourself up as quite the psychologist except that having doubts isn't a personality trait and people who have doubts are 'not ALL the same'. You talk regularly about propaganda and you're more guilty of it than anyone. It seems if you don't believe Jeremy is 100% innocent, you're some kind of conspirator in a venture to change everyone else's mind. However, unless you can say you believe Jeremy to be 100% innocent, you have doubts and belong to the group you just described. I'd say that was nearly everyone on the board. Given that none of us know what happened a 100% belief is just blind faith.
-
Martin, you've just presented us with the lengthy tenet necessary for us to digest in order to be a TRUE believer. It could apply to ANYTHING from religion to politics. How many attend churches as TRUE believers? How many who vote for a political party are TRUE believers?
My own belief is that TRUE belief is blind faith, which I, NOT destined for Sainthood, am not blessed with. In fact, one of my college tutors urged us NOT to accept what we were being told on the premise that unless we had doubts which prompted us to ask questions, we may learn, but we'd never understand.
-
Lookout - I think and hope what you said about the reply from Theresa May will be proved to be wrong. I have the feeling that in the long term she will be backing up her speech after the Stephen Lawrence case. It will just take a little time.
Martin - interesting post. I think it is ingrained in most of us that we don't want to believe that the police would keep quiet about such an important case for so long - but that is because we want to trust them. However in other cases they have been guilty of falsifying evidence so why not in this case?
-
Martin, you've just presented us with the lengthy tenet necessary for us to digest in order to be a TRUE believer. It could apply to ANYTHING from religion to politics. How many attend churches as TRUE believers? How many who vote for a political party are TRUE believers?
My own belief is that TRUE belief is blind faith, which I, NOT destined for Sainthood, am not blessed with. In fact, one of my college tutors urged us NOT to accept what we were being told on the premise that unless we had doubts which prompted us to ask questions, we may learn, but we'd never understand.
Now 'that' is a good post which paints a far more realistic view of how people think!!
-
Lookout - I think and hope what you said about the reply from Theresa May will be proved to be wrong. I have the feeling that in the long term she will be backing up her speech after the Stephen Lawrence case. It will just take a little time.
Martin - interesting post. I think it is ingrained in most of us that we don't want to believe that the police would keep quiet about such an important case for so long - but that is because we want to trust them. However in other cases they have been guilty of falsifying evidence so why not in this case?
Oh, I don't trust them - however, I simply can't see why they would knowingly frame an innocent man as opposed to framing someone they thought was guilty.
-
Hi April,,,how strange,,I've just" scrubbed " more or less what you have just written about believing.
It's what your personal belief is,and not that of others who may well be in the majority. Personally,,I've stuck to my beliefs and know I won't flounder,or be swayed in any way.
Most people are looking for reassurance either way and are indecisive,,which you can understand,,but I wouldn't dream of force-feeding my views on anyone. Though if anyone's got any sense,,they won't be swayed in the opposite direction of their own beliefs.
Afterall,,failure either way isn't going to be a punishable offence ;D
-
Thinking about what Martin has said - and the list of things that we have posted on other threads that would PROVE the innocence of JB ( and not just get him out on a technicality ) then he is correct
If the evidence was forthcoming then it would prove a cover up and not just a selective presentation of evidence.
Personally I came on here for interesting discussion and to look at documents etc. Not really to look at scenarios from books. But there are times I have been influenced by posters who obviously have been on here for much longer than me - but over all I don't think I have changed my opinion much .
The most recent thing that I find very annoying is the replies from EP about releasing the evidence held under PII - personally I think that is BS - and that is a big indication of what is behind all of this situation.
-
I would also add that I had explored the "noble theory" in respect of the police and the family . I think mainly that has been "thinking out loud" and then posting those thoughts , because sometimes the replies put you back on track.
I think that is my inherent trait of wanting to see some good in every person. I find it hard to accept that an innocent man would be framed - however I know that it is possible and it has happened before in other cases .
I think it always good to re-visit that list in the OP of what would PROVE innocence. And in every case the police must have known what the truth was.
-
You're setting yourself up as quite the psychologist except that having doubts isn't a personality trait and people who have doubts ate 'not ALL the same'. You talk regularly about propaganda and you're more guilty of it than anyone. It seems if you don't believe Jeremy is 100% innocent, you're some kind of conspirator in a venture to change everyone else's mind. However, unless you can say you believe Jeremy to be 100% innocent, you have doubts and belong to the group you just described. I'd say that was nearly everyone on the board. Given that none of us know what happened a 100% belief is just blind faith.
I think we can say with confidence that either Bamber is 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. What we cannot say with confidence is that we believe 100% that he is either guilty or he is innocent. In other words he is either 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. If he is innocent he is innocent. I because I am not in full possession of ALL the facts cannot be 100% either way. This in no way affects his being innocent.
All I can say with all certainty is that he did not have a fair trial because of (1) how the main exhibit was handled and because of JM's testimony that could have been false because she could have been swayed by (2) The £25000 deal she made with the NOTW. (3) Because she consciously lied to the judge about that deal. Thus potentially rendering her testimony null and void.
These three things cause me to come down more on the side of innocency than on the side of guilty.
-
Good post,Jansus. I would firmly agree that it has been and still remains to be a cover-up. Whether it be intentionally or not,,I do think that it's high time that somebody came forward to admit that " mistakes were made ".
How I wish that those who'd believed at the time,,in what they saw was true,,had spoken out then,regardless. Maybe they did,,but their spoken truth was met with," well others didn't see it,so you must be wrong ",,and so we have a majority swaying the beliefs of one or two people,,what chance do you stand when you try and convince your " superiors " ?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614068/A-gangster-left-rot-sealed-barrel-stench-corruption-goes-top.html
Interesting read !!
-
How many people would have done what JM did ??
-
Revenge is sweet and best served cold----------------and calculating.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614068/A-gangster-left-rot-sealed-barrel-stench-corruption-goes-top.html
Interesting read !!
Very interesting article Jon.
I think it also shows that police corruption can sometimes lead to guilty men being released . It can work both ways. Break the rules and you can have a MOJ or allow guilty people to get off scott free. That is why the rules are there in the beginning and if you can not get a conviction in the correct way then surely that conviction is not secure in the first place.
-
Even the assistant director of public prosecutions was " at it ",,in his letter to EP where he'd stated that with " considerable hesitation " that JM would not be prosecuted for her crimes,,,while discussing the prosecution of JB.
So if the above isn't persuasion,,I don't know what is. Hence her having received payment for " services rendered " to suit the EP and prosecution. How absolutely disgusting is this ? Except that it would have been explained in an entirely different manner to the gobbins in the courtroom.
They must think we all came off the last banana boat to believe that.
-
How many people would have done what JM did ??
If there is anyone who doubts that JM could have lied and have kept that lie all these years just to ruin JB's life then they need to rethink just what the human species are capable of just to get revenge. I have seen this kind of thing a lot during the past few weeks. One time is a woman who was lying about her husband molesting her and their child just in order to not only get sole possession of their child. But also get get him banned completely from seeing their child. The man of course is completely innocent. Court letters were sent to him and were not passed on by his wife. She tried to bribe others to lie for her about her husband.
He eventually got a letter to attend court and he of course turned up. The wife did not expect this and so neither her nor her solicitor were prepared fo him being there. He had evidence prepared to proved that she lied. Recordings an cctv to prove his innocence.
This is just one wickedness that some women are prepared to carry out just out of spite. Several people who she got to support her saw straight through her scheme after a little time.
I can really believe that JM could and possibly did carry out just such a campaign out of spite when their relationship broke up.
-
I can well believe it too Grahame,,as over the years,,there have been some wicked acts of revenge carried out.
I reckon the assistant prosecutor,,if left to his OWN devices,,would not have allowed JM off the hook. He most definitely was persuaded by EP,,,who badly wanted this conviction. Then to cap it all,,HMV in the background pressing/forcing the issue between the prosecutor and EP to re-charge Jeremy,after the first failed conclusion by " Taff " Jones.
I'm sure you've also read that women DO kill during acts of revenge too.
-
Hello Grahame I do believe JM was a woman scorned but also a woman facing serious criminal charges which seemed to disappear :'(
-
Susan,,the manner in which JM escaped those charges was nothing less than corruption.
Would it happen to any of us ? No,,it blood-well wouldn't. The difference being that here,,there was a conviction at stake. Talk about desperate.
-
I wonder in which year it was considered that immunity for crimes should not be allowed for potential critical witnesses?
-
Immunity for a criminal is still used against another criminal in exchange for information/evidence.
-
Though this appeared to resemble bribery because there was money involved as an end result,,which would probably come under a different part of the law-----------or not,,as the case may be.
I see it as a corrupt and a cunning practice.
-
I wonder if there's anything stopping Jeremy from giving his side of the story to a newspaper ?
I don't know the laws in this situation.
If indeed he could,,then it would help him to financially embark on future dealings perhaps through court,etc.
-
Hello lookout it is hard to comprehend how the criminal charges against JM disappeared without a trace and nobody said a word :'(
-
I´ll never understand most guilters´ stance on JM. To me it is clear that IF Jeremy is guilty as charged, Julie was in on the whole thing. She knew about it for a year, she provided sleeping pills, she didn´t warn the family when Jeremy called her and told her he was going to do it. In her own words!
How can they keep seeing her through rose coloured glasses? Beats me.
There were some serious criminal issues with JM, one of them possibly being accessory to murder.
-
i cant ether i mean shes pure evil which ever way you look at it.
-
I think we can say with confidence that either Bamber is 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. What we cannot say with confidence is that we believe 100% that he is either guilty or he is innocent. In other words he is either 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. If he is innocent he is innocent. I because I am not in full possession of ALL the facts cannot be 100% either way. This in no way affects his being innocent.
All I can say with all certainty is that he did not have a fair trial because of (1) how the main exhibit was handled and because of JM's testimony that could have been false because she could have been swayed by (2) The £25000 deal she made with the NOTW. (3) Because she consciously lied to the judge about that deal. Thus potentially rendering her testimony null and void.
These three things cause me to come down more on the side of innocency than on the side of guilty.
I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.
When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.
Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple. They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range according to the pathologist.
So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And had the best witness - Jeremy.
-
I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.
When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.
Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple. They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range.
So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And the best witness - Jeremy.
Adam that is not entirely true is it? You had lots of posts and questions about contradictory factual documents about the sound moderator which you just chose to ignore.
The blood was not proven to belong to SC and anyway sadly even if it had of been there was a lot of her blood left in the house by the police.
You also are fully aware there are a lot of photos and documents that have only come to light after the trial. That has been well documented by the original Defence team in subsequent enquiries.
Just because you chose to ignore all the contra arguments to your posts it does not mean your thread did not receive answers.
-
Anyone can engage the best lawyers or barristers,,but it doesn't mean a thing if half the evidence meant for the defence,is withheld. Which it was after the first arrest in 1985,after RWB forced the hand of EP to open up the case.
This is why it wasn't a unanimous decision as expected, in a murder trial of this size. At one time,,a 10-2 wouldn't have been accepted as a majority verdict.
-
Anyway,,why murder 5 people when the old grannie was in the throe's of an illness from which there was no recovery ? As it happened,,she sadly passed away the year that Jeremy was jailed anyway.
Jeremy would probably have known,,or had an idea that her days were numbered,,so why go on to kill when he knew that he was her favourite grandchild and would probably do well.
Chances are,,he probably didn't give death a thought.
-
yes her favrite granchild must of been a great source of tension bettween him and the family.
-
yes her favrite granchild must of been a great source of tension bettween him and the family.
I'm sure it must have been nugs-----------being as he was a " stranger " !
-
I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.
When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.
Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple. They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range according to the pathologist.
So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And had the best witness - Jeremy.
I have said on numerous occasions, RICH IS RELATIVE. Whilst YOU may see a family as being so -but compared with WHAT?- their version of it, balanced against their relatives, their neighbours, their friends, their out goings, their DEBTS, may be ENTIRELY different.
-
I´ll never understand most guilters´ stance on JM. To me it is clear that IF Jeremy is guilty as charged, Julie was in on the whole thing.[/b] She knew about it for a year, she provided sleeping pills, she didn´t warn the family when Jeremy called her and told her he was going to do it. In her own words!
How can they keep seeing her through rose coloured glasses? Beats me.
There were some serious criminal issues with JM, one of them possibly being accessory to murder.
I COMPLETELY agree Alias!!
-
Thinking about what Martin has said - and the list of things that we have posted on other threads that would PROVE the innocence of JB ( and not just get him out on a technicality ) then he is correct
If the evidence was forthcoming then it would prove a cover up and not just a selective presentation of evidence.
Personally I came on here for interesting discussion and to look at documents etc. Not really to look at scenarios from books. But there are times I have been influenced by posters who obviously have been on here for much longer than me - but over all I don't think I have changed my opinion much .
The most recent thing that I find very annoying is the replies from EP about releasing the evidence held under PII - personally I think that is BS - and that is a big indication of what is behind all of this situation.
But you're assuming there IS evidence to prove what Martin thinks. Given that no one knows what evidence is being held, there is no way of knowing what it would or would not prove.
Wishful thinking is that they have the key to Jeremy's prison cell - however, that is all it is at the moment.
-
I would also add that I had explored the "noble theory" in respect of the police and the family . I think mainly that has been "thinking out loud" and then posting those thoughts , because sometimes the replies put you back on track.
I think that is my inherent trait of wanting to see some good in every person. I find it hard to accept that an innocent man would be framed - however I know that it is possible and it has happened before in other cases .
I think it always good to re-visit that list in the OP of what would PROVE innocence. And in every case the police must have known what the truth was.
Personally, for me, it's nothing to do with wanting to see the good in people - innocent people have been framed in the past and will no doubt continue to be framed in the future. But the suggestion in this instance isn't just a case of framing an innocent man, it's a case of framing an innocent man in the full knowledge of who the real culprit was. That's the bit I just don't buy.
-
I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.
When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.
Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple. They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range according to the pathologist.
So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And had the best witness - Jeremy.
Yes they did, the fact that YOU didn't agree is neither here nor there.
-
oh i certanly buy it i remember what paddy hill said.
-
oh i certanly buy it i remember what paddy hill said.
Would you like to share it with the rest of us? ;D ;D
-
paddy hill said that the police told him straght they dident care weather he was innocent or guilty they needed a conviction.
-
nugnug I watched the programme on TV wherein that statement was made and I believe it to be true.
-
So do I. It's what I've said all along.
-
paddy hill said that the police told him straght they dident care weather he was innocent or guilty they needed a conviction.
Who is Paddy Hill? Which programme? However, they didn't need to convict an innocent man, they had Sheila.
-
Hi Caroline Paddy Hill was one of the Birmingham 6 another MOJ released after serving 16 years for a crime they did not commit. Paddy Hill is still fighting for justice in the way of an apology but guess he will never get one. He was interviewed on TV and he said the police told them we know you did not do it but we need a conviction.
As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned perhaps and I am only saying perhaps the police thought he was guilty but had no evidence so found some to get him convicted :'( just a thought.
-
Hi Caroline Paddy Hill was one of the Birmingham 6 another MOJ released after serving 16 years for a crime they did not commit. Paddy Hill is still fighting for justice in the way of an apology but guess he will never get one. He was interviewed on TV and he said the police told them we know you did not do it but we need a conviction.
As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned perhaps and I am only saying perhaps the police thought he was guilty but had no evidence so found some to get him convicted :'( just a thought.
Ha, ha!!! Oh that Paddy Hill ;D ;D ;D ;D. I thought Nug Nug was talking about someone involved in the Jeremy Bamber case. I have never said the police wouldn't frame an innocent man - however, I don't believe they would knowingly frame an innocent man when they already had a clear suspect. I agree, that he was framed but he was framed because they thought he was guilty.
-
Caroline I agree they would frame an innocent man but only when they had no other suspect and in the case of the Birmingham 6 they had nobody and they seem to fit the bill :'(
-
Caroline I agree they would frame an innocent man but only when they had no other suspect and in the case of the Birmingham 6 they had nobody and they seem to fit the bill :'(
As did the Gilford Four, Stepan Kiszko and Barry George (to name a few) but these instances are difference because they were framed to clear the case. They already had a pretty good suspect in Sheila so why change tack and 'knowingly' frame an innocent man? It makes no sense!!
-
Some interesting remarks on this thread. Just some thoughts. First of all, it isn't in the logs regarding a murder and a suicide. it's in Neil Davidson's CoLP interview transcript. However, he does impart that he was allegedly confused as to whether the message referred to one body or two bodies. Personally I do not buy the generic version police statements tallying around a mistaken identity. Therefore the logs imply to me that there were indeed two bodies, one female and one male.
If we take the line that police believed JB was guilty and this is why they framed him - I would be wary of a certain set of officers trying to fall back on that defence. I dont know where the suggestion first originated, but it was expressed repeatedly a while ago that DS Stan Jones wasn't told the truth about what had happened that morning until several years later or at least a good while later. It has also been expressed on many occasions, most recently by Bambergate that there in effect two sets of officers. One set involved in the actual raid, who dont feel they should take responsibility for the later instructions of their superiors... and the superiors themselves, who gave the TFG those instructions.
As for some of the other officers, I wouldn't trust somebody like Bob Miller or Ron Cook as far as I could spit them. Therefore why should I believe if they or similar colleagues try to claim they framed somebody purely because he was guilty? This was the line given to Ray Hollingsworth a few years ago when he spoke with some Essex Police officers. However if we look at the situation at the actual time in 1985, a senior officer reviewed the case evidence as late as early September and his findings where that the evidence pointed towards Sheila as having been culpable for the killings, effectively backing Taff Jones's stance to that date. this does not match up with EP genuinely believing in JB's guilt. Clearly one set of officers worked towards claiming JB was culpable (using fair means or foul) while another set refused to play ball.
Possibly a tenuous link but there is the Anecdote from the late Campion about KMcK boasting at the post conviction party re JB having been falsely sent down.
Also, if nothing went wrong with the TFG operation, why where a team of 'informatives' brought in to re-enact the operation and learn? What could be learned by re-enacting a raid that had taken place on a silent farmhouse with all occupants already having been found dead by the original TFG?
-
Caroline think Taff Jones thought Sheila responsible but think Stan Jones thought Jeremy was the culprit so Taff was removed from the case and evidence against Jeremy was engineered so it must have been a gut feeling Stan had but what really gets me if Jeremy had been guilty how did he carry out the crime i.e. get Sheila in such a position to shoot her in the neck and so many other aspects confuse me. Did Jeremy brain wash Sheila into committing the crimes did he have an accomplice or is he just plain innocent I am clueless to say the least and would be happy for guilty supporters to help me out here I have posted twice before asking this question but no response at all :'(
-
I would also add that I had explored the "noble theory" in respect of the police and the family . I think mainly that has been "thinking out loud" and then posting those thoughts , because sometimes the replies put you back on track.
I think that is my inherent trait of wanting to see some good in every person. I find it hard to accept that an innocent man would be framed - however I know that it is possible and it has happened before in other cases .
I think it always good to re-visit that list in the OP of what would PROVE innocence. And in every case the police must have known what the truth was.
Knowing the truth is one thing,,Jansus. Admitting it is another :-[
-
Hello Roch
excellent post. Thanks for confusing me more than ever will go back and digest your post again.
-
Some interesting remarks on this thread. Just some thoughts. First of all, it isn't in the logs regarding a murder and a suicide. it's in Neil Davidson's CoLP interview transcript. However, he does impart that he was allegedly confused as to whether the message referred to one body or two bodies. Personally I do not buy the generic version police statements tallying around a mistaken identity. Therefore the logs imply to me that there were indeed two bodies, one female and one male.
If we take the line that police believed JB was guilty and this is why they framed him - I would be wary of a certain set of officers trying to fall back on that defence. I dont know where the suggestion first originated, but it was expressed repeatedly a while ago that DS Stan Jones wasn't told the truth about what had happened that morning until several years later or at least a good while later. It has also been expressed on many occasions, most recently by Bambergate that there in effect two sets of officers. One set involved in the actual raid, who dont feel they should take responsibility for the later instructions of their superiors... and the superiors themselves, who gave the TFG those instructions.
As for some of the other officers, I wouldn't trust somebody like Bob Miller or Ron Cook as far as I could spit them. Therefore why should I believe if they or similar colleagues try to claim they framed somebody purely because he was guilty? This was the line given to Ray Hollingsworth a few years ago when he spoke with some Essex Police officers. However if we look at the situation at the actual time in 1985, a senior officer reviewed the case evidence as late as early September and his findings where that the evidence pointed towards Sheila as having been culpable for the killings, effectively backing Taff Jones's stance to that date. this does not match up with EP genuinely believing in JB's guilt. Clearly one set of officers worked towards claiming JB was culpable (using fair means or foul) while another set refused to play ball.
Possibly a tenuous link but there is the Anecdote from the late Campion about KMcK boasting at the post conviction party re JB having been falsely sent down.
Also, if nothing went wrong with the TFG operation, why where a team of 'informatives' brought in to re-enact the operation and learn? What could be learned by re-enacting a raid that had taken place on a silent farmhouse with all occupants already having been found dead by the original TFG?
Yes, I remember Campion mentioning KMck's claim but I also remember that KMck also said that the reason the police knew Jeremy wasn't guilty, was because they knew a 'drugs gang' had killed them all. Now that takes us down another avenue which I just don't believe. I believe KMck said it, I just don't believe it.
I have also obviously heard about the 're-enactment' but do we know that that's what it was? And even if it was, how does it relate to the framing of an innocent man?
We will have to disagree on the two bodies in the kitchen, I believe Sheila died where she was shot and was found where she died. The log which states 'In communication with someone inside the farmhouse' could simply have meant they were trying to rouse someone because it is followed by 'Met with no response' - they tried to communicate with someone, but no one replied. And Sheila being found on the left side of the bed could simply have meant that she was found TO the left OF the bed.
-
Caroline think Taff Jones thought Sheila responsible but think Stan Jones thought Jeremy was the culprit so Taff was removed from the case and evidence against Jeremy was engineered so it must have been a gut feeling Stan had but what really gets me if Jeremy had been guilty how did he carry out the crime i.e. get Sheila in such a position to shoot her in the neck and so many other aspects confuse me. Did Jeremy brain wash Sheila into committing the crimes did he have an accomplice or is he just plain innocent I am clueless to say the least and would be happy for guilty supporters to help me out here I have posted twice before asking this question but no response at all :'(
Susan the nature of schizophrenia involves the difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality,and if you can imagine being woken up in the middle of the night and led to your death in a matter of seconds is how I perceive this crime. As for Police, trust in them has been eroded along with many professionals including politicians,teachers,clergy and others. I believe in cock-up rather than conspiracy in this case because as Adam has said it would be just too much of a coincidence for all the events of this crime to have fallen into place as they did leaving Jeremy out in the cold regarding the purported telephone call from Nevill and his three calls to Julie in the space of a few hours.
-
Hi steve thanks for your reply. Sheila had eaten later than the rest of the family so I cannot accept she was sleeping when Jeremy arrived on the scene :'( surely she would have struggled and fought with Jeremy unless of course the voices she heard about killing her family were infact Jeremy's voice.
-
Hi steve thanks for your reply. Sheila had eaten later than the rest of the family so I cannot accept she was sleeping when Jeremy arrived on the scene :'( surely she would have struggled and fought with Jeremy unless of course the voices she heard about killing her family were infact Jeremy's voice.
I can´t see in what position Jeremy was while shooting Sheila - seems so awkward! Laying on his stomach on the floor? How? Steve_uk, you say you can picture this, can you explain?
-
He'd have been covered in carpet fibres if he'd scrawped along the floor. Those wool carpets moult a bit.
Carpet samples were taken,,,in fact,,the police took enough pieces from here and there to make a fireside rug.
-
Like the blood and prints on the bible,,the forensic tests on the carpet pieces never came to light. ::)
-
I can´t see in what position Jeremy was while shooting Sheila - seems so awkward! Laying on his stomach on the floor? How? Steve_uk, you say you can picture this, can you explain?
I don't see why Jeremy has to be in the position you suggest. He tells a weary young woman to lie down and be quiet,maybe he claims there are intruders but everything will be okay,or Robert Boutflour's suggestion was that June wanted her for a bible class..in any case Jeremy makes his first mistake by not shooting her cleanly the first time,understandable if you consider him guilty and everything he's gone through just to get to this stage.
-
Steve,,that being the case,,,why wasn't he filling his trousers at the thought that Sheila could still be alive while he and the police were outside ?
-
He'd have been covered in carpet fibres if he'd scrawped along the floor. Those wool carpets moult a bit.
Carpet samples were taken,,,in fact,,the police took enough pieces from here and there to make a fireside rug.
I believe for Sheila to be shot by someone else in the place she was found the angle of the gun would be impossible as it would need to be lower than the floor. If Sheila was found on the bed there is more of a possibility someone may have shot her and she was moved to the floor by the police for some reason as we know AE was told she was found on the bed. :-\ :-\
-
I don't see why Jeremy has to be in the position you suggest. He tells a weary young woman to lie down and be quiet,maybe he claims there are intruders but everything will be okay,or Robert Boutflour's suggestion was that June wanted her for a bible class..in any case Jeremy makes his first mistake by not shooting her cleanly the first time,understandable if you consider him guilty and everything he's gone through just to get to this stage.
Steve, having commanded Sheila to lay still, if he was standing he'd have had a problem with angles. Had he been standing above her the fatal bullet couldn't have occurred even if he'd forced her head upwards and backwards. He wouldn't have been able to control Sheila AND the angle of the gun........IMO
-
lookout fireside rug indeed!!!! but I do agree had Jeremy been at the scene he would have been covered in forensic evidence :'(
-
He'd have been a walking time-bomb,,Susan. Instead,,he was a sitting duck.
-
Steve,,that being the case,,,why wasn't he filling his trousers at the thought that Sheila could still be alive while he and the police were outside ?
Well he did finish her off lookout with the second shot,whereupon Sheila slumped down,Jeremy pulling her legs to check on death,thereby rucking up the nightie. As it happens Jeremy did attempt to delay entry by all means possible.
-
He'd have been a walking time-bomb,,Susan. Instead,,he was a sitting duck.
Haha! Very good Lookout. ;D ;D
-
Maggie but Sheila would have fought for her life she would not have just let Jeremy shoot her does not make sense at all unless Jeremy had an accomplice who held Sheila down but I don't believe that either. Infact not sure what I believe anymore :'(
-
Steve, having commanded Sheila to lay still, if he was standing he'd have had a problem with angles. Had he been standing above her the fatal bullet couldn't have occurred even if he'd forced her head upwards and backwards. He wouldn't have been able to control Sheila AND the angle of the gun........IMO
We know what state Sheila is in a few hours before just by chance due to Pamela's telephone call. Yes this is all conjecture,but I don't see any problem with angles of bullets,at least not enough to prevent death from occurring simulating suicide.
-
I don't see why Jeremy has to be in the position you suggest. He tells a weary young woman to lie down and be quiet,maybe he claims there are intruders but everything will be okay,or Robert Boutflour's suggestion was that June wanted her for a bible class..in any case Jeremy makes his first mistake by not shooting her cleanly the first time,understandable if you consider him guilty and everything he's gone through just to get to this stage.
That is where I have a hard time. I cannot imagine anybody lying down peacefully to be shot! Thanks for answering btw!
It also does not make sense for Jeremy to have shot her twice if he wanted it to appear to be a suicide. It is clear from photos of Sheila that she moved her hand to the first wound, so I can also not see how the gun could have gone off by accident. As far as I can see it must have been intentional, as the second shot was fatal and Sheila couldn´t have moved after that.
This scene makes zero sense to me.
-
Maggie lookout is on great form tonight ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If I'd shot someone,,then made up some cock and bull story,,,arrived with the police at the scene and suddenly realised that the person I'd shot wasn't dead,,,I'd have collapsed in a heap.
Jeremy had either nerves of steel,,,or he simply didn't do it. Nobody could endure the suspense of seeing a figure at the window,,sending for the firearms team,,,then extra reinforcements,,,,without it affecting you in some way if you were guilty. A complete nervous wreck springs to mind,,,but he wasn't,,,and not a scrap of psychopathy in sight.
-
If I'd shot someone,,then made up some cock and bull story,,,arrived with the police at the scene and suddenly realised that the person I'd shot wasn't dead,,,I'd have collapsed in a heap.
Jeremy had either nerves of steel,,,or he simply didn't do it. Nobody could endure the suspense of seeing a figure at the window,,sending for the firearms team,,,then extra reinforcements,,,,without it affecting you in some way if you were guilty. A complete nervous wreck springs to mind,,,but he wasn't,,,and not a scrap of psychopathy in sight.
To be fair, he did vomit and cry.
-
Well he did finish her off lookout with the second shot,whereupon Sheila slumped down,Jeremy pulling her legs to check on death,thereby rucking up the nightie. As it happens Jeremy did attempt to delay entry by all means possible.
Steve,,,I think Jeremy would have realised that two shots wouldn't have amounted to suicide.
-
To be fair, he did vomit and cry.
Normal reflex action when told bad news,Alias. An immediate response. I think the whisky made him sick too.
-
It's not surprising they could all see in the dark. It was the glow from S.Jones's nose,,as he was the whisky drinker.
-
We know what state Sheila is in a few hours before just by chance due to Pamela's telephone call. Yes this is all conjecture,but I don't see any problem with angles of bullets,at least not enough to prevent death from occurring simulating suicide.
Steve, the problem I have is that with the length of the barrel, any shots fired from above her would have followed a downward trajectory. He would have needed to stand as far away as her feet AND be certain that she didn't move her head in order to ensure the bullet went upwards.
-
And it was a contact shot.
-
If I'd shot someone,,then made up some cock and bull story,,,arrived with the police at the scene and suddenly realised that the person I'd shot wasn't dead,,,I'd have collapsed in a heap.
Jeremy had either nerves of steel,,,or he simply didn't do it. Nobody could endure the suspense of seeing a figure at the window,,sending for the firearms team,,,then extra reinforcements,,,,without it affecting you in some way if you were guilty. A complete nervous wreck springs to mind,,,but he wasn't,,,and not a scrap of psychopathy in sight.
That is what I find so hard to understand |Lookout Have always believed Jeremy would have to be a psychopath to carry out these murders and we haven't the slightest hint that he is. In fact quite the opposite is true, all the evidence points to him being extremely normal with no sign of personality disorders or psychopathy. Surely someone like Suzette Ford would have known if Jeremy had sown signs of this as well as Julie Mugford but for all her accusations we never heard a word about him being jealous, over controlling or violent with her. There was the odd squabble but nothing strange about that. imo
-
Steve, the problem I have is that with the length of the barrel, any shots fired from above her would have followed a downward trajectory. He would have needed to stand as far away as her feet AND be certain that she didn't move her head in order to ensure the bullet went upwards.
Well maybe Mike can elucidate again,but it's my case that he did cock it up the first time. As for carpet fibres or other forensic evidence the White House was his second home so this is not like the Simon Hall affair.
-
That is what I find so hard to understand |Lookout Have always believed Jeremy would have to be a psychopath to carry out these murders and we haven't the slightest hint that he is. In fact quite the opposite is true, all the evidence points to him being extremely normal with no sign of personality disorders or psychopathy. Surely someone like Suzette Ford would have known if Jeremy had sown signs of this as well as Julie Mugford but for all her accusations we never heard a word about him being jealous, over controlling or violent with her. There was the odd squabble but nothing strange about that. imo
What was Jeremy's relationship with women? Like many young men of his ilk he had to adapt to the needs of the modern woman in a way his natural father never had to. He would shy away from Sheila when she began what we might call politely her theology discussions,otherwise women it seemed fitted in with Jeremy's wishes. The one exception was June for a huge period of his life who held de facto control,but lost it along with Jeremy's respect after returning from hospital the second time. Is this why Jeremy allegedly claimed to "f*cking hate my parents" because they stood in the way of the lifestyle he wanted?
-
What was Jeremy's relationship with women? Like many young men of his ilk he had to adapt to the needs of the modern woman in a way his natural father never had to. He would shy away from Sheila when she began what we might call politely her theology discussions,otherwise women it seemed fitted in with Jeremy's wishes. The one exception was June for a huge period of his life who held de facto control,but lost it along with Jeremy's respect after returning from hospital the second time. Is this why Jeremy allegedly claimed to "f*cking hate my parents" because they stood in the way of the lifestyle he wanted?
Hi Steve, it is good to see you back but with respect, that post is not one of your best efforts ;D
How do you KNOW any of this? I am pretty sure you do not. There is absolutely no reported information which would lead anyone to believe Jeremy was a psychopath or suffered with Personality disorders. All psychopaths are narcissistic although not all narcissists are psychopaths. You cannot hide narcissism as it is just your personality, the way you operate although psychopaths can and do try to hide their true selves but Jeremy must be a super man to never let his guard down and show his true self. imo
-
No sign of fear nor facial contortion at having been shot by another person ?
More like peace,relief and tranquillity without further suffering. Sheila hadn't died defending herself.
-
No sign of fear nor facial contortion at having been shot by another person ?
More like peace,relief and tranquillity without further suffering. Sheila hadn't died defending herself.
No tears.
-
No tears.
That's right,Alias.
-
Hi Steve, it is good to see you back but with respect, that post is not one of your best efforts ;D
How do you KNOW any of this? I am pretty sure you do not. There is absolutely no reported information which would lead anyone to believe Jeremy was a psychopath or suffered with Personality disorders. All psychopaths are narcissistic although not all narcissists are psychopaths. You cannot hide narcissism as it is just your personality, the way you operate although psychopaths can and do try to hide their true selves but Jeremy must be a super man to never let his guard down and show his true self. imo
But we had the Anders Behring Breivik case of a mass murderer of 77,who steeled himself using central nervous system stimulants just as Jeremy might well have done,yet they are both as sane as you or me once the effects of the drugs wear off.
-
Oh,aye Steve,,now you're getting carried away. Jeremy wasn't into steroids or anything of that nature,,so no way can you compare him with Breivik.
-
But we had the Anders Behring Breivik case of a mass murderer of 77,who steeled himself using central nervous system stimulants just as Jeremy might well have done,yet they are both as sane as you or me once the effects of the drugs wear off.
Depends what you mean by sane steve. Psychopaths are 'sane' and so are those with a Personality Disorder, neither are mentally ill, psychopaths don't emote and to an extent neither do narcissists as it is all about themselves, they are very manipulative and self centred.
-
Oh,aye Steve,,now you're getting carried away. Jeremy wasn't into steroids or anything of that nature,,so no way can you compare him with Breivik.
He was taking central nervous system cocktails lookout,pre and post-murders.
-
What was Jeremy's relationship with women? Like many young men of his ilk he had to adapt to the needs of the modern woman in a way his natural father never had to. He would shy away from Sheila when she began what we might call politely her theology discussions,otherwise women it seemed fitted in with Jeremy's wishes. The one exception was June for a huge period of his life who held de facto control,but lost it along with Jeremy's respect after returning from hospital the second time. Is this why Jeremy allegedly claimed to "f*cking hate my parents" because they stood in the way of the lifestyle he wanted?
Steve, EVERY generation has to adapt in ways their parents didn't. I doubt VERY much that Jeremy ever became involved with ANYONE'S deep and meaningful discussions, let alone a sister he rarely saw and whose mental problems/theological passions seemed not to manifest themselves until after she'd married, although they may have been underlying.
-
He was taking central nervous system cocktails lookout,pre and post-murders.
Steve, it sounds as if you're implying that he was dependent.
-
He was taking central nervous system cocktails lookout,pre and post-murders.
I think he'd been prescribed valium,,Steve. Nothing more fancy than that.
-
Steve, EVERY generation has to adapt in ways their parents didn't. I doubt VERY much that Jeremy ever became involved with ANYONE'S deep and meaningful discussions, let alone a sister he rarely saw and whose mental problems/theological passions seemed not to manifest themselves until after she'd married, although they may have been underlying.
I had in mind the occasion when Jeremy twisted Julie's arm behind her back,wondering if this caused a flashback in her mind to her own predicament as she was growing up. Of course this has been dismissed as a pack of lies by some.
-
I think he'd been prescribed valium,,Steve. Nothing more fancy than that.
Washed down with alcohol.
-
He did that to avoid being slapped,Steve,,because believe it or not,,Julie was a bad-tempered madam.
-
He did that to avoid being slapped,Steve,,because believe it or not,,Julie was a bad-tempered madam.
It's why I asked the question about Jeremy's relationship with women and I would appreciate the feminine perspective.
-
It's why I asked the question about Jeremy's relationship with women and I would appreciate the feminine perspective.
Jeremy seems to have been very generous to his girlfriends, giving gifts, taking out to dinner. He also seemed to go out of his way to help, for instance help Julie move her furniture after they broke up. Helping Sheila by driving her home from a party, then returning, which shows he wanted to stay at the party.
A generous type, perhaps even a gentleman at heart?
Are you throwing up now, Steve_uk?
-
It's why I asked the question about Jeremy's relationship with women and I would appreciate the feminine perspective.
Jeremy didn't have any problems with the older,mature women at all. He was probably brassed-off with the controlling and unpredictable nature of Julie.
It certainly didn't take her long to get over Jeremy when she'd sat for her posing pictures-------knickerless.
-
I had in mind the occasion when Jeremy twisted Julie's arm behind her back,wondering if this caused a flashback in her mind to her own predicament as she was growing up. Of course this has been dismissed as a pack of lies by some.
Jeremy's behaviour did nothing to recommend him. If Julie is to be believed, she experienced many "predicaments" which would label her as a victim. £25000 doesn't stop this happening and it doesn't go away by magic. Maybe this is why there are doubts about her truthfulness.
-
I created a thread on whether the 19 day trial was fair. No one came up with any decent reasons why it was not.
When Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, with Julie present. Neither of them were thinking about 25k. They just wanted to tell the truth. About the caravan break in & murder. Jeremys lawyers have never been able to prove that Julies NOTW deal negates her testimony. But god knows they have tried.
Jeremys own Youtube video said his relatives were rich in their own right & had no reason to lie. They were not criminals so would not decide in unison 4 days after the murder to commit such a major crime. They found the silencer and handed it in. Simple. They would have had to know Sheila's blood group and to effectivly put that blood into the silencer. Creating the back splatter effect. The silencer evidence has been accepted at trial & at appeals. It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer. If he did not, why was there no blood inside the rifle ? All the shots were either contact or close range according to the pathologist.
So in other words the trial was fair. Jeremy had the best lawyers. They had several months to prepare. And had the best witness - Jeremy.
You mean decent reasons that you yourself agreed with. My three reasons are logical and fair reasons why that was NOT a fair trial and if he was tried agaid with the full knowledge of these reasons you can be fairly confidend that he would have been aquitted.
-
Jeremy seems to have been very generous to his girlfriends, giving gifts, taking out to dinner. He also seemed to go out of his way to help, for instance help Julie move her furniture after they broke up. Helping Sheila by driving her home from a party, then returning, which shows he wanted to stay at the party.
A generous type, perhaps even a gentleman at heart?
Are you throwing up now, Steve_uk?
Not at all. But it makes sense if any of you are wondering how Julie was strung along..
-
Not at all. But it makes sense if any of you are wondering how Julie was strung along..
Strung along to being an accomplice to murder? No! That is preposterous.
-
But you're assuming there IS evidence to prove what Martin thinks. Given that no one knows what evidence is being held, there is no way of knowing what it would or would not prove.
Wishful thinking is that they have the key to Jeremy's prison cell - however, that is all it is at the moment.
Caroline you don't need any new evidence in favour of Bamber. The knowledge on how the original evidence was handled should be enough. The problem is the unlawful way in which the CCRC have handled that knowledge. The knowledge we have today about the haphazzardway the silencer was handled and the knowledge of Mugford's NOTW deal should have been enough for the CCRC to recommend to the appeal couts that the case should be quashed. This they have not done.
-
I hardly think that Julie was strung along,Steve. She was a free spirit the same as he was,and could have gone her own way if she'd wanted to.
After all,she was a few miles away at the time and it was her choice whether she joined Jeremy at weekends or not,,but she'd have lost out on the dinners,drinks and smokes which he provided. Holidays too she did well with.
Julie herself was more than happy to string along knowing what there was on offer. I doubt her hand was forced in any way.
-
Not at all. But it makes sense if any of you are wondering how Julie was strung along..
Steve, I imagine she was VERY willingly strung.
-
Hi Steve. Going back to a previous post of yours in this thread,you stated that 'Jeremy delayed entry to the farm by all means possible',or words to that effect. This is not true according to Bews. In an interview he admitted that Jeremy was anxious for the police officers to enter the farmhouse upon arrival. If they had,and all occupants were dead,a time of death may have been established which would likely have proved either way who the culprit indeed was. Surely Jeremy must have known this and yet he was still 'anxious' for them to go in?
-
Sorry to go off topic,but something else that intrigues me is that in almost 30 years,no expert has managed to refute JB's claims that Sheila was responsible. Although Professor McDonnells initial findings were not in Jeremy's favour,he later admitted that his report accounted for a sound moderator as having been used which was the information he had been given. He has since changed his opinion and concluded that Sheila could have killed herself. There has been two professors that have concluded that Sheila had only died a couple of hours before she was photographed. Sutherst's findings that a scratch on the aga surround was not visible in original crime scene photos,no DNA belonging to Sheila in the sound moderator and then the pig skin tests (that still admittedly need more work done on them). Also,that even Vanezis,the pathologist that actually worked on the case thought it entirely possible that Sheila could have been responsible. He didn't appear to find anything untoward in Jeremy's version of events. So,all in all,fairly a lot in Jeremy's favour here I think.
-
Some interesting remarks on this thread. Just some thoughts. First of all, it isn't in the logs regarding a murder and a suicide. it's in Neil Davidson's CoLP interview transcript. However, he does impart that he was allegedly confused as to whether the message referred to one body or two bodies. Personally I do not buy the generic version police statements tallying around a mistaken identity. Therefore the logs imply to me that there were indeed two bodies, one female and one male.
If we take the line that police believed JB was guilty and this is why they framed him - I would be wary of a certain set of officers trying to fall back on that defence. I dont know where the suggestion first originated, but it was expressed repeatedly a while ago that DS Stan Jones wasn't told the truth about what had happened that morning until several years later or at least a good while later. It has also been expressed on many occasions, most recently by Bambergate that there in effect two sets of officers. One set involved in the actual raid, who dont feel they should take responsibility for the later instructions of their superiors... and the superiors themselves, who gave the TFG those instructions.
As for some of the other officers, I wouldn't trust somebody like Bob Miller or Ron Cook as far as I could spit them. Therefore why should I believe if they or similar colleagues try to claim they framed somebody purely because he was guilty? This was the line given to Ray Hollingsworth a few years ago when he spoke with some Essex Police officers. However if we look at the situation at the actual time in 1985, a senior officer reviewed the case evidence as late as early September and his findings where that the evidence pointed towards Sheila as having been culpable for the killings, effectively backing Taff Jones's stance to that date. this does not match up with EP genuinely believing in JB's guilt. Clearly one set of officers worked towards claiming JB was culpable (using fair means or foul) while another set refused to play ball.
Possibly a tenuous link but there is the Anecdote from the late Campion about KMcK boasting at the post conviction party re JB having been falsely sent down.
Also, if nothing went wrong with the TFG operation, why where a team of 'informatives' brought in to re-enact the operation and learn? What could be learned by re-enacting a raid that had taken place on a silent farmhouse with all occupants already having been found dead by the original TFG?
Roch
Thanks for the correction concerning the statement “One murder and one suicide.”
There is no doubt that that information was given at a time before the police secured the upstairs part of the house. The only logical explanation for it is that, that was what the police found when they broke in downstairs.
I am not in any way opposing the view that Stan Jones may at that time have believed that Bamber was guilty or that he may have been involved in faking evidence such as persuading witnesses to lie.
My basic point is that Bamber cannot, even theoretically, be innocent without the officers who broke into the house knowing it, because they would know from the location and condition of Sheila’s body, as they found it, what the real truth was.
If Sheila had been killed by Bamber, she would have to have been killed before 03:00am and already in the position she is in, in the photographs, but also with her body in an advanced state of rigor mortis by the time it was photographed.
The photographs show that she can’t have been dead for anything like that length of time, since rigor mortis is not apparent at all. Different photographs show arms and even hands and fingers in different positions. There is even one showing fresh blood still flowing from a wound to Sheila's neck.
That is not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of two pathologists, professors Meloni and Cavalli.
-
Yes, I remember Campion mentioning KMck's claim but I also remember that KMck also said that the reason the police knew Jeremy wasn't guilty, was because they knew a 'drugs gang' had killed them all. Now that takes us down another avenue which I just don't believe. I believe KMck said it, I just don't believe it.
I have also obviously heard about the 're-enactment' but do we know that that's what it was? And even if it was, how does it relate to the framing of an innocent man?
We will have to disagree on the two bodies in the kitchen, I believe Sheila died where she was shot and was found where she died. The log which states 'In communication with someone inside the farmhouse' could simply have meant they were trying to rouse someone because it is followed by 'Met with no response' - they tried to communicate with someone, but no one replied. And Sheila being found on the left side of the bed could simply have meant that she was found TO the left OF the bed.
Caroline
It appears that you are committed to supporting the police on all those questions where it is essential to do so to maintain the pro guilt position, and yet you are also committed to the view that the police did, in fact, fake evidence to frame Bamber. It just looks too contrived!
What I have tried to do in this thread is to show that certain opinions which, to an outsider, might seem to represent a “balanced” view of the case are actually representations of the pro guilt position by implication. These are views which I have held for some time.
You can go with mocking Julie Mugford and with disparaging the silencer evidence and yet still come out of all of that smelling of roses and firmly on the side of Essex Police!
-
What is going on?
An interesting recent development on this forum is the growing popularity of the theory that the police framed Jeremy, but only because they believed he was guilty.
This is the view of three members who immediately spring to mind. They are Neil, Nickos and Caroline.
You can read some of their views on the subject here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5190.345.html
Fallback position
I admit that I regard that theory as being, of itself, somewhat sinister, because it allows a fallback position, should evidence come to light that the police fabricated evidence to frame Bamber.
Generally speaking, evidence of such a nature would bring the conviction of a defendant into question and be quite likely to lead to an acquittal. The Birmingham Six, The Guilford Four and the Bridgewater Three are cases which spring to mind.
But such evidence would not automatically lead to such an outcome. If the questions of the evidence against the police and the evidence upon which the conviction is based were clearly separate matters, it could be conceded that police misconduct did occur, without the evidence upon which the conviction is based being called into question.
So, from the point of view of people who support the conviction such a position offers an obvious advantage.
Did policeman lie in their statements?
In the Bamber case, for example, conclusive evidence that policemen lied in their statements would not necessarily lead to an acquittal for Bamber, even if it were accepted as such by the courts.
If it were realised by the authorities that Bamber has such evidence and that it is pretty conclusive, it would make good sense for those concerned to prepare to concede on that issue, while still maintaining that Bamber is guilty. I am not saying that I know that that is happening, but only that it would make sense and that he and his supporters would do well to be mindful of the possibility of such a development.
-
Even if: The 'two bodies in the kitchen' message was a mistake.
Sheila being on the bed was a misunderstanding.
The phone log entries were a result of sloppy police paperwork.
The figure at the window was a trick of the light [or Crispy?]
Sheila's blood was inside the silencer.
It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty.
JM must have known that she had a choice... to sacrifice Jeremy or save herself. That wouldn't be an easy thing to do to someone you loved, which would explain her demeanor in court. Almost impossible to cross-examine.
Police and relatives had there own agendas and easily convinced themselves that they were right.
-
Even if: The 'two bodies in the kitchen' message was a mistake.
Sheila being on the bed was a misunderstanding.
The phone log entries were a result of sloppy police paperwork.
The figure at the window was a trick of the light [or Crispy?]
Sheila's blood was inside the silencer.
It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty.
JM must have known that she had a choice... to sacrifice Jeremy or save herself. That wouldn't be an easy thing to do to someone you loved, which would explain her demeanor in court. Almost impossible to cross-examine.
Police and relatives had there own agendas and easily convinced themselves that they were right.
Lebaleb
I agree. Even if you leave out of account all the evidence pointing to Bamber's innocence and accept the silly explanations given for rejecting it, there is still a lack of evidence to support guilt.
There is only the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's testimony, both of which have since been discredited.
After that, there is only Jeremy making a fried breakfast and stuff like that.
-
Caroline
It appears that you are committed to supporting the police on all those questions where it is essential to do so to maintain the pro guilt position, and yet you are also committed to the view that the police did, in fact, fake evidence to frame Bamber. It just looks too contrived!
What I have tried to do in this thread is to show is that certain opinions which, to an outsider, might seem to represent a “balanced” view of the case are actually representations of the pro guilt position by implication. These are views which I have held for some time.
You can go with mocking Julie Mugford and with disparaging the silencer evidence and yet still come out of all of that smelling of roses and firmly on the side of Essex Police!
What are you talking about? You're saying there is something wrong with having doubts? To be honest, I really don't give a rats what you think. I HAVE DOUBTS and nothing YOU say is going to change that. Your attempts at armchair psychology fall flat and reveal more about you than they do anyone else - again, I think you are less concerned with Jeremy being innocent or guilty in favour of simply being right.
-
What are you talking about? You're saying there is something wrong with having doubts? To be honest, I really don't give a rats what you think. I HAVE DOUBTS and nothing YOU say is going to change that. Your attempts at armchair psychology fall flat and reveal more about you than they do anyone else - again, I think you are less concerned with Jeremy being innocent or guilty in favour of simply being right.
That is a hasty and ill considered post. But I will come back to it later.
-
Even if: The 'two bodies in the kitchen' message was a mistake.
Sheila being on the bed was a misunderstanding.
The phone log entries were a result of sloppy police paperwork.
The figure at the window was a trick of the light [or Crispy?]
Sheila's blood was inside the silencer.
It does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty.
JM must have known that she had a choice... to sacrifice Jeremy or save herself. That wouldn't be an easy thing to do to someone you loved, which would explain her demeanor in court. Almost impossible to cross-examine.
Police and relatives had there own agendas and easily convinced themselves that they were right.
Sheila was on the left side of the bed could EASILY have been misinterpreted - someone describing it is describing that she was 'to' the left of the bed but it would be easy for someone who hadn't seen it, to get the opinion that she was ON the bed. I'm not saying there aren't things that are difficult to explain and I'm NOT even saying that he's guilty. I am saying that I have doubts!! Martin is intent on making the fact that I do have doubts into some kind of conspiracy theory. Why should he care what I think? He knows he can't change my mind so he is using tactics to try and discredit - apparently he knows what I think better than I do.
By the way, I don't believe the silencer was used!!
-
That is a hasty and ill considered post. But I will come back to it later.
Well, it would be wouldn't it? It's criticising one of yours!!
-
I have to agree with both Lebaleb and Martin. I probably come in about the middle.
The fact still remains that there are a lot of unanswered questions all round with EVERYBODY ! Each situation differing from the other,,including varying scenarios. It's no good.
As I've mentioned before,,Jeremy would have to be a raging psychopath to get beyond 27 psychotherapists/psychiatrists/ and those dealing with mental health problems,,,to enable him to go on pleading his innocence for nearly 30 years,,and to put people to the trouble of helping him fight for his freedom.
Yesterday,,I'd said that nobody appeared to be scared of him in any way after the murders and when the relatives first suspected him at the early stage,,,yet they're repeatedly stating that they " fear for their lives " at the thought of him being released ?
The same people who were around him,,the same people who gave him two rifles from the collection at WHF..I'd like to know how,and why they suspected Jeremy.
Why is everyone more scared now ? Nothing's changed.Jeremy's still locked up. He's never made any threats to them,,in fact he's done nothing to them to cause the " so-called " fear that they have of him.
The only thing that I can't understand is his calm in all of this because if I was swindled out of money/shares,etc,,I'd be ballistic for most of the time,,and poison pen letters would flow from my cell on a daily basis,,and I would make threats to get it back as well. This,to me is normal behaviour when you've been wrongly accused. Though I know I'd come off the worst for being like that,,and,ironically,,I'd most likely arouse suspicion by being like that. Either way,,you can't win.
I often wonder what his chances would have been if he were to have " confessed ". A model prisoner,,locked up beyond his time,,helping those who are blind, by writing in braille,,,whether he'd have been allowed parole.
I wish I had the amount of influence towards EP and the prison authorities,as the relatives have. Pity I couldn't write to them suggesting that the criminals for release are likely to re-offend so keep them where they are until they die.
They'd all think I was crackers !
P.S.remind me to go in for a professorship if Jeremy is ever found guilty ! Particularly one in Mental Health.
-
Jeremy hadn't even made any attempt to skip bail,,as a holiday had been arranged for himself and JM,,but instead,,he stayed put,letting JM go away with her friend instead. This was during the time from the murders up to his arrest in 1986.
JB also gave Julie her spends before she went away,,so it didn't worry,,nor bother her that he'd " murdered his family ". Nor did she complain of his spending habits ! Everything in the garden was rosy for her until Jeremy dropped the bombshell,,then,as a scorned woman,,she suddenly decided that he was the murderer,after spending BLOOD MONEY !
-
What is wrong with people having their own opinions? This is not a cult!
-
Susan the nature of schizophrenia involves the difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality,and if you can imagine being woken up in the middle of the night and led to your death in a matter of seconds is how I perceive this crime. As for Police, trust in them has been eroded along with many professionals including politicians,teachers,clergy and others. I believe in cock-up rather than conspiracy in this case because as Adam has said it would be just too much of a coincidence for all the events of this crime to have fallen into place as they did leaving Jeremy out in the cold regarding the purported telephone call from Nevill and his three calls to Julie in the space of a few hours.
Steve, I entirely concur, for reasons, of which we are all aware, that trust in the professionals you mention, frequently, IMO, because of their mistaken belief that they are beyond reproach, has become eroded. I'm also inclined to believe that the errors in the case began with cock up rather than conspiracy but I can see the possibility that the former MAY be responsible for the latter..................Steve, I hope you'll concur with ME that two out of three is pretty good going.
The point at which I must DISagree is where you see Sheila as being "woken up in the middle of the night" and led compliantly to her death. Someone, Adam possibly, has described her as being "mildly" schizophrenic. I'm not certain that one can BE "mildly" schizophrenic any more than one can be "mildly" pregnant, however, the degrees of severity of episodes may depend on several variables, the most likely being the balance and regularity of medication, followed closely by lifestyle. For Sheila, both fell short of the optimum.
Irrelevant of whether Jeremy is innocent or guilty, we know that Sheila had been agitated/manic(?). She'd run, screaming, from the monastery. She had verbally attacked a tradesman who locked his car doors against the onslaught. She skipped and danced with her children. She was said by a shop keeper to have been withdrawn. Pamela remarked on her monosyllibic responses. Over as little as a 48 hour period there is a suspicious fluctuation in her behavioural pattern suggesting that she may not have been able to sleep well, if at all. given the unauthorized reduction in her meds combined with learning that there was to be no happy reconciliation for her with Colin.
-
Do we know if the relatives ever come forward or not regarding a written accusation by Jeremy,,that either AE or DB purposely scraped the underneath of the mantelpiece at the farmhouse in order to gather paint on the end of the silencer which they " found ",in which to frame him ?
I would be interested to find out if they ever sought advice,etc about this.
-
Do we know if the relatives ever come forward or not regarding a written accusation by Jeremy,,that either AE or DB purposely scraped the underneath of the mantelpiece at the farmhouse in order to gather paint on the end of the silencer which they " found ",in which to frame him ?
I would be interested to find out if they ever sought advice,etc about this.
They offered the defence the facility to come into WHF and do any tests they wished but this wasn't taken up by the defence.
-
They offered the defence the facility to come into WHF and do any tests they wished but this wasn't taken up by the defence.
Does that sound like a defence doing a fair job for their client?
-
Most unusual.
-
They offered the defence the facility to come into WHF and do any tests they wished but this wasn't taken up by the defence.
I think it was because they ran out of money Vic? But as you say they did offer.
-
Caroline
It appears that you are committed to supporting the police on all those questions where it is essential to do so to maintain the pro guilt position, and yet you are also committed to the view that the police did, in fact, fake evidence to frame Bamber. It just looks too contrived!
What I have tried to do in this thread is to show that certain opinions which, to an outsider, might seem to represent a “balanced” view of the case are actually representations of the pro guilt position by implication. These are views which I have held for some time.
You can go with mocking Julie Mugford and with disparaging the silencer evidence and yet still come out of all of that smelling of roses and firmly on the side of Essex Police!
So Martin - I think what you are saying is this argument that EP used whatever means they could to convict a guilty man would then mean that if for example the new evidence is that there was a wealth of information about Sheila which was not presented in court , then the argument would be that it would not lead to the conviction being squashed, because the police kept it back in order to secure their ultimate aim - to put a guilty man behind bars.
And once you use this argument then this would neatly cover a huge amount of scenarios that may released by previously unseen evidence coming to light?
So in effect the only information that would ensure the release of JB would be Proof of his innocence that might come from a whistle blower? Or a document that proved the phone call from NB in an indisputable manner.
Am I understanding you correctly?
-
So Martin - I think what you are saying is this argument that EP used whatever means they could to convict a guilty man would then mean that if for example the new evidence is that there was a wealth of information about Sheila which was not presented in court , then the argument would be that it would not lead to the conviction being squashed, because the police kept it back in order to secure their ultimate aim - to put a guilty man behind bars.
And once you use this argument then this would neatly cover a huge amount of scenarios that may released by previously unseen evidence coming to light?
So in effect the only information that would ensure the release of JB would be Proof of his innocence that might come from a whistle blower? Or a document that proved the phone call from NB in an indisputable manner.
Am I understanding you correctly?
In effect, yes. If EP had engineered evidence to say they could prove Jeremy didn't receive a call from Neville and they were caught out, then there would be a case because the call put Jeremy elsewhere. However, things like the silencer don't make an innocent Jeremy if taken out of the equation. Mind you, I think the courts would be forced to look at the case again if it were proven that the silencer found it's way into evidence by foul means.
-
Hi Steve. Going back to a previous post of yours in this thread,you stated that 'Jeremy delayed entry to the farm by all means possible',or words to that effect. This is not true according to Bews. In an interview he admitted that Jeremy was anxious for the police officers to enter the farmhouse upon arrival. If they had,and all occupants were dead,a time of death may have been established which would likely have proved either way who the culprit indeed was. Surely Jeremy must have known this and yet he was still 'anxious' for them to go in?
Can you provide me with the reference? I have read Jeremy told Police that Sheila had recently indulged in target practice. Didn't he also have a key to the door which was forced?
-
I don't know about target practice,Steve,,but there are a variety of " handwritten " drafts about Sheila and her handling of guns,,which never stretched to being type-written into final statements.
Both DB and AP had said at first, that Sheila was capable of carrying out the killings. They had told DCI Jones. More drafts,probably !
-
What are you talking about? You're saying there is something wrong with having doubts? To be honest, I really don't give a rats what you think. I HAVE DOUBTS and nothing YOU say is going to change that. Your attempts at armchair psychology fall flat and reveal more about you than they do anyone else - again, I think you are less concerned with Jeremy being innocent or guilty in favour of simply being right.
I think everyone has doubts Caroline I just read an article from david james smith who visited Jeremy in jail and did a lot of research. I worried about those tears. I wondered if they were real and what he really felt. I looked and looked at his face and tried to prod and provoke different reactions. I could not say I ever felt overtly manipulated, but of course I just may not have noticed it was happening.
I had said on the way in that I feared I would find him repulsive, but in the event, I found him all too human and understandable. Except for the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner of his soul that carried the knowledge of what had really happened that night 25 years ago,
and who really had killed his family.
He knows the truth. And he is the only person in the world who does.
Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy?
Reader, I have no idea
-
That is what I find so hard to understand |Lookout Have always believed Jeremy would have to be a psychopath to carry out these murders and we haven't the slightest hint that he is. In fact quite the opposite is true, all the evidence points to him being extremely normal with no sign of personality disorders or psychopathy. Surely someone like Suzette Ford would have known if Jeremy had sown signs of this as well as Julie Mugford but for all her accusations we never heard a word about him being jealous, over controlling or violent with her. There was the odd squabble but nothing strange about that. imo
IM sorry Maggie but I remember this Mass killer Jeremy Bamber launched a vicious attack on a fellow prisoner with a broken bottle.
He rammed the jagged edges of a sauce bottle into his victim's face and tried to cut off his nose and ears. The inmate's scalp was also cut open. I think you have to be a little strange to be able to do this?
-
Can you provide me with the reference? I have read Jeremy told Police that Sheila had recently indulged in target practice. Didn't he also have a key to the door which was forced?
I think if you read his OS he actually played down her handling of guns. He did not make a big issue of it. If you are around people handling guns all your life it does not take a lot of working out to how how to use them
-
IM sorry Maggie but I remember this Mass killer Jeremy Bamber launched a vicious attack on a fellow prisoner with a broken bottle.
He rammed the jagged edges of a sauce bottle into his victim's face and tried to cut off his nose and ears. The inmate's scalp was also cut open. I think you have to be a little strange to be able to do this?
Ralf,,on the occasion that Jeremy used violence with a broken bottle was when an inmate came up behind him with a knife,while Jeremy was on the phone. The other guy had cut Jeremy and as a consequence,,, he'd received a wound requiring several stitches. If Jeremy hadn't fought back,,the guy would have killed him.
Nothing much came of that incident,,nor have I seen anything pertaining to the other guys injuries.
-
I think everyone has doubts Caroline I just read an article from david james smith who visited Jeremy in jail and did a lot of research. I worried about those tears. I wondered if they were real and what he really felt. I looked and looked at his face and tried to prod and provoke different reactions. I could not say I ever felt overtly manipulated, but of course I just may not have noticed it was happening.
I had said on the way in that I feared I would find him repulsive, but in the event, I found him all too human and understandable. Except for the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner of his soul that carried the knowledge of what had really happened that night 25 years ago,
and who really had killed his family.
He knows the truth. And he is the only person in the world who does.
Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy?
Reader, I have no idea
Hi Ralf, I've read the article and can understand his feelings. He's right, only Jeremy knows for sure and it's a fascinating case because you just can't stop wondering.
-
Ralf,,on the occasion that Jeremy used violence with a broken bottle was when an inmate came up behind him with a knife,while Jeremy was on the phone. The other guy had cut Jeremy and as a consequence,,, he'd received a wound requiring several stitches. If Jeremy hadn't fought back,,the guy would have killed him.
Nothing much came of that incident,,nor have I seen anything pertaining to the other guys injuries.
Hi Lookout, I'm sorry but that's not correct. Jeremy attacked a prisoner in 1996 with the bottle because the guy tried to pick a fight in was in 2004 that he was slashed in the neck while on the phone. They were separate incidents.
-
Hi Lookout, I'm sorry but that's not correct. Jeremy attacked a prisoner in 1996 with the bottle because the guy tried to pick a fight in was in 2004 that he was slashed in the neck while on the phone. They were separate incidents.
Thats totally correct Caroline read both articles myself thanks for clearing this up. Im affraid you have to talk to people who have worked with him inside to get a true picture.
-
Hi Lookout, I'm sorry but that's not correct. Jeremy attacked a prisoner in 1996 with the bottle because the guy tried to pick a fight in was in 2004 that he was slashed in the neck while on the phone. They were separate incidents.
Was it after the physical evidence was destroyed? This dude had nothing to do wiht that, but I can see why Jeremy would be a tad unbalanced after that!
-
Was it after the physical evidence was destroyed? This dude had nothing to do wiht that, but I can see why Jeremy would be a tad unbalanced after that!
The blood evidence was destroyed in Feb 96, the attack happened in May however, I have no idea whether Jeremy knew that the blood evidence had been destroyed at this time. It was a pretty bad attack and it seems he was a little more than a tad unbalanced. Then again, prison is a dog eat dog environment..
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/KILLER+BAMBER%27S+BROKEN+BOTTLE+JAIL+ATTACK.-a061330122
-
I hadn't known about the 1996 episode,,only that the guy who stabbed Jeremy apparently went around stabbing other inmates as well,,a prize lunatic.
However,,I took it that when the guy jumped Jeremy from behind,,that Jeremy had used self-defence.
Not one link is the same as another at all. Although both reports stated the same amount of stitches,,one was just a superficial wound,,while the other was centimeters away from the jugular.
I think it's best not to read too much into most of the links as they're all based on supposition,being that none of the authors were present when the tragedy happened.
-
The blood evidence was destroyed in Feb 96, the attack happened in May however, I have no idea whether Jeremy knew that the blood evidence had been destroyed at this time. It was a pretty bad attack and it seems he was a little more than a tad unbalanced. Then again, prison is a dog eat dog environment..
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/KILLER+BAMBER%27S+BROKEN+BOTTLE+JAIL+ATTACK.-a061330122
That was sarcasm! ;) I don´t consider cutting up someone "a tad unbalanced".
-
So Martin - I think what you are saying is this argument that EP used whatever means they could to convict a guilty man would then mean that if for example the new evidence is that there was a wealth of information about Sheila which was not presented in court , then the argument would be that it would not lead to the conviction being squashed, because the police kept it back in order to secure their ultimate aim - to put a guilty man behind bars.
And once you use this argument then this would neatly cover a huge amount of scenarios that may released by previously unseen evidence coming to light?
So in effect the only information that would ensure the release of JB would be Proof of his innocence that might come from a whistle blower? Or a document that proved the phone call from NB in an indisputable manner.
Am I understanding you correctly?
You certainly are.
You have summarized the mechanics of it very well. The individual is weaker than the state.
-
Hi Ralf, I've read the article and can understand his feelings. He's right, only Jeremy knows for sure and it's a fascinating case because you just can't stop wondering.
That basically thoughtless statement is not neutral, but actually implies Jeremy’s guilt.
It would be fair to say that if he is guilty, then he is the only one who knows it with certainty, but the opposite does not apply.
If Jeremy is innocent, then a number policemen know it with absolute certainty, because they were there when Sheila was alive in the house or when her body was found- assuming Sheila did it.
Logic is not your strong point.
Thinking can go wrong because people try to impose symmetry where asymmetry applies.
-
Martin, the main hope then is that the Stephen Lawrence case could be a flash point for change as in the end the truth did come out. Perhaps the tide is turning. But it takes some brave people and a lot of determination. I do however now understand the full implications of your posts.
-
Di Stefano didn't believe that it was Sheila either.
-
That basically thoughtless statement is not neutral, but actually implies Jeremy’s guilt.
It would be fair to say that if he is guilty, then he is the only one who knows it with certainty, but the opposite does not apply.
If Jeremy is innocent, then a number policemen know it with absolute certainty, because they were there when Sheila was alive in the house or when her body was found- assuming Sheila did it.
Logic is not your strong point.
Thinking can go wrong because people try to impose symmetry where asymmetry applies.
It certainly isn't yours!!
-
Am I missing something here, but why has it suddenly become a crime to point out doubts of Bamber's innocence? Caroline is not the first 'supporter' to be left wondering if they're backing the right horse and Bamber has been exposed before, in his letters, to be sometimes less than truthful.
Or has Caroline, in some eyes, committed the ultimate sin of changing her mind? Even worse, she's having doubts in a very intelligent, understandable and coherent way......
Caroline. You should take the rude, condescending insults as a back handed compliment.
-
Am I missing something here, but why has it suddenly become a crime to point out doubts of Bamber's innocence? Caroline is not the first 'supporter' to be left wondering if they're backing the right horse and Bamber has been exposed before, in his letters, to be sometimes less than truthful.
Or has Caroline, in some eyes, committed the ultimate sin of changing her mind? Even worse, she's having doubts in a very intelligent, understandable and coherent way......
Caroline. You should take the rude, condescending insults as a back handed compliment.
This has little to do with opinions or with doubts.
Caroline has now chosen to give her full support to the pro guilt group and clearly has some ulterior motive. Of course I don’t know what is really behind what she is doing, just as I don’t know what exactly was behind Bob Woffinden’s change of position.
Andrea was at least forthcoming about one factor which made her change her mind on the case. I remember her saying that she didn’t believe Mikes stories about meetings with an informant and felt somewhat embarrassed to be associated with Mike’s conspiracy theories and all that.
Caroline now seems more in agreement with retired copper types who favour the noble cause framing theory. She is clearly committed in an absolute way to defending the police when they are accused of knowingly framing an innocent man.
I am not going to try to second guess why Caroline has joined some group and why she has agreed to do a pro guilt propaganda job on this forum, but I know that there must be some explanation and one which really has nothing to do with having doubts.
For one thing, she has never said that she was certain of Bamber’s innocence in the first place, so saying something about sometimes having doubts, just like Roch or one of the others, should have seemed like no big deal.
My opinion about what she is really doing is based upon the change in her style of debating. She has defined her position in such a way that any evidence of Bamber’s innocence is always blocked off automatically.
Pro guilt people constantly rely upon explaining serious discrepancies as mistakes. The log entries are mistakes. What DC Clarke told Ann Eaton about the position of Sheila’s body was just a mistake. The timing of West’s log was just a mistake and so on and so on. If she were honest about her real position I would have no cause for complaint, but she has gone in for the noble cause framing theory, in the strongest sense, in which no policeman can know that Bamber is innocent. That is very calculating.
An element of malice has crept into the way she talks about Bamber. She has acquired "guilter" style.
She has become just like Bridget or Steve_uk, relentless in grinding Jeremy Bamber down.
I don’t like what I am seeing and feel I have the right to say so.
-
It wasn't just the meetings with Z, Martin. There was more to it than that, but that's old news!
People do re evaluate the case and take another look with fresh eyes, things become apparent then.
-
I can't believe you would spend so long trying to discredit her postings rather than debating the case itself. You seem to have a real problem accepting that there would appear to be a very good chance that Bamber lied to Caroline and you simply are uncomfortable with that. It doesn't sit well with YOUR propaganda.
-
This has little to do with opinions or with doubts.
Caroline has now chosen to give her full support to the pro guilt group and clearly has some ulterior motive. Of course I don’t know what is really behind what she is doing, just as I don’t know what exactly was behind Bob Woffinden’s change of position.
Andrea was at least forthcoming about one factor which made her change her mind on the case. I remember her saying that she didn’t believe Mikes stories about meetings with an informant and felt somewhat embarrassed to be associated with Mike’s conspiracy theories and all that. I suppose she just feels more at home with a different set of people.
Caroline now seems more in agreement with retired copper types who favour the noble cause framing theory. She is clearly committed in an absolute way to defending the police when they are accused of knowingly framing an innocent man.
I am not going to try to second guess why Caroline has joined some group and why she has agreed to do a pro guilt propaganda job on this forum, but I know that there must be some explanation and one which really has nothing to do with having doubts.
For one thing, she has never said that she was certain of Bamber’s innocence in the first place, so saying something about sometimes having doubts, just like Roch or Alias or one of the others, should have seemed like no big deal.
My opinion about what she is really doing is based upon the change in her style of debating. She has defined her position in such a way that any evidence of Bamber’s innocence is always blocked off automatically.
Pro guilt people constantly rely upon explaining serious discrepancies as mistakes. The log entries are mistakes. What DC Clarke told Ann Eaton about the position of Sheila’s body was just a mistake. The timing of West’s log was just a mistake and so on and so on. If she were honest about her real position I would have no cause for complaint, but she has gone in for the noble cause framing theory, in the strongest sense, in which no policeman can know that Bamber is innocent. That is very calculating.
An element of malice has crept into the way she talks about Bamber. She has acquired guilter style.
She has become just like Bridget or Steve_uk, relentless in grinding Jeremy Bamber down.
I don’t like what I am seeing and feel I have the right to say so.
This post is as laughable, baseless and stupid as any I've read.
Why are you trying to be Caroline's shrink. You're coming across as a strange crank trying to dis-credit her just because she dared question.
-
It wasn't just the meetings with Z, Martin. There was more to it than that, but that's old news!
People do re evaluate the case and take another look with fresh eyes, things become apparent then.
Thanks for that Larry,
My point is that it is sometimes possible to tell when a person is being manipulative in debate and that's the message I'm getting.
-
This post is as laughable, baseless and stupid as any I've read.
Why are you trying to be Caroline's shrink. You're coming across as a strange crank trying to dis-credit her just because she dared question.
You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.
I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.
-
You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.
I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.
Your constant 'analysis' of Caroline's arguments is just very creepy, I'm sure she regrets posting a picture of herself. ;D
From the moment she dared question you've not left her alone.
-
You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.
I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.
Whilst I was analysing your argument I was struck with the phrase 'condescending prat'.
-
Your constant 'analysis' of Caroline's arguments is just very creepy, I'm sure she regrets posting a picture of herself. ;D
From the moment she dared question you've not left her alone.
I remember you making abusive posts to her when she first came to the forum. I also remember Jackie Preece posting threatening private messages you sent her. Talk about being creepy! So get lost.
-
Whilst I was analysing your argument I was struck with the phrase 'condescending prat'.
That’s a good post. At least back to civilisation!
-
I remember you making abusive posts to her when she first came to the forum. I also remember Jackie Preece posting threatening private messages you sent her. Talk about being creepy! So get lost.
Preecey admitted on the red she was trying to get me banned. Shame that the truth isn't important to you.
-
You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.
I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.
I wonder, could you BE more condescending and pompous?
-
Am I missing something here, but why has it suddenly become a crime to point out doubts of Bamber's innocence? Caroline is not the first 'supporter' to be left wondering if they're backing the right horse and Bamber has been exposed before, in his letters, to be sometimes less than truthful.
Or has Caroline, in some eyes, committed the ultimate sin of changing her mind? Even worse, she's having doubts in a very intelligent, understandable and coherent way......
Caroline. You should take the rude, condescending insults as a back handed compliment.
Vic, I can't believe Caroline is being castigated for using her brain. I suspect she's caused many of us to re-evaluate which isn't to say we're all going to flock, like lemmings to the guilty side ...........................unless doing so can be justified OR we have an experience similar to that of Paul on the road to Damascus.
-
IM sorry Maggie but I remember this Mass killer Jeremy Bamber launched a vicious attack on a fellow prisoner with a broken bottle.
He rammed the jagged edges of a sauce bottle into his victim's face and tried to cut off his nose and ears. The inmate's scalp was also cut open. I think you have to be a little strange to be able to do this?
I think one may have to be a little strange if something of the environment doesn't rub off after spending 30 years in in. THAT or dead.
-
I think everyone has doubts Caroline I just read an article from david james smith who visited Jeremy in jail and did a lot of research. I worried about those tears. I wondered if they were real and what he really felt. I looked and looked at his face and tried to prod and provoke different reactions. I could not say I ever felt overtly manipulated, but of course I just may not have noticed it was happening.
I had said on the way in that I feared I would find him repulsive, but in the event, I found him all too human and understandable. Except for the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner of his soul that carried the knowledge of what had really happened that night 25 years ago,
and who really had killed his family.
He knows the truth. And he is the only person in the world who does.
Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy?
Ralf, I read the same article. I thought it was honest -even if I was hoping for greater clarification- and felt he'd probably reached the only conclusion possible and if he arrived at it after a face to face interview, how much MORE difficult is it for us who can only judge from a remove.
Reader, I have no idea
-
This has little to do with opinions or with doubts.
Caroline has now chosen to give her full support to the pro guilt group and clearly has some ulterior motive. Of course I don’t know what is really behind what she is doing, just as I don’t know what exactly was behind Bob Woffinden’s change of position.
Andrea was at least forthcoming about one factor which made her change her mind on the case. I remember her saying that she didn’t believe Mikes stories about meetings with an informant and felt somewhat embarrassed to be associated with Mike’s conspiracy theories and all that.
Caroline now seems more in agreement with retired copper types who favour the noble cause framing theory. She is clearly committed in an absolute way to defending the police when they are accused of knowingly framing an innocent man.
I am not going to try to second guess why Caroline has joined some group and why she has agreed to do a pro guilt propaganda job on this forum, but I know that there must be some explanation and one which really has nothing to do with having doubts.
For one thing, she has never said that she was certain of Bamber’s innocence in the first place, so saying something about sometimes having doubts, just like Roch or Alias or one of the others, should have seemed like no big deal.
My opinion about what she is really doing is based upon the change in her style of debating. She has defined her position in such a way that any evidence of Bamber’s innocence is always blocked off automatically.
Pro guilt people constantly rely upon explaining serious discrepancies as mistakes. The log entries are mistakes. What DC Clarke told Ann Eaton about the position of Sheila’s body was just a mistake. The timing of West’s log was just a mistake and so on and so on. If she were honest about her real position I would have no cause for complaint, but she has gone in for the noble cause framing theory, in the strongest sense, in which no policeman can know that Bamber is innocent. That is very calculating.
An element of malice has crept into the way she talks about Bamber. She has acquired guilter style.
She has become just like Bridget or Steve_uk, relentless in grinding Jeremy Bamber down.
I don’t like what I am seeing and feel I have the right to say so.
Well. much as I dislike the tone you've adopted towards Caroline, at least you avoided the final insult. You didn't accuse her of having become like Adam.
-
Well. much as I dislike the tone you've adopted towards Caroline, at least you avoided the final insult. You didn't accuse her of having become like Adam.
Careful April. You're messing with a superior being there. Who's about to answer you in ways you couldn't possibly hope to understand.... :P
-
When it is suggested that police genuinely believed in Bamber's guilt, it looks to me as if the term 'police' is being used generically to mean all the police officers linked to the case. Now I'm sorry to keep banging the drum but if you are a police officer who is in danger of being exposed for corruptive practices, what other fall back position do you have other than to say "I did what I did because I genuinely believed he was guilty / responsible". You are not going to say "We were under immense pressure. The man was a drug dealer and a thief who was also arrogant - he got what he deserved and we got our collar".
To be honest, I dont know which officers may have at some point claimed they genuinely thought JB was rersponsible. But what I want to know is - what do the TFG officers believe? Are the TFG officers prepared to state that they also genuinely believe JB was responsible - to a man?
If every one of the TFG officers who are still alive and able to claim such a thing, cannot or will not do so, then that means Jeremy Bamber is not the only person who knows the truth of what took place (from at least the point at which police became involved). As for Bews who cannot get his own story straight about who spotted what - sorry but personally I do not find the man convincing. His and Miller's performance on the C5 docu were grandstanding because they were not asked any difficult questions.
Also where does Kinneally fit in to the equation and why did he also not come to believe JB was responsible?
-
New reports have been unearthed that have information on Sheilas' medical and psychiatric reports,,and which are due to be submitted to the CCRC at any time.
It doesn't state yet what's in the reports,,and just gave a brief outline in the Birmingham News this month.
I can only reiterrate by saying that Sheila was perhaps sectioned under the Mental Health Act at some point in her life,,and which wouldn't have been mentioned at the trial. We'll see.
-
Morning Roch
I agree many people know the truth of the happenings at WHF does Jeremy Bamber know the truth I guess only he knows that had EP known the truth they would not have had to fabricate evidence if indeed they did :'(
-
This has little to do with opinions or with doubts.
Caroline has now chosen to give her full support to the pro guilt group and clearly has some ulterior motive. Of course I don’t know what is really behind what she is doing, just as I don’t know what exactly was behind Bob Woffinden’s change of position.
Andrea was at least forthcoming about one factor which made her change her mind on the case. I remember her saying that she didn’t believe Mikes stories about meetings with an informant and felt somewhat embarrassed to be associated with Mike’s conspiracy theories and all that.
Caroline now seems more in agreement with retired copper types who favour the noble cause framing theory. She is clearly committed in an absolute way to defending the police when they are accused of knowingly framing an innocent man.
I am not going to try to second guess why Caroline has joined some group and why she has agreed to do a pro guilt propaganda job on this forum, but I know that there must be some explanation and one which really has nothing to do with having doubts.
For one thing, she has never said that she was certain of Bamber’s innocence in the first place, so saying something about sometimes having doubts, just like Roch or Alias or one of the others, should have seemed like no big deal.
My opinion about what she is really doing is based upon the change in her style of debating. She has defined her position in such a way that any evidence of Bamber’s innocence is always blocked off automatically.
Pro guilt people constantly rely upon explaining serious discrepancies as mistakes. The log entries are mistakes. What DC Clarke told Ann Eaton about the position of Sheila’s body was just a mistake. The timing of West’s log was just a mistake and so on and so on. If she were honest about her real position I would have no cause for complaint, but she has gone in for the noble cause framing theory, in the strongest sense, in which no policeman can know that Bamber is innocent. That is very calculating.
An element of malice has crept into the way she talks about Bamber. She has acquired guilter style.
She has become just like Bridget or Steve_uk, relentless in grinding Jeremy Bamber down.
I don’t like what I am seeing and feel I have the right to say so.
Oh shut up Martin - seriously you are talking complete and utter bollocks. I'm not even going to bother dissecting the absolute pap you have just spouted. I have repeated and repeated that i have DOUBTS and your continued rubbish analysis of my reasoning is simply laughable and pathetic. I have already said why I have doubts and believe me (which you won't but who cares!!), if you knew anything about me, you would KNOW I have absolutely no sympathy for any police force and find it abhorrent that they would use their position to frame anyone - guilty or innocent!! Debate the case and quit trying to psychoanalyse me - you really are rubbish at it and I'm sure it's very boring for everyone else - why should you or anyone else give a toss what I think?
Seriously, you use propaganda tactics more than anyone here and you ARE coming over as rather odd!!
-
Thanks for that Larry,
My point is that it is sometimes possible to tell when a person is being manipulative in debate and that's the message I'm getting.
Seriously?? ;D ;D. Have you read your posts back? Manipulative isn't a strong enough word for you!
-
When it is suggested that police genuinely believed in Bamber's guilt, it looks to me as if the term 'police' is being used generically to mean all the police officers linked to the case. Now I'm sorry to keep banging the drum but if you are a police officer who is in danger of being exposed for corruptive practices, what other fall back position do you have other than to say "I did what I did because I genuinely believed he was guilty / responsible". You are not going to say "We were under immense pressure. The man was a drug dealer and a thief who was also arrogant - he got what he deserved and we got our collar".
To be honest, I dont know which officers may have at some point claimed they genuinely thought JB was rersponsible. But what I want to know is - what do the TFG officers believe? Are the TFG officers prepared to state that they also genuinely believe JB was responsible - to a man?
If every one of the TFG officers who are still alive and able to claim such a thing, cannot or will not do so, then that means Jeremy Bamber is not the only person who knows the truth of what took place (from at least the point at which police became involved). As for Bews who cannot get his own story straight about who spotted what - sorry but personally I do not find the man convincing. His and Miller's performance on the C5 docu were grandstanding because they were not asked any difficult questions.
Also where does Kinneally fit in to the equation and why did he also not come to believe JB was responsible?
I agree Bews an Miller where part of the frame up. I have made my feelings clear in the past in respect of these two. This still proves nothing as far as knowing Jeremy was innocent. Kinneally came to the same conclusion as Taff Jones, I'm sure there are other officers who believed the same. I don't suppose for one moment ALL police officers were happy when the focus shifted to Jeremy.
-
Morning Roch
I agree many people know the truth of the happenings at WHF does Jeremy Bamber know the truth I guess only he knows that had EP known the truth they would not have had to fabricate evidence if indeed they did :'(
Bridget used to suggest that JB knew the truth of what happened and was enaged in a game of picking apart EP's genuine mistakes in a bid to win freedom. If I twisted what Bridiget expressed and threw in a dose of reaslism about police corruption that I always accused Bridget of not facing up to, the above would be changed to
'JB knew the truth of what happened and therefore was engaged in a game of picking apart EP's mistakes, corruption and scene staging to win his freedom'.
This would mean nobody is a winner, just like DB stated. Not EP, not the relatives, not JM and certainly not JB. However, the first three would gain more empathy in general (than they are currently afforded).
But for me it comes back to the TFG op, the TFG officers opinions, the early dynamics around DCI Taff Jones, ACC Simpson, right at the beginning. That's were I've been led to believe the truth is somewhere lodged. I could be wrong of course.
-
Roch I agree I think Taff Jones knew the truth and this is where I took my innocent stand from. Had he been left on the case and not met a sudden death the conviction would not have happened. I ask myself did Stan Jones get a gut feeling over something he stumbled on but could not prove. I agree think Jeremy Bamber played games with EP at the beginning and helped to convict himself :'(
-
Let me just clarify something here; when I said 'Only Jeremy knows the truth' I was talking about whether he was guilty or innocent. Martin has taken this (with his great wisdom) to mean that I was saying he knew what happened in the farmhouse - which would mean he was there - and as such - guilty.
However, Martin simply assumes something and runs with it. When Steve first came here, he was accused by Martin of being Starryian (whoever he is) simply because he posted from a guilty stance. There were long winded posts where Martin had used his psychological prowess to analyse and compare the writing styles of both parties. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I found myself descending to such lengths but as it's quite obvious they are not the same person, I'd be even more embarrassed at having never apologised!
Like I said - debate the case and the posters behind them. Sometimes people question their opinions it's a good thing to do, it doesn't mean they should have to put up with the armchair psycho babble and flawed reasoning of Martin The Great.
-
They offered the defence the facility to come into WHF and do any tests they wished but this wasn't taken up by the defence.
I think it was because they ran out of money Vic? But as you say they did offer.
Pity they couldn't locate the bible for the 2002 appeal though. Especially considering it had a bloodied palm print on it.
-
Pity they couldn't locate the bible for the 2002 appeal though. Especially considering it had a bloodied palm print on it.
I agree!! Although it still isn't clear what happened to it?
-
Let me just clarify something here; when I said 'Only Jeremy knows the truth' I was talking about whether he was guilty or innocent. Martin has taken this (with his great wisdom) to mean that I was saying he knew what happened in the farmhouse - which would mean he was there - and as such - guilty.
However, Martin simply assumes something and runs with it. When Steve first came here, he was accused by Martin of being Starryian (whoever he is) simply because he posted from a guilty stance. There were long winded posts where Martin had used his psychological prowess to analyse and compare the writing styles of both parties. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I found myself descending to such lengths but as it's quite obvious they are not the same person, I'd be even more embarrassed at having never apologised!
Like I said - debate the case and the posters behind them. Sometimes people question their opinions it's a good thing to do, it doesn't mean they should have to put up with the armchair psycho babble and flawed reasoning of Martin The Great.
WHAT psychological prowess would you be referring to, Caroline? :D
-
Careful April. You're messing with a superior being there. Who's about to answer you in ways you couldn't possibly hope to understand.... :P
Vic, thank-you for the warning. It's sweet of you to care :-* :-* :-*
-
Oh shut up Martin - seriously you are talking complete and utter bollocks. I'm not even going to bother dissecting the absolute pap you have just spouted. I have repeated and repeated that i have DOUBTS and your continued rubbish analysis of my reasoning is simply laughable and pathetic. I have already said why I have doubts and believe me (which you won't but who cares!!), if you knew anything about me, you would KNOW I have absolutely no sympathy for any police force and find it abhorrent that they would use their position to frame anyone - guilty or innocent!! Debate the case and quit trying to psychoanalyse me - you really are rubbish at it and I'm sure it's very boring for everyone else - why should you or anyone else give a toss what I think?
Seriously, you use propaganda tactics more than anyone here and you ARE coming over as rather odd!!
Well done Caroline. You've said it succinctly enough for ANYONE to understand. Let's hope Martin did.
-
WHAT psychological prowess would you be referring to, Caroline? :D
I was being sarcastic April and I just like the word ;D ;D
-
I was being sarcastic April and I just like the word ;D ;D
Caroline, I would NEVER have guessed ;D ;D ;D
-
It wasn't just the meetings with Z, Martin. There was more to it than that, but that's old news!
People do re evaluate the case and take another look with fresh eyes, things become apparent then.
Heaven forbid that people question things!! We're supposed t sit here agreeing with each other or you become ripe for a stoning!! Martin is just a tad (and then some) paranoid!! I honestly can't believe that he would go to these lengths simply because I expressed doubt - it's a 'debating' forum Martin, not a religion and I doubt very much that I have the power to influence anyone's opinion unless they already had doubts of their own.
-
Caroline, I would NEVER have guessed ;D ;D ;D
Well, I was going for subtlety ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, I was going for subtlety ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
VERY refaned it was too, if I may say so ;D ;D
-
VERY refaned it was too, if I may say so ;D ;D
Aye!! That's me like!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can't believe you would spend so long trying to discredit her postings rather than debating the case itself. You seem to have a real problem accepting that there would appear to be a very good chance that Bamber lied to Caroline and you simply are uncomfortable with that. It doesn't sit well with YOUR propaganda.
She did not say he lied - he avoided the question - that is not quite the same thing.
-
She did not say he lied - he avoided the question - that is not quite the same thing.
Possibly an important distinction, Jansus.
-
Possibly an important distinction, Jansus.
It was far cleverer than lying!!
-
It was far cleverer than lying!!
Yeh! There was an element of that subtlety you achieved earlier, Caroline.
-
Am I missing something here, but why has it suddenly become a crime to point out doubts of Bamber's innocence? Caroline is not the first 'supporter' to be left wondering if they're backing the right horse and Bamber has been exposed before, in his letters, to be sometimes less than truthful.
Or has Caroline, in some eyes, committed the ultimate sin of changing her mind? Even worse, she's having doubts in a very intelligent, understandable and coherent way......
Caroline. You should take the rude, condescending insults as a back handed compliment.
Thanks Vic but I just find it odd.
-
I have to agree with Roch's post here,,a clever way of putting it.
The obvious thing for Jeremy to have done,,was to literally pick holes in the incompetency of EP,but---------that would never work on the grounds that they WERE doing their job,,but not up to the standards in which was expected of them. So in effect,,police inefficiency isn't grounds for appeal,or anything to be used in a bid for freedom.
We know what they did wasn't particularly worthy of them being on such a big case,,as a lack of foresight into knowing what could be going on inside the farmhouse where they'd already learned of ammunition galore,,,shouldn't have left them free to ponder for the length of time WASTED outside the farmhouse.
However,,as Roch said,,the TFG have remained very much in the background of all this,,,seeing EP taking the wrap for mistakes made.
My only hope now is that there's sufficient evidence/grounds from the medical " experts " ( I could do better myself ) with their full knowledge of Sheilas' illness,,which will prove once and for all that Jeremy wasn't just blaming his sisters' illness, as well as EP,,in which to" worm his way out ",,as nobody on this earth will ever listen to excuses,no matter who they are,,,and this is what it has seemed like to the pro-guilters over the years. As even at one time,,the " excuses " were in my thoughts too,,until I realised that Jeremy wasn't that stupid to make things up.
I have every confidence in the man.
The medical notes would have been with EP,,as hospitals destroy them after a certain length of time,,and those with mental illnesses are kept a bit longer,,but not this long.
If it came out as a positive result that indeed Sheila was involved,,,it would also have a bearing on the financial side of things too,,as monies aren't usually shared out that hastily when it comes to suicide.
I know it comes under a different law than the norm,,that one has to wait a few years-----------oh dear.
Whether it'll apply after so long,,I don't know,,but a lot will now depend on whether it was suicide,,and obviously can be proven as such.
I'm going to have to look it up,,but I know,,unless the law has changed,,,that you had to wait 7 years for an estate to be wound down after a suicide of a previous beneficiary.( for obvious reasons )
-
It was far cleverer than lying!!
Why was it cleverer than lying? He could have said one of many things that you could not prove or question ( especially as the wallet seemed to have disappeared) and then you would not have been questioning it ? So why is it clever?
I always wonder why JB is so clever - but then credited with making so many basic mistakes.
-
Hi Caroline
As some of you know I have been contacting people who were inside the farmhouse as events unfolded.
If you want to know what happen just ask ,Jeremy is Innocent I assure you.
Regards
I am not into debating what happened in for obvious reasons.
-
Why was it cleverer than lying? He could have said one of many things that you could not prove or question ( especially as the wallet seemed to have disappeared) and then you would not have been questioning it ? So why is it clever?
I always wonder why JB is so clever - but then credited with making so many basic mistakes.
Yes I must agree with you on that one. If the police were deceived he is counted very clever. If he supposedly made a mistake he counted not that bright.
-
Why was it cleverer than lying? He could have said one of many things that you could not prove or question ( especially as the wallet seemed to have disappeared) and then you would not have been questioning it ? So why is it clever?
I always wonder why JB is so clever - but then credited with making so many basic mistakes.
I have explained this a million times - it was clever A. because he answered the question without actually answering!! If I had later discovered his answer was wrong, he could have simply said "Well, I couldn't exactly remember the question" and B. because having already answered, he made it difficult for me to ask it again - by saying 'I already told you'. He could have said many things but he chose not to answer, he chose to dodge the question. That's why it's clever.
I haven't accused Jeremy of making 'many' mistakes.
-
I have explained this a million times - it was clever A. because he answered the question without actually answering!! If I had later discovered his answer was wrong, he could have simply said "Well, I couldn't exactly remember the question" and B. because having already answered, he made it difficult for me to ask it again - by saying 'I already told you'. He could have said many things but he chose not to answer, he chose to dodge the question. That's why it's clever.
I haven't accused Jeremy of making 'many' mistakes.
You don't have to keep answering in explanation marks - I am not having a go - just asking a question.
You said he originally said that he had not answered that question about the wallet or he could not remember or denied even saying it - and after all the only indication we have is in the original statement from AE .Then he recounted the actual event - without saying what was in the wallet ( if I have understood you correctly)
I am sure after all this time and all the reading he has done certain things must have become blurred in his mind - however what I was saying was if he had been clever he could have said - " I saw the wallet when NB paid people on the farm - or I did not know the actual amount I was just guessing as that is what my father was like? Etc etc - would you have queried his answer then ? probably not
I just thought that would have been cleverer than denying and then avoiding. Just my opinion that's all.
-
You don't have to keep answering in explanation marks - I am not having a go - just asking a question.
You said he originally said that he had not answered that question about the wallet or he could not remember or denied even saying it - and after all the only indication we have is in the original statement from AE .Then he recounted the actual event - without saying what was in the wallet ( if I have understood you correctly)
I am sure after all this time and all the reading he has done certain things must have become blurred in his mind - however what I was saying was if he had been clever he could have said - " I saw the wallet when NB paid people on the farm - or I did not know the actual amount I was just guessing as that is what my father was like? Etc etc - would you have queried his answer then ? probably not
I just thought that would have been cleverer than denying and then avoiding. Just my opinion that's all.
This is how I view it too - have had the same discussion with Caroline, perhaps she is getting tired of it!
-
We are not as bad as a certain other person though ::) And I was not doing it deliberately - I just don't understand ( even after several explanations ) :)
So Caroline and I will agree to differ on this one.
-
Hi Caroline
As some of you know I have been contacting people who were inside the farmhouse as events unfolded.
If you want to know what happen just ask ,Jeremy is Innocent I assure you.
Regards
I am not into debating what happened in for obvious reasons.
How cruel :)
I am sure as Campion used to say (RIP) the truth will come out in the end ( hopefully soon)
-
Hello jansus I think Caroline may have a gut feeling about how Jeremy responded to her and we cannot get the feeling she did as he could have made up all kind of different stories had he wanted but quite often a third party cannot feel how he evaded the question or whatever he did I am confused now. :'(
-
Hi Caroline
As some of you know I have been contacting people who were inside the farmhouse as events unfolded.
If you want to know what happen just ask ,Jeremy is Innocent I assure you.
Regards
I am not into debating what happened in for obvious reasons.
You've stated recently that you're 100% certain. You've also implied that former officers who were at the scene early doors have confirmed SC was alive and the raid did experience complications, as would seem to fit with logs / later time of death for SC / lack of rigor mortis / training exercise. This is how I read / take your posts.
-
You've stated recently that you're 100% certain. You've also implied that former officers who were at the scene early doors have confirmed SC was alive and the raid did experience complications, as would seem to fit with logs / later time of death for SC / lack of rigor mortis / training exercise. This is how I read / take your posts.
Yes that is what I am saying
-
Hi Bambergate,
Consider this as me asking.
Cheers,
Caroline.
Its a big case Caroline what bit do you want more detail on?
-
It doesn't surprise me.
-
Roch that is what has always worried me the lack of rigor mortis Sheila must have died much later than the rest of the family and she had eaten later than them.
-
Roch that is what has always worried me the lack of rigor mortis Sheila must have died much later than the rest of the family and she had eaten later than them.
Correct the 1st report by PV did give a time of death and guess what Shelia died when JB was in the police car
Anyone surprised? I hope not
-
Correct the 1st report by PV did give a time of death and guess what Shelia died when JB was in the police car
Anyone surprised? I hope not
Not surprised- just more hopeful now because that would be proof of innocence and not just MOJ.
-
Hi Bambergate
thanks for that I am not surprised but I would be surprised if anyone can now have access to this document it will be held under PII or burnt your post has restored by faith in Jeremy innocent.
-
Hi
I never agree with the MOJ description on this case A miscarriage suggests a mistake.
EP knew and know JB is innocent.
I have even corrected JB on using this phrase,not that he needs my advice I think he has done very
well taking into account what he is up against.
just my opinion
-
Hi Bambergate
thanks for that I am not surprised but I would be surprised if anyone can now have access to this document it will be held under PII or burnt your post has restored by faith in Jeremy innocent.
Ok Susan
for that last 28 years it has made sense to cover up the case,now I think the tide has turned with
Julian A and Snowdon it harder to keep secrets and the internet has helped.
Now I think political careers can be damaged by the case so I think it makes sense to allow the truth to come out.
Like Jimmy after his death.
I think this process it taking place,I hope you will be surprised.
-
Ok Susan
for that last 28 years it has made sense to cover up the case,now I think the tide has turned with
Julian A and Snowdon it harder to keep secrets and the internet has helped.
Now I think political careers can be damaged by the case so I think it makes sense to allow the truth to come out.
Like Jimmy after his death.
I think this process it taking place,I hope you will be surprised.
I am talking about Mrs Mays career here.
-
Correct the 1st report by PV did give a time of death and guess what Shelia died when JB was in the police car
Anyone surprised? I hope not
Bambergate. This is a lie that I believe you've made up.
-
Bamergate thank so much for your opinion this forum values your opinion and we know how hard you have worked on this case and Jeremy is lucky to have somebody like you on side I hope we will all be celebrating in the not too distant future.
-
Bambergate. This is a lie that I believe you've made up.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
-
Bamergate thank so much for your opinion this forum values your opinion and we know how hard you have worked on this case and Jeremy is lucky to have somebody like you on side I hope we will all be celebrating in the not too distant future.
Oh, Susan. You're not being taken in by posts like this are you?
Correct the 1st report by PV did give a time of death and guess what Shelia died when JB was in the police car
Anyone surprised? I hope not
I am talking about Mrs Mays career here.
Ok Susan
for that last 28 years it has made sense to cover up the case,now I think the tide has turned with
Julian A and Snowdon it harder to keep secrets and the internet has helped.
Now I think political careers can be damaged by the case so I think it makes sense to allow the truth to come out.
Like Jimmy after his death.
I think this process it taking place,I hope you will be surprised.
-
Hello Mat heck why would Bambergate make up stories how is it to his advantage he is not writing a book or the like. :'(
-
Correct the 1st report by PV did give a time of death and guess what Shelia died when JB was in the police car
Anyone surprised? I hope not
Have you seen this report? What time does it indicate that Sheila died?
-
Hi susan. :)
But he's getting attention on the forum. At least ask/demand to see proof - and keep an open mind until then. I have a feeling you'll be promise that this is all coming out 'very soon'....... We'll still be i the same boat at Christmas. (again) ;D
-
Correct the 1st report by PV did give a time of death and guess what Shelia died when JB was in the police car
Anyone surprised? I hope not
where did you get this information bambergate i haven't heard it before.
-
Have you seen this report? What time does it indicate that Sheila died?
No I have not seen the report
but I have also not seen my kidneys but I know they are there.
-
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
My thanks also,Bambergate,,though I won't be surprised at whatever comes to the surface.
-
No I have not seen the report
but I have also not seen my kidneys but I know they are there.
OK, I see - I need ask no more questions. I'll leave it there I think.
-
Hi susan. :)
But he's getting attention on the forum. At least ask/demand to see proof - and keep an open mind until then. I have a feeling you'll be promise that this is all coming out 'very soon'....... We'll still be i the same boat at Christmas. (again) ;D
its been 29 years so I guess we can wait a few more
-
OK, I see - I need ask no more questions. I'll leave it there I think.
I'm glad you've not been sucked in.
its been 29 years so I guess we can wait a few more
Ah, I see. A few more years yeah. :) Why not? :)
-
Bambergate. This is a lie that I believe you've made up.
Don't you get to see what's been submitted Mat. ?
-
Don't you get to see what's been submitted Mat. ?
No, that was only the one time.
Even NGB will confirm that there was nothing pertaining to anyone giving SC a time of death in the last submissions and that he won't be aware of anyone coming forward with the documents Bambergate claims.
Simply because it's untrue.
-
Or are you just the pox doctors clerk ? ;D So to speak.
-
Or are you just the pox doctors clerk ? ;D So to speak.
Work is work, Lookout - as long as you're working and providing for your family I don't think it matters if you're the doctor, the clerk or the cleaner.
-
My thanks also,Bambergate,,though I won't be surprised at whatever comes to the surface.
He hasn't provided on single bit of evidence, this is simply relying on blind faith. As I said before, this isn't a religion and I for one am not a disciple and require some kind of proof before I will take on-board such massive claims.
-
Work is work, Lookout - as long as you're working and providing for your family I don't think it matters if you're the doctor, the clerk or the cleaner.
True--------I used to wash bums. ???
-
I'm glad you've not been sucked in.
Ah, I see. A few more years yeah. :) Why not? :)
Yes Mat put yourself in JB shoes
he has lost his whole family and the last 29 years of his life and he has no money,what is waiting for him outside?
I think he can wait for the truth he has done for the last 3 decades.
what is your opinion?
-
True--------I used to wash bums. ???
RESPECT! Somebody needs to do it, and personally I respect all kinds of work!
-
I'm glad you've not been sucked in.
Ah, I see. A few more years yeah. :) Why not? :)
Not a chance, I have always tried to provide evidence for anything I have said - blind faith isn't for me and I'm not going with 'you should believe this because 'I' say so'
A magician is only as good as his tricks or he is simply a comedian!!
-
He hasn't provided on single bit of evidence, this is simply relying on blind faith. As I said before, this isn't a religion and I for one am not a disciple and require some kind of proof before I will take on-board such massive claims.
There's nothing in my answer that says anything one way or the other Caroline.
-
Yes Mat put yourself in JB shoes
he has lost his whole family and the last 29 years of his life and he has no money,what is waiting for him outside?
I think he can wait for the truth he has done for the last 3 decades.
what is your opinion?
My opinion is that if anyone had access to information/witnesses/documents or anything that PROVED 100% JB was innocent, they would come forward and they would do it right away.
They wouldn't sit on a forum, teasing.
-
There's nothing in my answer that says anything one way or the other Caroline.
If there was such proof, we'd have heard about it by now.
-
Not a chance, I have always tried to provide evidence for anything I have said - blind faith isn't for me and I'm not going with 'you should believe this because 'I' say so'
A magician is only as good as his tricks or he is simply a comedian!!
:)
-
My opinion is that if anyone had access to information/witnesses/documents or anything that PROVED 100% JB was innocent, they would come forward and they would do it right away.
They wouldn't sit on a forum, teasing.
is that not what the phone log shows Mat ?
-
i would of though the official team would of already mentioned it if it was true.
-
I hadn't known about the 1996 episode,,only that the guy who stabbed Jeremy apparently went around stabbing other inmates as well,,a prize lunatic.
However,,I took it that when the guy jumped Jeremy from behind,,that Jeremy had used self-defence.
Not one link is the same as another at all. Although both reports stated the same amount of stitches,,one was just a superficial wound,,while the other was centimeters away from the jugular.
I think it's best not to read too much into most of the links as they're all based on supposition,being that none of the authors were present when the tragedy happened.
Not a lot was made of Bambers violent streak of how himself slashed another prisoner with a broken bottle bear in mind he had to smash the bottle first which makes it more pre meditated, much was made of the attack on bamber later in 2004, his lawyers made sure bamber attacking an inmate was kept very low key and forgotten its a case of lets not show bamber can be violent, full Sutton was happy to go along because they don't like bad publicity.
-
Not a lot was made of Bambers violent streak of how himself slashed another prisoner with a broken bottle bear in mind he had to smash the bottle first which makes it more pre meditated, much was made of the attack on bamber later in 2004, his lawyers made sure bamber attacking an inmate was kept very low key and forgotten its a case of lets not show bamber can be violent, full Sutton was happy to go along because they don't like bad publicity.
So in 30 years, incarcerated for something he maintains he is innocent of, incidents of Jeremy's violence amount to smearing excrement on walls on one occasion and bottling a fellow inmate on another.
-
Not a lot was made of Bambers violent streak of how himself slashed another prisoner with a broken bottle bear in mind he had to smash the bottle first which makes it more pre meditated, much was made of the attack on bamber later in 2004, his lawyers made sure bamber attacking an inmate was kept very low key and forgotten its a case of lets not show bamber can be violent, full Sutton was happy to go along because they don't like bad publicity.
Hi Ralf,,I do believe that JB was going to sue the prison for the injury that he'd received,but I'm not sure how that panned out.
You can blame a lot of what JB did on pent-up emotions,,because if that had been me couped up like a battery hen,,I'd have gone mad altogether and probably ended up in Broadmoor.
Bad enough being there when you've done something,,,,,,,,but when you haven't,,it's even worse.
Not a pleasant attack by any means,,,,but given the amount of years he's been there,I suppose it's nothing compared to what other prisoners have got up to. Take the guy who was glassed by JB,,,an absolute menace and by all accounts a nutcase because he was going around randomly knifing other inmates with the cobbled-up weapon he was using.
It was kept low key,,but for different reasons than reported probably.There's never smoke without fire,,,and I'm sure that if JB had kept up his vicious attacks,,,we'd certainly have kept hearing via the media.
-
it depends on the cercumstances who was the other prisoner.
-
So in 30 years, incarcerated for something he maintains he is innocent of, incidents of Jeremy's violence amount to smearing excrement on walls on one occasion and bottling a fellow inmate on another.
Sorry April what I am stating we don't get to know what happens inside.
-
it depends on the cercumstances who was the other prisoner.
That´s right. We don´t know the circumstances, so I don´t think we should jump to conclusion, one way or the other.
-
Hi Ralf,,I do believe that JB was going to sue the prison for the injury that he'd received,but I'm not sure how that panned out.
You can blame a lot of what JB did on pent-up emotions,,because if that had been me couped up like a battery hen,,I'd have gone mad altogether and probably ended up in Broadmoor.
Bad enough being there when you've done something,,,,,,,,but when you haven't,,it's even worse.
Not a pleasant attack by any means,,,,but given the amount of years he's been there,I suppose it's nothing compared to what other prisoners have got up to. Take the guy who was glassed by JB,,,an absolute menace and by all accounts a nutcase because he was going around randomly knifing other inmates with the cobbled-up weapon he was using.
It was kept low key,,but for different reasons than reported probably.There's never smoke without fire,,,and I'm sure that if JB had kept up his vicious attacks,,,we'd certainly have kept hearing via the media.
Good post Lookout and point taken.
-
Sorry April what I am stating we don't get to know what happens inside.
No Ralf, we don't..................and even if we did I VERY much doubt we'd get to know the reasons.
-
I think there were 7 guys who were injured by the creep who knifed JB.
-
No Ralf, we don't..................and even if we did I VERY much doubt we'd get to know the reasons.
Ryan parry gives a good account of what its like in full Sutton, it terrifies me have a read April.
-
Ryan parry gives a good account of what its like in full Sutton, it terrifies me have a read April.
Could you please point me in the right direction, Ralf :D
-
He hasn't provided on single bit of evidence, this is simply relying on blind faith. As I said before, this isn't a religion and I for one am not a disciple and require some kind of proof before I will take on-board such massive claims.
Perhaps this forum is not the correct place to show the evidence. As we are all well aware all evidence has to go through the correct procedure before it can be even considered.
-
Could you please point me in the right direction, Ralf :D
Mirror man Ryan Parry spends 24 hours with serial killers and .Try that on google April
-
Not a lot was made of Bambers violent streak of how himself slashed another prisoner with a broken bottle bear in mind he had to smash the bottle first which makes it more pre meditated, much was made of the attack on bamber later in 2004, his lawyers made sure bamber attacking an inmate was kept very low key and forgotten its a case of lets not show bamber can be violent, full Sutton was happy to go along because they don't like bad publicity.
I was under the impression that it was Bamber who was attacked?
-
I was under the impression that it was Bamber who was attacked?
One attack was 1996 Grahame and the other 2004.
-
Mirror man Ryan Parry spends 24 hours with serial killers and .Try that on google April
Ralf, thank-you :)
-
Perhaps this forum is not the correct place to show the evidence. As we are all well aware all evidence has to go through the correct procedure before it can be even considered.
He said he hasn't seen the evidence for himself - then again, he hasn't seen his kidney's either so that's proof? He said he knows 100% that Jeremy is innocent - if he does have evidence, it's no use him sitting on it, it's not going to hatch! While these claims are made a man languishes in prison so if they can prove it, why don't they do it? Why don't they all get together, trudge off to see SM, present their findings and get Jeremy out??
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mirror-man-ryan-parry-spends-262860
-
And I had to forfeit £50 of my cold weather payment------------to pay for their ruddy comforts !!
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mirror-man-ryan-parry-spends-262860
Thanks, Caroline. Doesn't sound like the kind of party I'd accept an invitation to :o :o
-
Bambergate. This is a lie that I believe you've made up.
I think BG, or his source may be simply misinterpreting the report.
Sheila was certified dead at 8:44am. This is however, the time that Dr. Craig certified death and is not an estimate of the time of her death.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mirror-man-ryan-parry-spends-262860
Of course all men are capable of being driven to violence,growing up in an undemonstrative household,a loveless vacuum where Jeremy never experienced throughout that unconditional love,a role lookout fulfils on this site as Jeremy looks back on Granny Speakman and wonders what might have been,a boy who never felt a success at anything and as he passed into adolescence began to test his strength in the familial environment,yet Nevill and June had sown the seeds of their own destruction and are still regarded today as similar outlanders to those captives mentioned in the Mirror article..
-
Changing tack here slightly,,but I did read that an officer took a bible out of a cupboard and threw it onto the floor beside Sheila.This bible didn't have a spot of blood on it and appeared comparatively new ?
Where the dickens I read about it,,I don't know,,but compared to the open pages on it, while it was face down, showing where it landed,,,the verses/psalms were positively different to the " dog-eared " bible which was at the scene with pages covered in blood.
The new bible was the same version as the older one. This has remained a mystery to me and I know I didn't dream it.
Then of course,,there was the black-backed bible with the pictures in it.
Although I hated Divinity in school,,I used to score high ? ;D I knew my hymns,psalms and passages.
-
Of course all men are capable of being driven to violence,growing up in an undemonstrative household,a loveless vacuum where Jeremy never experienced throughout that unconditional love,a role lookout fulfils on this site as Jeremy looks back on Granny Speakman and wonders what might have been,a boy who never felt a success at anything and as he passed into adolescence began to test his strength in the familial environment,yet Nevill and June had sown the seeds of their own destruction and are still regarded today as similar outlanders to those captives mentioned in the Mirror article..
Steve, I must ask from where you have proof that Jeremy never felt a success at anything.
-
On whose decision was it made not to disclose evidence,regarding DNA testing on the bloodied bible ?
-
Where did the bible end up ? Why wasn't it presented at the 2002 appeal ?
-
I think BG, or his source may be simply misinterpreting the report.
Sheila was certified dead at 8:44am. This is however, the time that Dr. Craig certified death and is not an estimate of the time of her death.
i find it very odd they couldent estimate a time of death when they had 5 bodys to work on i find it hard to belive they couldent give a time of death for any of them.
-
i find it very odd they couldent estimate a time of death when they had 5 bodys to work on i find it hard to belive they couldent give a time of death for any of them.
So do I nugs,,seeing as it's usually the first question that's asked after a murder. Time of death !
-
well you would think at least one body would in good enough condition to get a time of death from.
-
Where did the bible end up ? Why wasn't it presented at the 2002 appeal ?
It was discussed lookout in 405-421.http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Thanks Steve.I'm getting bogged down with all the scenarios and things.
-
If there was such proof, we'd have heard about it by now.
If that ridiculous statement is not an expression of blind faith, I don’t know what would be!
Incidentally, why are you and Mat making comments which are obviously meant to discredit Bambergate?
Bambergate is not relying on faith at all, he is telling us what he knows from the ex policemen he is in contact with.
Are you suggesting he is lying?
-
If that ridiculous statement is not an expression of blind faith, I don’t know what would be!
Incidentally, why are you and Mat making comments which are obviously meant to discredit Bambergate?
Bambergate is not relying on faith at all, he is telling us what he knows from the ex policemen he is in contact with.
Are you suggesting he is lying?
This is getting tiresome.
Is there any chance a moderator could enforce the rules that members should be respectful of each others views. Likewise Mat should not have accused BG of lying.
Just a suggestion.
-
This is getting tiresome.
Is there any chance a moderator could enforce the rules that members should be respectful of each others views. Likewise Mat should not have accused BG of lying.
Just a suggestion.
I accept the point Harters, it’s just that I was a bit annoyed by the attitude of those two towards Bambergate.
You are right, it’s much better to debate in a civil way.
-
well you would think at least one body would in good enough condition to get a time of death from.
I don't know how advanced the science was at the time. Maybe estimating the time to within about 5 or so hours was as good as it got. The pathologist also had a delay in seeing the bodies and did not see them in situ at the crime scene, which given his recommendations to future pathologists, it may well have removed further clues that he could have used to give a time of death.
-
Is there any chance a moderator could enforce the rules that members should be respectful of each others views. Likewise Mat should not have accused BG of lying.
I accept the point Harters, it’s just that I was a bit annoyed by the attitude of those two towards Bambergate.
You are right, it’s much better to debate in a civil way.
Civility can be stretched at times and has been on countless occasions. As long as members try and pull themselves back towards being reasonable, things normally right themselves.
-
Civility can be stretched at times and has been on countless occasions. As long as members try and pull themselves back towards being reasonable, things normally right themselves.
I agree Roch, sometimes mods aren't online also as you say often these things adjust, better to see if that happens before we wade in. ;D
-
If that ridiculous statement is not an expression of blind faith, I don’t know what would be!
Incidentally, why are you and Mat making comments which are obviously meant to discredit Bambergate?
Bambergate is not relying on faith at all, he is telling us what he knows from the ex policemen he is in contact with.
Are you suggesting he is lying?
With all due respect Martin. Although I agree that Bambergate should not have been accused of lying, nevertheless I'm not sure if he made it clear to people that he was repeating the words of an ex policeman? Although I am not the best example of someone who pays attention, I certainly was not aware of his connections with an ex police officer and I too could not recall reading about such a thing? I therefore can understand their doubts about this evidence that he allegedly holds.
-
Am I the only one who knew of Bambergates' connections to the police ?
-
Am I the only one who knew of Bambergates' connections to the police ?
Probably not lookout? I'm just saying that I didn't know and perhaps neither Mat or Caroline either. Although I have noticed the different way that Caroline questions Bamber supporters now though. A bit more hostile than she used to be?
-
Probably not lookout? I'm just saying that I didn't know and perhaps neither Mat or Caroline either. Although I have noticed the different way that Caroline questions Bamber supporters now though. A bit more hostile than she used to be?
I agree Grahame. Though I don't know why,,but I'm a bit above that now so it doesn't bother me.
Let's just say that I'm used to the hostilities that I,personally,have received on this forum.
In one ear and out of the other so to speak. If you have confidence in yourself,,you can ride these things.
-
Probably not lookout? I'm just saying that I didn't know and perhaps neither Mat or Caroline either. Although I have noticed the different way that Caroline questions Bamber supporters now though. A bit more hostile than she used to be?
I didn't know either Grahame. I knew he continually contacted everyone and anyone about the case and was totally committed to finding the truth but didn't know he was in constant contact with an ex policeman.
Good for him he's doing a great job imo. :)
-
This is why I've strongly supported Bambergate from day one. Nobody knows more than an ex-cop !
-
Nobody knows more than an ex-cop !
But there are plenty ex cops in and around this case to choose from. And still more who may have stayed silent. What if one ex cop disagrees with another ex cop?
-
But there are plenty ex cops in and around this case to choose from. And still more who may have stayed silent. What if one ex cop disagrees with another ex cop?
I should really have made the comparison in an ex-cop and a retired one,,as there's a vast difference.
I don't know whether Bambergates' " asscociate " is actually ex or retired.
It will be the ex's who disagree with the retired ones------------possibly ? More often than not.
-
It's those who have been dismissed who are likely to tell the truth.Whistleblowers. Rather than go with the flow knowing that it's all lies.
-
Probably not lookout? I'm just saying that I didn't know and perhaps neither Mat or Caroline either. Although I have noticed the different way that Caroline questions Bamber supporters now though. A bit more hostile than she used to be?
Grahame, I'm going to suggest that the "hostility" may be more in your mind than Caroline's, who, because she's looking at this from a different angle, is seeing a another picture and instead of simply concurring, maybe she's challenging her own, previously held beliefs, rather than someone else's.
In Caroline's defence, since she has voiced doubts, I have detected an element of "I know something you don't know" in some posts which I find EXTREMELY irritating and a little childish. WHY NOW??? If this knowledge has been available all along, why wait until NOW to introduce it. Thank God Jeremy isn't relying on us to bring about his release. Grahame, you don't need me to remind you of what happened when the stupid guy built his house on sand. I HATE the thought that my own beliefs may have been built on something LESS than all available knowledge, because if it has, there's every likelihood I've got it wrong.
-
What could have been the " rustling " noise which was heard by the phone operator ? As well as the dog barking,,when the phone was off the hook at WHF.
-
It would strike me that there was someone alive/moving inside the farmhouse if the dog was still barking.
-
It would strike me that there was someone alive/moving inside the farmhouse if the dog was still barking.
OR, was the dog barking because it was being disturbed by what was happening outside the farmhouse.
-
But there are plenty ex cops in and around this case to choose from. And still more who may have stayed silent. What if one ex cop disagrees with another ex cop?
Exactly and every excop has their own agenda, have to be very careful with cops, ex or not imo
-
April, you are the voice of reason today! :)
-
It would strike me that there was someone alive/moving inside the farmhouse if the dog was still barking.
Wonder where the dog was if the operator could hear the dog in that big old house with tbick stone walls crispy must have been downstairs in the kitchen area and only ran upstairs when the raid team started battering on the door?
-
Wonder where the dog was if the operator could hear the dog in that big old house with tbick stone walls crispy must have been downstairs in the kitchen area and only ran upstairs when the raid team started battering on the door?
Good point. Or the house carries sound well, which again contradicts that Sheila slept through it all as is often claimed.
-
OR, was the dog barking because it was being disturbed by what was happening outside the farmhouse.
It was more the rustling noise rather than the dog barking,April. This is what it was described as such.
-
Wonder where the dog was if the operator could hear the dog in that big old house with tbick stone walls crispy must have been downstairs in the kitchen area and only ran upstairs when the raid team started battering on the door?
The dog barking was in the coal shed wasn't it? ???
-
Wonder where the dog was if the operator could hear the dog in that big old house with tbick stone walls crispy must have been downstairs in the kitchen area and only ran upstairs when the raid team started battering on the door?
It would have been in and around the area where the phone was in the kitchen,Maggie-----presumably.
-
It was more the rustling noise rather than the dog barking,April. This is what it was described as such.
Are you able to state where you got that from Lookout?
There is the description of hearing five knocks, movement and voices, but that was of course caused by the firearms unit entering the building.
-
The dog barking was in the coal shed wasn't it? ???
The Labrador outside ? Surely not.
-
The dog barking was in the coal shed wasn't it? ???
If one dog in a family starts barking, it highly likely it will set off any others.
-
Are you able to state where you got that from Lookout?
There is the description of hearing five knocks, movement and voices, but that was of course caused by the firearms unit entering the building.
It's on the Official site web,,which tells of Nevilles' phone-call to the police.
-
If one dog in a family starts barking, it highly likely it will set off any others.
The other one was found cowering under the bed in the master bedroom. I don't recall ever seeing reports of it barking.
-
Probably not lookout? I'm just saying that I didn't know and perhaps neither Mat or Caroline either. Although I have noticed the different way that Caroline questions Bamber supporters now though. A bit more hostile than she used to be?
I only ever treat like with like. People have changed their attitude towards me since I mentioned I have doubts as a result, I am quite disappointed. However, this was predicted but I expected better.
-
The phone operator had said that the sound was audible,,after it had been established that the phone had been left off its cradle by Neville having spoken to Malcolm Bonnet.
-
It's on the Official site web,,which tells of Nevilles' phone-call to the police.
Need a head bang wall smiley. Where's Grahame?
I'll leave you to it.
-
Caroline I have not changed my attitude towards you as I have always respected your opinion whatever your stance is/was you are entitled to do this and we should respect your honesty.
-
If that ridiculous statement is not an expression of blind faith, I don’t know what would be!
Incidentally, why are you and Mat making comments which are obviously meant to discredit Bambergate?
Bambergate is not relying on faith at all, he is telling us what he knows from the ex policemen he is in contact with.
Are you suggesting he is lying?
Errrr, I am suggesting no such thing!! I asked him a question and the answer he gave was that he was told something existed but had never seen it - then made a flippant comment about kidney's. He said I should just ask if there was something I needed to know - I asked, I still am non the wiser but am pretty convinced he does have kidney's.
If Bambergate was offended by anything I said, I'm sure he'd have said so. I don't think he's lying at all and all he says could be right - however, I not willing to simply take something he was told by someone else as a fact - seeing is believing in this kind of instance.
-
April, you are the voice of reason today! :)
Alias, I do try............................or should that be, I'm very trying? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I accept the point Harters, it’s just that I was a bit annoyed by the attitude of those two towards Bambergate.
You are right, it’s much better to debate in a civil way.
Your attitude towards me has been rude and condescending and is having the desired effect - well done!!
-
Grahame, I'm going to suggest that the "hostility" may be more in your mind than Caroline's, who, because she's looking at this from a different angle, is seeing a another picture and instead of simply concurring, maybe she's challenging her own, previously held beliefs, rather than someone else's.
In Caroline's defence, since she has voiced doubts, I have detected an element of "I know something you don't know" in some posts which I find EXTREMELY irritating and a little childish. WHY NOW??? If this knowledge has been available all along, why wait until NOW to introduce it. Thank God Jeremy isn't relying on us to bring about his release. Grahame, you don't need me to remind you of what happened when the stupid guy built his house on sand. I HATE the thought that my own beliefs may have been built on something LESS than all available knowledge, because if it has, there's every likelihood I've got it wrong.
Thanks April, people forget that I have had their corner in the past. It's certainly didn't take long for the sharks to start circling. Tough, I will continue to write what I think, not what people want to hear - if that is hard medicine for some to swallow - so be it.
-
Caroline I have not changed my attitude towards you as I have always respected your opinion whatever your stance is/was you are entitled to do this and we should respect your honesty.
Thanks Susan :)
-
The dog barking was in the coal shed wasn't it? ???
Could the dog barking in the coal shed have been heard by the phone operator listening in on the kitchen phone which was off the hook? Just wondering???
-
Could the dog barking in the coal shed have been heard by the phone operator listening in on the kitchen phone which was off the hook? Just wondering???
It could well have been that one,Maggie,,but it's the rustling bit that I'm trying to fathom out,that the operator heard. What would rustle ?
-
The phone being shoved underneath the magazines ?
-
Could the dog barking in the coal shed have been heard by the phone operator listening in on the kitchen phone which was off the hook? Just wondering???
Georgian houses have mega thick walls and it would also depend on how far away was the coal shed from the house.
-
Grahame, I'm going to suggest that the "hostility" may be more in your mind than Caroline's, who, because she's looking at this from a different angle, is seeing a another picture and instead of simply concurring, maybe she's challenging her own, previously held beliefs, rather than someone else's.
In Caroline's defence, since she has voiced doubts, I have detected an element of "I know something you don't know" in some posts which I find EXTREMELY irritating and a little childish. WHY NOW??? If this knowledge has been available all along, why wait until NOW to introduce it. Thank God Jeremy isn't relying on us to bring about his release. Grahame, you don't need me to remind you of what happened when the stupid guy built his house on sand. I HATE the thought that my own beliefs may have been built on something LESS than all available knowledge, because if it has, there's every likelihood I've got it wrong.
You may indeed suggest it.
-
Georgian houses have mega thick walls and it would also depend on how far away was the coal shed from the house.
All the more reason why a sound moderator was not needed :)
-
All the more reason why a sound moderator was not needed :)
:)
-
It could well have been that one,Maggie,,but it's the rustling bit that I'm trying to fathom out,that the operator heard. What would rustle ?
On occasions during a call, I'm become aware of, what I can only describe as something being deep fried although the person to whom I'm speaking can't hear it. Could this translate as "a rustling sound"?
-
All the more reason why a sound moderator was not needed :)
Well earned point, there, Jansus :D :D :D :D
-
Georgian houses have mega thick walls and it would also depend on how far away was the coal shed from the house.
.......... and single glazing. The coal shed door is approx. 3m to the left of the door that the police used to enter.
I suspect the rustling is either embellishment, or the noise of the police entering.
-
.......... and single glazing. The coal shed door is approx. 3m to the left of the door that the police used to enter.
I suspect the rustling is either embellishment, or the noise of the police entering.
Maybe more like 5m, there is a photo in the archives.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4062;image)
Blue door to the left is the coal shed.
-
.......... and single glazing. The coal shed door is approx. 3m to the left of the door that the police used to enter.
I suspect the rustling is either embellishment, or the noise of the police entering.
Either being entirely possible.
-
Maybe more like 5m, there is a photo in the archives.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4062;image)
Blue door to the left is the coal shed.
Thanks for the clarification. I can't tell a metre from a foot ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Taken from the 2002 appeal:
At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m. The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog barking.
-
Someone must have made a call from the farm that dreadful night. You don´t have an open line just by taking the reciver off the hook, do you? I am asking, I don´t know??
-
This is taken from the official site:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
Later on, the police asked an operator to check the line at White House Farm, and the operator confirmed that at that stage, the handset was off its cradle, a rustling noise was audible, and a dog could be heard barking[21].
The citation for [21] reads as follows:
Noted on what is referred to as Malcolm Bonnet’s Log, also referred to as the ‘Radio Log, or the Essex Police Communications log’, 7 August 1985.
The logs can be viewed in this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html
Unless my eyesight is failing me, the citation does not match the logs.
On a separate issue to April, the logs do mention TWO dogs going berserk, although neither are singled out to be the owner of the barks heard over the open phone line.
-
Alias don't know too much about phones but think you could be right.
-
Someone must have made a call from the farm that dreadful night. You don´t have an open line just by taking the reciver off the hook, do you? I am asking, I don´t know??
Hi Alias, the line was opened by a BT engineer.
-
Hi Alias, the line was opened by a BT engineer.
OK, thanks.
-
This is taken from the official site:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
Later on, the police asked an operator to check the line at White House Farm, and the operator confirmed that at that stage, the handset was off its cradle, a rustling noise was audible, and a dog could be heard barking[21].
The citation for [21] reads as follows:
Noted on what is referred to as Malcolm Bonnet’s Log, also referred to as the ‘Radio Log, or the Essex Police Communications log’, 7 August 1985.
The logs can be viewed in this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html
Unless my eyesight is failing me, the citation does not match the logs.
On a separate issue to April, the logs do mention TWO dogs going berserk, although neither are singled out to be the owner of the barks heard over the open phone line.
This bit appears to be a concoction. a rustling noise was audible
-
Someone must have made a call from the farm that dreadful night. You don´t have an open line just by taking the reciver off the hook, do you? I am asking, I don´t know??
Alias, if I left a receiver off the hook now there would be an automatic reminder, but someone trying to call me during that time would, I think, get the "engaged" tone. In 1985 there was no automation and I seem to recall that there were occasions back then when I deliberately left the phone off the hook to prevent an unwanted call...................only to replace it in case I missed a call I wanted.
There are only SO many ways that a receiver could be left off the hook. 1. Deliberately for the above reason OR a momentary distraction during the connected call to which the caller intends to return. 2. Accidentally because something has been heard which demands immediate attention. Either of these would result in an open line, leaving whoever was on the other end hearing nothing but being aware that the other person had gone. This, IMO, wouldn't mean that the line was dead. If the hanger on replaced their own receiver and redialed I imagine they'd have got tones which said either "engaged" or "number unavailable."
-
.....................................
On a separate issue to April, the logs do mention TWO dogs going berserk, although neither are singled out to be the owner of the barks heard over the open phone line.
Thank-you Harters. If we go as far as asking whether the barks were treble or bass, it would be a bark too far ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Taken from the 2002 appeal:
At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m. The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog barking.
I wonder what the dog was barking at?
-
I wonder what the dog was barking at?
How long have you got, Grahame? :D :D :D
-
I wonder what the dog was barking at?
Rustling noises outside? Could as well be outside as inside, dogs have good ears.
-
This bit appears to be a concoction. a rustling noise was audible
Concoction by whom? (Don´t have time to read the links right now.)
-
Concoction by whom? (Don´t have time to read the links right now.)
The author(s) of the article on JB's official site.
-
The author(s) of the article on JB's official site.
To be fair the entire article is a concoction, attempting to use a log of a call between Bonnett and West to dupe folk in to believing that Neville phoned the police, but that's a whole other issue and has been done to death.
-
If there was nothing written anywhere,,no links or notes of any kind,,there'd be no discussion going on because we'd all take it that he was guilty,,via the original headline news,,and that would be that.
So blame whoever it was who started with the MOJ. ;D ;D
-
I think that it's getting to the stage now, that even those who believe in his innocence are getting fed up with being lied to.
-
We'll see what this next submission brings.
Dare I say it,,that because I feel that Jeremy is innocent,,and because there was nothing worth mentioning to pin the murders on him,,he'll naturally be clutching at straws. Any little thing that's been overlooked,however relevant it might be to the case,,as this is how it is, being as he continually pleads his innocence. You'd do it yourself.It might seem to be excuses that he keeps making,,but in actual fact,he's doing all he can to seek proof that it wasn't him.
Nobody could keep up any kind of a " charade " like this if there was even a hint of guilt. As I've said before,,unless the man is a raving lunatic and 27 psychologists have missed it,,then I'll eat my hat.
-
I think that it's getting to the stage now, that even those who believe in his innocence are getting fed up with being lied to.
I think that would be applicable on both guilters and innocent forums tbh. Sometimes it makes all the difference to post a thread as a question rather than a stated fact. And that's the same with scenarios.
I don't see any harm in discussing until the cows come home - because that is all it is really discussion.
-
I think that would be applicable on both guilters and innocent forums tbh. Sometimes it makes all the difference to post a thread as a question rather than a stated fact. And that's the same with scenarios.
I don't see any harm in discussing until the cows come home - because that is all it is really discussion.
I tried that Jansus - it still opened the flood gates and now I'm the Propaganda Queen!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I tried that Jansus - it still opened the flood gates and now I'm the Propaganda Queen!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Please don´t think that that is the general perception of you here! As far as I can see, it is one single poster who has a cultish mindset.
Of course the rest of us ask questions of you, that comes with the territory. I ask questions because I try to understand the basis of your having more doubts now. Same reason for most others I presume.
If I post on the red forum, I get bombarded with questions (some are very nice, but there are also some very rude posters, so it got too arduous.)
I have always had doubts. I have been quite open about that from the beginning, and people don´t take notice of what I say anyway! :P Guess that can have its advantages! ;D 8)
-
I think Adam was possibly the worst culprit for posting FACTS rather than opinions.
But worse thing was I think he believed them :(
-
I tried that Jansus - it still opened the flood gates and now I'm the Propaganda Queen!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Now you're being silly,Caroline. xxxxxxx
-
I think Adam was possibly the worst culprit for posting FACTS rather than opinions.
But worse thing was I think he believed them :(
Jansus, perhaps TWISTED facts would be more correct. By the way, WHO was Adam??????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias I always take notice of you as you put up some excellent posts which always make sense :)
-
Jansus, perhaps TWISTED facts would be more correct. By the way, WHO was Adam??????? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Eves' husband. ;D
-
Eves' husband. ;D
Ant?
-
Alias I always take notice of you as you put up some excellent posts which always make sense :)
You are very sweet, susie - but I realize that I am no "heavy weighter" here, Caro is. That is why her doubts about Jeremy´s guilt or innocense carry more weight than mine. Perhaps to a small degree, also the fact that I have never really changed my mind - my stance is the same as when I came here.
I didn´t mean for this to be about me, so let´s move on! ;D
-
Ha Ha Ha lookout best post of the day ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias I admire you and Caroline for being truthful about how you feel and it makes good debate.
-
Please don´t think that that is the general perception of you here! As far as I can see, it is one single poster who has a cultish mindset.
Of course the rest of us ask questions of you, that comes with the territory. I ask questions because I try to understand the basis of your having more doubts now. Same reason for most others I presume.
If I post on the red forum, I get bombarded with questions (some are very nice, but there are also some very rude posters, so it got too arduous.)
I have always had doubts. I have been quite open about that from the beginning, and people don´t take notice of what I say anyway! :P Guess that can have its advantages! ;D 8)
Thanks Alias, I know you have doubts of your own and I don't think it's a general perception but I've been surprised by some people.
I don't mind if people don't agree with me but accusing me of propaganda or of being hostile is quite annoying when I have done my best to explain the reasoning behind my thoughts - without (I might add) posting a copy of the letter - which I would never do.
-
I tried that Jansus - it still opened the flood gates and now I'm the Propaganda Queen!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Burn the witch burn the witch burn the witch. ;D ;D ;D
-
Eves' husband. ;D
It wasn't the apple on the tree. It was the pear (pair) on the ground.
-
You are very sweet, susie - but I realize that I am no "heavy weighter" here, Caro is. That is why her doubts about Jeremy´s guilt or innocense carry more weight than mine. Perhaps to a small degree, also the fact that I have never really changed my mind - my stance is the same as when I came here.
I didn´t mean for this to be about me, so let´s move on! ;D
Caroline's doubts carry more weight than the whole of the red forum.
-
Thanks Alias, I know you have doubts of your own and I don't think it's a general perception but I've been surprised by some people.
I don't mind if people don't agree with me but accusing me of propaganda or of being hostile is quite annoying when I have done my best to explain the reasoning behind my thoughts - without (I might add) posting a copy of the letter - which I would never do.
I think the reaction you received, probably unjustly is because those on the innocent side have seen you as an anchor. Someone that is reliable and trustworthy. When someone like you change their minds on a certain issue throws us into some kind of confusion? Well I've always looked upon you as a level headed reasoned anyway.
-
I think the reaction you received, probably unjustly is because those on the innocent side have seen you as an anchor. Someone that is reliable and trustworthy. When someone like you change their minds on a certain issue throws us into some kind of confusion? Well I've always looked upon you as a level headed reasoned anyway.
Well I believe that most people on the innocent side have a certain percentage of possibility they may be wrong. It's impossible to be absolutely 100% imo although different personalities possibly see the world in a slightly different way. To me there are endless possibilities and always shades of grey, we simply cannot know for sure even if the evidence as we know it may point one way or the other. Think we, innocents and guilters, all have to be aware that we may be wrong and that everyone has a right to their own opinion.
-
Caroline's doubts carry more weight than the whole of the red forum.
I think you´re on to something here!
It also goes to show the value of HONESTY. No twisting and turning, like for example in transscripts of handwritten documents, you choose to change the wording a teeny tiny bit to hammer home your own viewpoint. Things like that upset me. Goes for guilters and pros equally!
I should hope that everyone wants the truth - not just be right.
-
I know one thing folks,,that if I'm wrong in my judgement,,I'll be the first here to hold my hands up.
I'm no bad loser and never have been.
-
Alias I want the truth whether I like it or not and Caroline is seeking the truth and if she is wrong she would hold up her hands and say she was wrong but somehow don't think she is and I know you are a truth seeker too Alias.
-
lookout I know you so well and I know you would be the first to say I got it wrong you are looking for truth not to be right. :-*
-
I think you´re on to something here!
It also goes to show the value of HONESTY. No twisting and turning, like for example in transscripts of handwritten documents, you choose to change the wording a teeny tiny bit to hammer home your own viewpoint. Things like that upset me. Goes for guilters and pros equally!
I should hope that everyone wants the truth - not just be right.
And that sums up what I think. I don't care about being right but when you have an itch, you have to scratch it - the wallet is ONE itch but there are others. Some have already been discussed and I'm sure are simply things shared by everyone else. I can be guilty of nit picking at times but sometimes the little things are important. People let their guard down when they think something isn't important or when they get annoyed or stressed. The wallet incident seems (to me) to be one of those instances and of course I am aware that it may be nothing - but it still itches!! ;D ;D
-
Hello Maggie
I agree we all have tiny doubts that Jeremy could be guilty but if somebody on the forum could tell me how he managed to murder June, Ralph the twins and Sheila without any help I would be more convinced but cannot come up with anything to convince me he could do that on his own he would have to have had some help from somebody. It seems from what I have read that Sheila died last so what was she doing whilst Jeremy was shooting Ralph and what about the 3 burn marks on Ralph's back were they inflicted after Sheila's death would Jeremy have hung around doing that. No cannot make any sense at all other than Sheila and Jeremy were in it together not saying they were just a thought of how he could have been involved. Guess we will never know :(
-
And that sums up what I think. I don't care about being right but when you have an itch, you have to scratch it - the wallet is ONE itch but there are others. Some have already been discussed and I'm sure are simply things shared by everyone else. I can be guilty of nit picking at times but sometimes the little things are important. People let their guard down when they think something isn't important or when they get annoyed or stressed. The wallet incident seems (to me) to be one of those instances and of course I am aware that it may be nothing - but it still itches!! ;D ;D
Well,,you know the remedy,Caroline-------------keep scratching. ;D
-
I think the reaction you received, probably unjustly is because those on the innocent side have seen you as an anchor. Someone that is reliable and trustworthy. When someone like you change their minds on a certain issue throws us into some kind of confusion? Well I've always looked upon you as a level headed reasoned anyway.
Thanks Grahame!! I try to be. I still stand by everything I have said re: the bible (palm print) and certainly the silencer and Venezis written report. I have more questions now than when I came here but asking questions as opposed to accepting either sides version of events is surely a good thing? I don't have any argument with either Martin or Bambergate but I can't support something I haven't seen and even if Venezis did give a time of death, it could only ever be an estimate and by the time he saw Sheila, she had vigor mortis. The best estimate would have been when the bodies were first discovered but the doctor didn't examine them properly - sadly.
-
Hello Maggie
I agree we all have tiny doubts that Jeremy could be guilty but if somebody on the forum could tell me how he managed to murder June, Ralph the twins and Sheila without any help I would be more convinced but cannot come up with anything to convince me he could do that on his own he would have to have had some help from somebody. It seems from what I have read that Sheila died last so what was she doing whilst Jeremy was shooting Ralph and what about the 3 burn marks on Ralph's back were they inflicted after Sheila's death would Jeremy have hung around doing that. No cannot make any sense at all other than Sheila and Jeremy were in it together not saying they were just a thought of how he could have been involved. Guess we will never know :(
Good post, suse. Glad you bring up the three mysterious burn marks. I have never been able to come up with a plausible explanation for those and how they were made. Haven´t seen others come up with any plausible reason for why they might be there.
To me what comes closest to an explanation is that they were made by a irrational person.
Who was not rational: Sheila. Was Jeremy rational? He seemed to be. He didn´t come running screaming out of a convent, he didn´t attack strangers, he didn´t write, 3 3 3 3 3 please please please on little pieces of paper. At least I don´t THINK it was him - would seem out of charachter!
-
Good post, suse. Glad you bring up the three mysterious burn marks. I have never been able to come up with a plausible explanation for those and how they were made. Haven´t seen others come up with any plausible reason for why they might be there.
To me what comes closest to an explanation is that they were made by a irrational person.
Who was not rational: Sheila. Was Jeremy rational? He seemed to be. He didn´t come running screaming out of a convent, he didn´t attack strangers, he didn´t write, 3 3 3 3 3 please please please on little pieces of paper. At least I don´t THINK it was him - would seem out of charachter!
Alias, I think the one thing there AREN'T any question marks over is Sheila's mental state, which I think from the time she arrived at the farm veered between manic and depressive (although I'm not suggesting she was bi polar) We know also, that she was embracing religion. Might those three marks have been a benediction, as in Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Might they have been a form of protection? Whatever they MAY have been, they certainly WEREN'T rational.
-
Alias I agree the burn marks were made by an irrational person and to me seem to have been done with a feeling of contempt behind them and I am sure they had religious connotations but not sure what they were the 3 is very significant it was written 5 times thus 5 deaths. The action of the burn marks causes me more concern than anything else and this is why I cannot put Jeremy at the scene I am not saying he was not involved but how. Are we missing something wish Carolne would get another itch ;D I cannot recall any importance put on the burn marks but I think they are very important because had Jeremy committed the murders he would not have hung around wasting time he would have been out of there as fast as his legs would carry him. Anyone out there that can help myself and Alias.
-
Alias, I think the one thing there AREN'T any question marks over is Sheila's mental state, which I think from the time she arrived at the farm veered between manic and depressive (although I'm not suggesting she was bi polar) We know also, that she was embracing religion. Might those three marks have been a benediction, as in Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Might they have been a form of protection? Whatever they MAY have been, they certainly WEREN'T rational.
Could be, Sheila was as you say so nicely, embracing religion. I would say she was a bit manic about God and the Devil.
Those marks also make me wonder about the motivation behind the murders. Everyone agrees that Jeremy´s motive was inheritance/money/freedom - a "rational" motive. Would he really take his time to heat some object (don´t know if the rifle could get warm enough on its own by being fired, seems unlikely to me. Saying that, I know not a thing about firearms!!) and then place three burnmarks on his father? That thought is just ODD! WHY would he do that?!
BTW - I never put up pictures of the burn marks in the picture thread. Wonder if I "forgot" because I find those pictures particularly awful to look at?
-
Alias it has been said that the rifle was heated in the Aga to cause the burn marks why would Jeremy do this unless he wanted to make it look like the killings were done by an irrational person and not him but just don't think he knew enough about religion to work this out this is the main reason I cannot put him at the scene plus he would have needed an accomplice and that would not have been a professional hitman.
-
Alias it has been said that the rifle was heated in the Aga to cause the burn marks why would Jeremy do this unless he wanted to make it look like the killings were done by an irrational person and not him but just don't think he knew enough about religion to work this out this is the main reason I cannot put him at the scene plus he would have needed an accomplice and that would not have been a professional hitman.
Yes, the theory is that the rifle was heated in the Aga. Maybe that is what happened.
Jeremy would have had to be incredibly busy staging the whole thing to look like the murders were committed by "Sheila the nutter". Placing a Bible on Sheila for one thing. I doubt somehow that Jeremy would have been "deep" enough to come up with that. Then shooting her twice to make it look like suicide! He is a regular genius! Oh, forgot, unscrewed the silencer with blobs of blood and hair on it and put it in the gun cupboard! ::)
I have to stop thinking about this case - it drives ME nuts! :-\
-
The rifle would have showed signs of having been heated,,so I don't think it was that,somehow. You know what I mean ? Hot metal gets a discolouring and there was no mention of that.
Maybe a poker left over the Aga,,as it was still going so someone must have felt cold------August ?
-
They may have been old wounds?
-
They may have been old wounds?
I came to that conclusion a while back, but then thought the wounds do look fresh. Of course hard to tell exactly from the photo.
If they are old wounds, it is strange that Sheila (wound on stomach), June (black eye) AND Nevill (burnmarks) all had old wounds at the time of the murders.
-
I came to that conclusion a while back, but then thought the wounds do look fresh. Of course hard to tell exactly from the photo.
If they are old wounds, it is strange that Sheila (wound on stomach), June (black eye) AND Nevill (burnmarks) all had old wounds at the time of the murders.
June's black eye has always made me wonder, especially the excuse she allegedly gave about walking into a post/door?
-
Caroline's doubts carry more weight than the whole of the red forum.
That is exactly the point I’m making. And like Bob Woffinden, she is in a position of influence. She is an administrator on a forum set up by Mike Tesko to raise awareness of Jeremy’s plight as a wrongly convicted man.
Notice how the guilters are delighted that Caroline is now in effect working for them. She has even got Mat coming along to give her his support.
She is now, in effect, a Trojan horse in the forum.
You can’t leave those considerations out of it. Talk about “opinions” is naïve. Pro guilt people work as group. They don’t bother with doubts and opinions.
Such babes in the wood!
Her new stance is in effect a big propaganda coup for the Ian Stephens and John Lamberton group and others with similar objectives. And that’s regardless of whether or not she sees it like that herself.
I think she knows exactly what she is doing.
-
(http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2012/06/28/DVD-Extra-Humphrey-Bogart-collections-T11P57PR-x-large.jpg)
Listen, sweetheart, I’m only a private dick, but I know much more than you do about the ways of the world.
-
That is exactly the point I’m making. And like Bob Woffinden, she is in a position of influence. She is an administrator on a forum set up by Mike Tesko to raise awareness of Jeremy’s plight as a wrongly convicted man.
Notice how the guilters are delighted that Caroline is now in effect working for them. She has even got Mat coming along to give her his support.
She is now, in effect, a Trojan horse in the forum.
You can’t leave those considerations out of it. Talk about “opinions” is naïve. Pro guilt people work as group. They don’t bother with doubts and opinions.
Such babes in the wood!
Her new stance is in effect a big propaganda coup for the Ian Stephens and John Lamberton group and others with similar objectives. And that’s regardless of whether or not she sees it like that herself.
I think she knows exactly what she is doing.
I think you should see someone!!
-
(http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2012/06/28/DVD-Extra-Humphrey-Bogart-collections-T11P57PR-x-large.jpg)
Listen, sweetheart, I’m only a private dick, but I know much more than you do about the ways of the world.
This isn't the place for personal confessions!! At the moment, I'd say you were a public one too!
-
That is exactly the point I’m making. And like Bob Woffinden, she is in a position of influence. She is an administrator on a forum set up by Mike Tesko to raise awareness of Jeremy’s plight as a wrongly convicted man.
Notice how the guilters are delighted that Caroline is now in effect working for them. She has even got Mat coming along to give her his support.
She is now, in effect, a Trojan horse in the forum.
You can’t leave those considerations out of it. Talk about “opinions” is naïve. Pro guilt people work as group. They don’t bother with doubts and opinions.
Such babes in the wood!
Her new stance is in effect a big propaganda coup for the Ian Stephens and John Lamberton group and others with similar objectives. And that’s regardless of whether or not she sees it like that herself.
I think she knows exactly what she is doing.
I certainly do, I'm stating my opinion just like you are but you seem more interested in me than the Jeremy Bamber case. People will talk!! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think you should see someone!!
I feel that in the light of your position as an administrator on a pro Bamber forum, you should expect to be questioned closely if, as you have done, you make it clear that you have changed your stance on the case from one of broadly identifying with Bamber’s supporters, to one where you are giving support to people who believe he is guilty.
Even if you don’t chose to see it in those terms and maintain you are only trying to be objective, your position is one which brings with it a responsibility to consider carefully the effect of what you are saying.
-
I feel that in the light of your position as an administrator on a pro Bamber forum, you should expect to be questioned closely if, as you have done, you make it clear that you have changed your stance on the case from one of broadly identifying with Bamber’s supporters, to one where you are giving support to people who believe he is guilty.
Even if you don’t chose to see it in those terms and maintain you are only trying to be objective, your position is one which brings with it a responsibility to consider carefully the effect of what you are saying.
This board is for both sides of the argument. I am sure you would be happy with people hanging on your every word, agreeing with all you have to say. If people aren't happy with me being an administrator/moderator here, given that i admit to having doubts, then that's fine but I will NOT compromise my opinions just to suit YOU!!
-
I certainly do, I'm stating my opinion just like you are but you seem more interested in me than the Jeremy Bamber case. People will talk!! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
I’m beginning to think that you may really be so naïve and that I have been unfair. But believe me, I know what I’m talking about, so I have to assume the worst. I am familiar with hate sites and the kind of people who post on them.
-
I’m beginning to think that you may really be so naïve and that I have been unfair. But believe me, I know what I’m talking about, so I have to assume the worst. I am familiar with hate sites and the kind of people who post on them.
I don't post on them and perhaps you have spent too long on them because at the moment the only person doing any harassing here is YOU!! This is a prime example of propaganda. Try to make the target sound stupid while passing yourself off as an expert. Talk about pots and kettles!!
-
I'm off to bed now Martin, I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories - nighty night!! ::)
-
I don't post on them and perhaps you have spent too long on them because at the moment the only person doing any harassing here is YOU!! This is a prime example of propaganda. Try to make the target sound stupid while passing yourself off as an expert. Talk about pots and kettles!!
You are using that as an excuse to avoid responding to points! All I am getting from you is cheap abuse!
It’s the position you represent I am criticising. Mat seemed to think I was harrassing you, as well. From my point of view, I have an important point to make.
-
Caroline's doubts carry more weight than the whole of the red forum.
(Improved version)
Well, maybe, that's an exaggeration! But like Bob Woffinden, she is in a position of some influence. She is an administrator on a forum set up by Mike Tesko to raise awareness of Jeremy’s plight as a wrongly convicted man.
Notice how the guilters are delighted that Caroline is now, in effect, helping them. She has even got Mat coming along to give her his gentlemanly support.
You can’t leave those considerations out of it. Talk about “opinions” is naïve. Pro guilt people tend to work as a group. Some of them don’t bother with doubts and opinions.
Her new stance is in effect a notable propaganda coup for the Ian Stephens and John Lamberton group who run both the red forum and the guilty page and for others with similar objectives. And that’s regardless of whether or not she sees it like that herself.
I think she knows what she is doing.
-
Well if this is the level .............
-
Morning lookout
correct me if I am wrong ;D but the tests carried out on the pigskin were done with a heated barrel of the gun last year. I think to cause discolouration the metal would have to be heated to a tremendous heat but temperatures of this degree would not be needed to cause burn marks on the skin. I remember ngb explaining all this but alas! I have forgotten half of it ;D ;D ;D
-
Well if this is the level .............
Calm down, dear ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Morning lookout
correct me if I am wrong ;D but the tests carried out on the pigskin were done with a heated barrel of the gun last year. I think to cause discolouration the metal would have to be heated to a tremendous heat but temperatures of this degree would not be needed to cause burn marks on the skin. I remember ngb explaining all this but alas! I have forgotten half of it ;D ;D ;D
Morning Susan,,yes you are right.The pigskin experiment. Just as if Jeremy would go to the trouble of heating up the barrel of a gun ::) Or anyone who was wanting ,sorry for this,,a quick no nonsense execution.
-
Morning lookout
correct me if I am wrong ;D but the tests carried out on the pigskin were done with a heated barrel of the gun last year. I think to cause discolouration the metal would have to be heated to a tremendous heat but temperatures of this degree would not be needed to cause burn marks on the skin. I remember ngb explaining all this but alas! I have forgotten half of it ;D ;D ;D
Morning Susie yes think discolouration on metal from extreme heat is called bluing. :)
-
Morning Maggie my dear think bluing is a process applied to metal prior to its use to stop it from rusting maybe the bluing stops discolouration I am not sure we discussed this in full earlier with ngb but forgot most of it no doubt some guy on the forum will correct me or thee ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi lookout
the burn marks inflicted on Ralph Bambers back on the night of the murders concerns me the most and this is one of the main reasons I cannot put Jeremy Bamber at the scene unless he is a raving psychopath and after all the tests he has had says he is not. Incidently have we ever seen the results of these tests.
-
I'm wracking my brain here,,because I was thinking about that number 3 last night,,with seeing it in Alias's post,,and something suddenly came into my mind ( which I should have immediately written down ) and I'm blowed what it was that I thought the significance was,,but it was worth a thought.
I'm due to have my yearly test for dementia ;D ;D ;D ;D-oh dear. It's not so much that I forget,,it's other things in my mind that take over. ;D That's my excuse anyway !
-
Hi lookout
the burn marks inflicted on Ralph Bambers back on the night of the murders concerns me the most and this is one of the main reasons I cannot put Jeremy Bamber at the scene unless he is a raving psychopath and after all the tests he has had says he is not. Incidently have we ever seen the results of these tests.
As I'd said,Susan,,if 27 psychiatrists prove to be wrong in their diagnosis of non-psychopathy,,then I'll be sitting exams for a professorship.
-
lookout I have always thought the 3 was very significant, 3 burns the number 3 was written on the note 5 times and I would think In the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost maybe relating to the 3. The number 3 was very important to ever inflicted the burns.
-
P.S.I feel like the nutty professor at times. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout because I value your friendship I will refrain from making a comment on that statement ;D ;D ;D ;D but you could be right ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You are using that as an excuse to avoid responding to points! All I am getting from you is cheap abuse!
It’s the position you represent I am criticising. Mat seemed to think I was harrassing you, as well. From my point of view, I have an important point to make.
I can charge you if you like? ;D ;D ;D
You are harassing me AND unlike YOU!! I have answered ALL of the questions asked of me more than once!! I asked Bambergate to provide proof and nothing was forthcoming cept some quip about kidney's but the very fact that he was able to sit typing said quip is PROOF that he has kidney's or he'd be brown bread. Now, some proof that Jeremy was framed with the full knowledge that Sheila was guilty would be nice - just a smidgen even?
I wonder how many others think that Jeremy was framed in this manner?
The point is what? Why can't your points be about adding some meat to the claims you make re the case?
-
I don't mind you being honest.I won't take umbridge. ;D ;D ;D ;D Lovely sentiments though.x
-
(Improved version)
Well, maybe, that's an exaggeration! But like Bob Woffinden, she is in a position of some influence. She is an administrator on a forum set up by Mike Tesko to raise awareness of Jeremy’s plight as a wrongly convicted man.
Notice how the guilters are delighted that Caroline is now, in effect, helping them. She has even got Mat coming along to give her his gentlemanly support.
You can’t leave those considerations out of it. Talk about “opinions” is naïve. Pro guilt people tend to work as a group. Some of them don’t bother with doubts and opinions.
Her new stance is in effect a notable propaganda coup for the Ian Stephens and John Lamberton group who run both the red forum and the guilty page and for others with similar objectives. And that’s regardless of whether or not she sees it like that herself.
I think she knows what she is doing.
I certainly do, I'm stating my opinion just like you are but you seem more interested in me than the Jeremy Bamber case. People will talk!! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D - Is this Goundhog Day or do we just have an echo in here?
-
I would like to see the coroners report which enabled him to release the bodies for burial.
-
Because if there'd been the slightest doubt,,other than the 4 murders and a suicide,,it would never have gone ahead.
Jeremy played no part in the initial burial procedures.It was up to the coroner.
My reason for saying this is because I've read " how quickly Jeremy wanted the family buried ".Wrong !
-
lookout I have always thought the 3 was very significant, 3 burns the number 3 was written on the note 5 times and I would think In the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost maybe relating to the 3. The number 3 was very important to ever inflicted the burns.
Hi Susan yes the number 3 and circles have a huge significance in all religious and spiritual philosophies. Its very possible the use of 3 at WHF was used for a reason, we know AE tells us Sheila claimed to be a white witch, which is in fact a force for good. Did Sheila burn Nevill's back three times or was it done to incriminate Sheila ...... fact is we don't know. :)
-
Morning Maggie my dear think bluing is a process applied to metal prior to its use to stop it from rusting maybe the bluing stops discolouration I am not sure we discussed this in full earlier with ngb but forgot most of it no doubt some guy on the forum will correct me or thee ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ooops think I got my lines crossed susie!!
-
Maggie maybe I got mine crossed it has been known to happen (all the time) somebody will come on and get all technical about it and we will still be no wiser ;D ;D ;D ;D and do we care no we don't ;D
-
Maggie I agree and nobody seems to put any importance on the burn marks Sheila I suspect could be responsible Jeremy No I have asked the posters who believe he is guilty how he committed this horrendous crime but they all ignore me :'(
-
Because there's no proof,Susan. Look at poor Sheilas' history and compare.
-
Maggie I agree and nobody seems to put any importance on the burn marks Sheila I suspect could be responsible Jeremy No I have asked the posters who believe he is guilty how he committed this horrendous crime but they all ignore me :'(
The guilters believe he's a psychopath although all reports tell us he isn't so are innocents missining something? I cannot believe a 'normal' mentally stable person could or would carry out such a crime although they could say they 'f'ing hated' their parents for various reasons when young and selfish. I also cannot see how Jeremy Bamber could have killed 3 healthy people with a .22 rifle. Apart from anything it was a HUGE risk imo
-
Maggie maybe I got mine crossed it has been known to happen (all the time) somebody will come on and get all technical about it and we will still be no wiser ;D ;D ;D ;D and do we care no we don't ;D
No we don't!! ;D
-
I agree with you Maggie.
-
Hello Maggie
how do we know Jeremy is not a psychopath who has told us this and have we seen proof.
-
Susan,,there's a part print-out somewhere from the polygraph.
One of the questions was " could you punch someone " (probably worded differently)---------------I'd fail miserably,,,,,so how he passed that,God only knows. ;D Not a waver of the needle.
-
Hello Maggie
how do we know Jeremy is not a psychopath who has told us this and have we seen proof.
There is a copy of a report by a psychologist of one such test on the Official web site Susie. Apart from that it is something always repeated in books, Campaign Team etc. That he has had 27 plus tests all showing high mental normality.
-
(Improved version)
Well, maybe, that's an exaggeration! But like Bob Woffinden, she is in a position of some influence. She is an administrator on a forum set up by Mike Tesko to raise awareness of Jeremy’s plight as a wrongly convicted man.
Notice how the guilters are delighted that Caroline is now, in effect, helping them. She has even got Mat coming along to give her his gentlemanly support.
You can’t leave those considerations out of it. Talk about “opinions” is naïve. Pro guilt people tend to work as a group. Some of them don’t bother with doubts and opinions.
Her new stance is in effect a notable propaganda coup for the Ian Stephens and John Lamberton group who run both the red forum and the guilty page and for others with similar objectives. And that’s regardless of whether or not she sees it like that herself.
I think she knows what she is doing.
Hi Martin. I believe that you may have misunderstood my post there? What I meant was (and I qualified my words in my other post to Caroline) that I am never swayed by anything the (so called) red forum because you can expect any old trash from them. It's no surprise to me.
But when Caroline voices her doubts then folk on this pro Bamber forum are shocked in a way and most certainly disturbed by her apparent shift in her beliefs about Bamber's guilt.
Why? Because she has been a constant and stable reasoner and is seen by most members as a kind of anchor person. Also her position as administrator confirms this.
But I simply cannot speak of her in the same breath as xxxx and the other unstable nasty character xxxx or even xxxx. I respect Caroline. I do not respect those slimy characters from the euphemistically termed "red forum".
-
Maggie perhaps I will keep an open mind on these reports that way I cannot be wrong ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D but thanks for the information. :)
-
Hi Martin. I believe that you may have misunderstood my post there? What I meant was (and I qualified my words in my other post to Caroline) that I am never swayed by anything the (so called) red forum because you can expect any old trash from them. It's no surprise to me.
But when Caroline voices her doubts then folk on this pro Bamber forum are shocked in a way and most certainly disturbed by her apparent shift in her beliefs about Bamber's guilt.
Why? Because she has been a constant and stable reasoner and is seen by most members as a kind of anchor person. Also her position as administrator confirms this.
But I simply cannot speak of her in the same breath as xxxxx and the other unstable nastycharacter xxxx or even xxxx. I respect Caroline. I do not respect those slimy characters from the euphemistically termed "red forum".
Well said Grahame, totally agree. ;D
-
I don´t think that Caroline deserves to be slammed like this, Martin. She is simply stating her opinion.
I am not sure if you know this, but even Mike Tesko has from time to time aired the possibilty that Jeremy was somehow involved in the murders. Mike has fluctuating theories of what happened. Mike is more than a moderator, he is the owner of this board.
Martin, you come across as paranoid and frankly, a bit unhinged, with your rants against Caroline.
-
Alias we all have had thoughts that Jeremy could have been somehow involved. Probably what shocked posters was that Caroline has always been a very very Jeremy innocent supporter and for her to have doubts has made the rest of us (well me anyway) have doubts because she researches so much and does not post stuff up willy nilly like me for example she deals in facts and the forum takes her very very seriously and probably Martin has been taken aback as well at her change in stance.
-
I don´t think that Caroline deserves to be slammed like this, Martin. She is simply stating her opinion.
I am not sure if you know this, but even Mike Tesko has from time to time aired the possibilty that Jeremy was somehow involved in the murders. Mike has fluctuating theories of what happened. Mike is more than a moderator, he is the owner of this board.
Martin, you come across as paranoid and frankly, a bit unhinged, with your rants against Caroline.
Thank you Alias for your support, I think I have been quite restrained under the circumstances - it must be my sunny and mild mannered disposition ;D ;D ;D ;D.
-
Thank you Alias for your support, I think I have been quite restrained under the circumstances - it must be my sunny and mild mannered disposition ;D ;D ;D ;D.
You are such a retiring flower, Caroline ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank you Alias for your support, I think I have been quite restrained under the circumstances - it must be my sunny and mild mannered disposition ;D ;D ;D ;D.
Must be that! 8)
I wanted to stay out of this, but since it goes on and on, I have to speak my mind. I don´t think it is fair by a long shot.
-
Must be that! 8)
I wanted tp stay out of this, but since it goes on and on, I have to speak my mind. I don´t think it is fair by a long shot.
I'm happy to go with that Alias. When I think of some of the RUBBISH, presented as PROOF of Jeremy's guilt, which has been posted, to which no comment has been made, I'm stunned that ANYONE should be attacked in the way Caroline has been, simply for voicing doubts and rational thinking.
-
I'm happy to go with that Alias. When I think of some of the RUBBISH, presented as PROOF of Jeremy's guilt, which has been posted, to which no comment has been made, I'm stunned that ANYONE should be attacked in the way Caroline has been, simply for voicing doubts and rational thinking.
I agree, this all began because Caroline put up a post questioning Jeremy's reaction to a question she asked him, she has every right to question as we all do and she has every right to her opinion, as we all have.
Caroline was willing enough to answer various questions but it's all getting a bit heavy and repetitive now. Think it's time to move on ;D
-
I agree, this all began because Caroline put up a post questioning Jeremy's reaction to a question she asked him, she has every right to question as we all do and she has every right to her opinion, as we all have.
Caroline was willing enough to answer various questions but it's all getting a bit heavy and repetitive now. Think it's time to move on ;D
Maggie, THANKS for that :) The way you've just said it shows very clearly what a storm in a teacup this has become and to those who don't believe Caroline has the right to express an opinion over something which, at the end of the day, SHE experienced, GET OVER IT. As Maggie has said, time to move on.
-
I agree, this all began because Caroline put up a post questioning Jeremy's reaction to a question she asked him, she has every right to question as we all do and she has every right to her opinion, as we all have.
Caroline was willing enough to answer various questions but it's all getting a bit heavy and repetitive now. Think it's time to move on ;D
Thanks Maggie but not according to Martin - Not sure which question he thinks I haven't answered but I'm sure he'll be back to let me know - bless him!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
John---chapter 13,,verses 33----35. The Last Supper.
" Little children ,yet a little while I am with you.,Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews,Whither I go,ye cannot come; so now I say to you.A new commandment I give unto you,That ye love one another; as I have loved you,that ye also love one another.By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,if ye ye have love to one another.
Whither I go,thou canst not follow me now,but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake ? Verily,verily I say unto thee.The cock shall not crow till thou hath denied me thrice.
-
I shall attempt to bring this to the fore again to save me re-writing it.
-
John---chapter 13,,verses 33----35. The Last Supper.
" Little children ,yet a little while I am with you.,Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews,Whither I go,ye cannot come; so now I say to you.A new commandment I give unto you,That ye love one another; as I have loved you,that ye also love one another.By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,if ye ye have love to one another.
Whither I go,thou canst not follow me now,but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake ? Verily,verily I say unto thee.The cock shall not crow till thou hath denied me thrice.
I take it you are referring to the note in the bible?
-
Thanks Maggie but not according to Martin - Not sure which question he thinks I haven't answered but I'm sure he'll be back to let me know - bless him!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Have you any ideas about what exactly you'd like him to be blessed WITH, Caroline :D :D :D
-
I take it you are referring to the note in the bible?
Yes,Caroline. Because it's been said that the bible was open on that particular page,,I looked it up. Then,,of course,the note.
-
Yes,Caroline. Because it's been said that the bible was open on that particular page,,I looked it up. Then,,of course,the note.
The bible was open at page(s) 656 and 657 - Psalms 51-55, I think I just about know them off by heart now!! ;D ;D
-
The bible was open at page(s) 656 and 657 - Psalms 51-55, I think I just about know them off by heart now!! ;D ;D
It just shows how conflicting the evidence is because I'd read that it was John,chapter 13,verses 33 to 35,,which is what I quoted. Pertaining to The Last Supper. I think this is what was called The King John Bible.
-
There were two bibles taken from the scene .
-
It just shows how conflicting the evidence is because I'd read that it was John,chapter 13,verses 33 to 35,,which is what I quoted. Pertaining to The Last Supper. I think this is what was called The King John Bible.
This is the best picture I have where the number of the open bile is visible, but I have always understood it was open at 656 and 657, I've never hear of it being open at the last supper but there is lost of conflicting info out there.
-
There were two bibles taken from the scene .
Only one open next to Sheila though.
-
There were two bibles taken from the scene .
Indeed there were,Jansus.
-
Only one open next to Sheila though.
Would Jeremy have thought of doing this - somehow that seems far fetched to me? How did a bloodied palm-print get on the open page?
-
It just shows how conflicting the evidence is because I'd read that it was John,chapter 13,verses 33 to 35,,which is what I quoted. Pertaining to The Last Supper. I think this is what was called The King John Bible.
Lookout, I don't know where the information came from, but I can quite see how The Last Supper provides a (spurious?) link to what happened. I've tried several times, but failed to find what I would call a SATISFACTORY link between Sheila and the psalms but I guess at the end of the day we can make anything fit anywhere.
-
Would Jeremy have thought of doing this - somehow that seems far fetched to me? How did a bloodied palm-print get on the open page?
Alias, I don't imagine Bible class was top of Jeremy's "to do" list :)
-
Would Jeremy have thought of doing this - somehow that seems far fetched to me? How did a bloodied palm-print get on the open page?
What reason would Jeremy have to leave a bible open at those pages if he was responsible for the murders ?
There was no explanation as to why the bible was open specifically at the pages that it was ,,which matched the condition of Sheila.
-
What reason would Jeremy have to leave a bible open at those pages if he was responsible for the murders ?
There was no explanation as to why the bible was open specifically at the pages that it was ,,which matched the condition of Sheila.
There is lots of fire and brimstone in the bible. It could have been opened at any page and similarities made. The last supper pages would also have matched the mood which is probably why it has been quoted.
-
Lookout, I don't know where the information came from, but I can quite see how The Last Supper provides a (spurious?) link to what happened. I've tried several times, but failed to find what I would call a SATISFACTORY link between Sheila and the psalms but I guess at the end of the day we can make anything fit anywhere.
What I quoted is evidence which is backed by documentation from the Jeremy Bamber site.
-
What I quoted is evidence which is backed by documentation from the Jeremy Bamber site.
Yes Lookout. The hand written "Love one another" quote is from John 13:34 but the Bible is open and blood stained at Psalms
-
What I quoted is evidence which is backed by documentation from the Jeremy Bamber site.
Maybe the last supper page relates to something else? However, the consensus is that it was open at page 656 and 657. which contain Psalms 51 - 55. It's mentioned in the 2002 appeal doc
"408. The pages on which the heavy staining appears in these photographs are pages including part or all of Psalms 51-55. It is said that these pages are significant and represented "Sheila Caffell's suicide note". A number of passages are highlighted and it will suffice if we give one example, taken from verse 14 of Psalm 51:
"Save me from blood guiltiness O God…"
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
I wonder why,,or what the object was to use passages out of two separate Bibles,,each referring to the same set of circumstances.
-
I wonder why,,or what the object was to use passages out of two separate Bibles,,each referring to the same set of circumstances.
I don´t think that was the case?
-
I don´t think that was the case?
There are clearly two Bibles,,each one open at pages which were relevant to what had happened that night.One was obviously Junes' and the other Sheilas' I'm taking it that Junes was the one with the Psalms in it at the open page,,and the other would have been Sheilas'.
The reason again for the confusion is that very little has been said or done about the bibles,,particularly the blood testing and fingerprints,,both which I'd read about belonged mainly to June.
-
Presumably,,however the Bible was found,,either on Sheilas' chest or by her side,,at appx 8am,,the blood on those pages was still found to be wet,,and even dripping from the pages when someone moved it,,,so how would this happen if Jeremy had murdered everyone by 3am ?
-
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive.
-
There are clearly two Bibles,,each one open at pages which were relevant to what had happened that night.One was obviously Junes' and the other Sheilas' I'm taking it that Junes was the one with the Psalms in it at the open page,,and the other would have been Sheilas'.
The reason again for the confusion is that very little has been said or done about the bibles,,particularly the blood testing and fingerprints,,both which I'd read about belonged mainly to June.
There was only one open bible Lookout, the one next to Sheila which was open at Psalms 51-55. There were lots of June's fingerprints because it was her bible. There was another bible but wasn't open at any particular page.
-
So,,the other Bible must have just been bookmarked at the page that I previously quoted. I did realise that there was no blood on that one,,but it must have been in the same bedroom perhaps to have been seen and to also have had the passages in sync with the bloodied one,,as each refer to the evening in question.
-
So,,the other Bible must have just been bookmarked at the page that I previously quoted. I did realise that there was no blood on that one,,but it must have been in the same bedroom perhaps to have been seen and to also have had the passages in sync with the bloodied one,,as each refer to the evening in question.
Hi Lookout, the passage (John 14:34) relates to the note found inside the bible found next to Sheila not to another bible. It's on the OS here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
-
Hi Lookout, the passage (John 14:34) relates to the note found inside the bible found next to Sheila not to another bible. It's on the OS here http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
Ah,,that's where I've got the Bible and note mixed up. I looked up the passage from John and saw the connection to The Last Supper,,,Feet Washing,,the Devil,,Judas,( old uncle tom cobley,etc etc ) I was thinking of it being another Bible.
-
Ah,,that's where I've got the Bible and note mixed up. I looked up the passage from John and saw the connection to The Last Supper,,,Feet Washing,,the Devil,,Judas,( old uncle tom cobley,etc etc ) I was thinking of it being another Bible.
yes, it's the one sticking out from the pages of the up-turned bible next to Sheila, you can just see it in the picture below.
-
That's what I'd picked up on,,to find that verse. Now I know where I'm at,,so that's that bit of confusion out of the way. ;D
-
That's what I'd picked up on,,to find that verse. Now I know where I'm at,,so that's that bit of confusion out of the way. ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D X
-
I suppose you'll be getting all geared up for your " date ". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I suppose you'll be getting all geared up for your " date ". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ha, ha!! Nah, not tonight - gonna watch some telly then go to bed BUT there may be love notes for me in the morning?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D XX
-
Shucks. Never mind,,I'm laughing here at Benidorm which I've seen umpteen times ( repeats) but still funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D xxxxxxx.
-
Ha, ha!! Nah, not tonight - gonna watch some telly then go to bed BUT there may be love notes for me in the morning?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D XX
I was once offered a meal with Jackie Preece. :)
This forum is just breeding love and admiration. :)
-
I was once offered a meal with Jackie Preece. :)
This forum is just breeding love and admiration. :)
You do that to us, mat, you naughty boy! 8)
-
Go for your life,Mat. ;D
-
Ruuuunnnn!
-
You do that to us, mat, you naughty boy! 8)
;D
-
I was once offered a meal with Jackie Preece. :)
This forum is just breeding love and admiration. :)
Nah just sarcasm ;D ;D ;D
-
Shucks. Never mind,,I'm laughing here at Benidorm which I've seen umpteen times ( repeats) but still funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D xxxxxxx.
Watching Britain's Favourite Stand-up, can't believe Frankie Boyle didn't make the top 10.
-
I was once offered a meal with Jackie Preece. :)
This forum is just breeding love and admiration. :)
I once had a meal with her. She's a vegetarian by the way. I found her quite pleasant to talk to. Nothing like the impression she gave on the forum.
-
Neither am I Grahame------------I'm worse ! ;D
You dark horse you. ;)
-
Neither am I Grahame------------I'm worse ! ;D
You dark horse you. ;)
I met her in Chelmsford. We went to the police over the abuse she was receiving from a couple of thugs from the so called red forum who were making her life hell.
-
I think that Jackie was one of a kind. Very dedicated and an enthusiast. I liked her well enough, why isn´t she here anymore - yes, I am clueless! :P
-
I've been reading a piece out of the Mail Online,,about psychopaths. Having a psychopathic trait is vital to winning lifes battles. I can go along with that to an extent. One can be a " good " psychopath,,as it doesn't always describe the really ruthless individuals that are always portrayed.
" Good " psychopaths can regulate their behaviour,,whereas bad ones can't.
A surgeon,for instance,,needs a certain level of psychopathy in order to cut himself off,,emotionally,,from his patients. Imagine being emotionally involved ? It would be impossible for him to continue in that profession.
Anyone with a tendency to get on in life,,as we've already discussed,,HAS to be devoid of compassion/emotion to be able to dismiss staff who aren't pulling their weight,,regardless of their circumstances personally.
Andy McNab tells his own story. In his beginning,,he was abandoned on the steps of Guys Hospital,,in a Harrods bag,,then later,adopted,,but a far-cry from Jeremys' upbringing,,as Andy was brought up on a rough housing estate in South West London where it was every man for himself,,and so his background dictated that he had to get on in life in order to remove himself from the horrors of a bleak future.
-
I just read the interesting article on the official website about victim support in relation to WHF,
something I did not know was what happened to Junes rings. Jeremy had refused the request from Anne Eaton to have the rings because they had never left his mothers fingers and he wanted them to remain there- so he assumed that they had been I guess cremated with his mother . In 2013 he found out that a police officer had ( illegally) removed the rings after the autopsy and given them to Anne. Had anyone else heard that ? I guess it is otherwise there would be a big fuss about him telling lies.
-
I just read the interesting article on the official website about victim support in relation to WHF,
something I did not know was what happened to Junes rings. Jeremy had refused the request from Anne Eaton to have the rings because they had never left his mothers fingers and he wanted them to remain there- so he assumed that they had been I guess cremated with his mother . In 2013 he found out that a police officer had ( illegally) removed the rings after the autopsy and given them to Anne. Had anyone else heard that ? I guess it is otherwise there would be a big fuss about him telling lies.
NO!
If this is true, it is DISGUSTING! I am truly appalled.
-
I names the policeman , so I guess the site would be risking a lot by publishing it if it was not true.
-
I just read the interesting article on the official website about victim support in relation to WHF,
something I did not know was what happened to Junes rings. Jeremy had refused the request from Anne Eaton to have the rings because they had never left his mothers fingers and he wanted them to remain there- so he assumed that they had been I guess cremated with his mother . In 2013 he found out that a police officer had ( illegally) removed the rings after the autopsy and given them to Anne. Had anyone else heard that ? I guess it is otherwise there would be a big fuss about him telling lies.
So Jeremy was so greedy,,he didn't want the rings to flog,then ?? Strange !
I hadn't heard anything about the rings on June,but I'd read that AE took other jewellery for " safe-keeping ".
-
here is the link
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/victim-support/support-at-the-scene/family-home-is-a-crime-ccene/media-intrusion/psychological-impact-and-implications-for-recovery/social-and-relationships/advocacy
-
I'm sickened too,Alias. It's the pits !
-
Alias if this story is true it is quite the worst thing I have heard to remove jewellery from a dead persons hands is disgusting and unforgivable.
-
I just read the interesting article on the official website about victim support in relation to WHF,
something I did not know was what happened to Junes rings. Jeremy had refused the request from Anne Eaton to have the rings because they had never left his mothers fingers and he wanted them to remain there- so he assumed that they had been I guess cremated with his mother . In 2013 he found out that a police officer had ( illegally) removed the rings after the autopsy and given them to Anne. Had anyone else heard that ? I guess it is otherwise there would be a big fuss about him telling lies.
I have read this before in one of the books - however, it wasn't a police office that was mentioned, it was one of the undertakers. I will see if I can find it.
-
here is the link
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/victim-support/support-at-the-scene/family-home-is-a-crime-ccene/media-intrusion/psychological-impact-and-implications-for-recovery/social-and-relationships/advocacy
That's absolutely devastating
I've never read anything so sickening.
-
Thankyou Jansus for bringing this to our attention. No wonder nobody wants Jeremy out of prison !
-
Not only is this disgusting, but was it not illegal to do this? Ewww, I get all the pictures in my head.
DS Davidson, a name to remember. Where is he now?
-
To me, such an act highlights that the rellies never regarded Jeremy as being a member of the family.
-
Blatantly obvious,,April. I can't begin to imagine how Jeremy felt when he heard that one,,after everything else he had to endure. It's a miracle the man's stayed sane.
-
I have read this before in one of the books - however, it wasn't a police office that was mentioned, it was one of the undertakers. I will see if I can find it.
An undertaker can do this, but only after asking the next of kin. In this case Jeremy, who was next of kin, said NO. The rings should have been left on June´s hand.
If it was this Davidson, I would say it was illegal.
-
It could have been an undertaker that removed them - but if they ended up in AE possession through the police then that says a lot. after all at that stage Jeremy was not a convicted man .
I would think the site would be risking a lot by this statement and even if it was in a book it says that JB did not find out who got them until 2013- so perhaps the writer did not know this.
-
I'd have said it was bloody theft !
-
An undertaker can do this, but only after asking the next of kin. In this case Jeremy, who was next of kin, said NO. The rings should have been left on June´s hand.
If it was this Davidson, I would say it was illegal.
I read that Jeremy was a bit snappy with the undertaker who had removed the rings. Jeremy insisted that he put them back, but the undertaker didn't. he later gave them to someone in the family or the police - I don't remember which. I can't remember where I read it but it may have been in Colin's book - I'll see if I can find it.
-
Recently when we cremated my Nanna, we had to removed all jewellery.
-
Just to add - I don't think it was right that Jeremy's wishes were considered - I just think it's best that we get the story correct.
-
I once had a meal with her. She's a vegetarian by the way. I found her quite pleasant to talk to. Nothing like the impression she gave on the forum
That's Nandos out of the window then.
-
Recently when we cremated my Nanna, we had to removed all jewellery.
Actually you might have a point, it may be different for cremations - maybe you do have to remove the jewellery.
-
We had to because the undertakers/crematorium we used had that as their policy, it apparently depends on who you use. But this is 2014, could have been different.
It's important not to jump to conclusions - the full story isn't known - and the official website is full of rubbish so this could be added to that pile.
-
Actually you might have a point, it may be different for cremations - maybe you do have to remove the jewellery.
Yes you're right. But the ring should have been given to Jeremy as next of kin.
-
Yes you're right. But the ring should have been given to Jeremy as next of kin.
Certainly but I think there is more to the story - I'll have to find it.
-
Just to add - I don't think it was right that Jeremy's wishes were considered - I just think it's best that we get the story correct.
I posted the link - so the story is there . It names the police as passing the rings to other members of the family against Jeremys wishes - if it is not true then they can do something about it. If you are picking on my wording - then I have posted the link to get "the story correct"
Here is the link which shows Anne knew exactly what JB wanted done with the rings - So even if they HAD to be handed to the family then it is quite obvious where they should have gone.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
personally IMO ::) it shows an unhealthy relationship between the police and the family . But no doubt that will be questioned.
Actually I am coming off the forum for a while as I am tired of everything supporting Jeremy being questioned - if I wanted that I would go to the red forum .
Discussion is one thing - nit picking is another.
I will be back after a break, and hope things improve.
-
I posted the link - so the story is there . It names the police as passing the rings to other members of the family against Jeremys wishes - if it is not true then they can do something about it. If you are picking on my wording - then I have posted the link to get "the story correct"
Here is the link which shows Anne knew exactly what JB wanted done with the rings - So even if they HAD to be handed to the family then it is quite obvious where they should have gone.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
personally IMO ::) it shows an unhealthy relationship between the police and the family . But no doubt that will be questioned.
Actually I am coming off the forum for a while as I am tired of everything supporting Jeremy being questioned - if I wanted that I would go to the red forum .
Discussion is one thing - nit picking is another.
I will be back after a break, and hope things improve.
Things on the official site are not always correct and I'm sorry if you think I'm 'nit picking' but I think it's important to get things right. I'm not saying YOU didn't get it right - I'm talking about the OS. I have posted things from there before and they have later found to be exaggerated and there was something which was just untrue which they have since removed.
We could just all sit here agreeing with each other and question nothing - this is supposed to be a debating forum not a fan board. I'd be sorry to see you go, especially if you feel that I am driving you away. That's not my intention.
-
I posted the link - so the story is there . It names the police as passing the rings to other members of the family against Jeremys wishes - if it is not true then they can do something about it. If you are picking on my wording - then I have posted the link to get "the story correct"
Here is the link which shows Anne knew exactly what JB wanted done with the rings - So even if they HAD to be handed to the family then it is quite obvious where they should have gone.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
personally IMO ::) it shows an unhealthy relationship between the police and the family . But no doubt that will be questioned.
Actually I am coming off the forum for a while as I am tired of everything supporting Jeremy being questioned - if I wanted that I would go to the red forum .
Discussion is one thing - nit picking is another.
I will be back after a break, and hope things improve.
I, for one, am VERY sorry to see you go. You add a lot to this forum! Hope you´ll be back sooner rather than later. :'(
-
Jansus,,I know that what you've posted is well documented from the OS.Probably the only site which can back-up what's printed.
I value your posts very much, me being a 100% supporter of Jeremys',,and any snippets of news that I've missed can always be relied upon by your good self.
Bite your lip,girl and carry on,,I do. I appreciate your posts very much.x
-
Things on the official site are not always correct and I'm sorry if you think I'm 'nit picking' but I think it's important to get things right. I'm not saying YOU didn't get it right - I'm talking about the OS. I have posted things from there before and they have later found to be exaggerated and there was something which was just untrue which they have since removed.
We could just all sit here agreeing with each other and question nothing - this is supposed to be a debating forum not a fan board. I'd be sorry to see you go, especially if you feel that I am driving you away. That's not my intention.
Why not ask Jeremy about the ring?.....Oops! sorry. Bad suggestion. ::)
-
I, for one, am VERY sorry to see you go. You add a lot to this forum! Hope you´ll be back sooner rather than later. :'(
Yes jansus, you are an asset to the forum, please rethink your decision. :) :)
-
Why not ask Jeremy about the ring?.....Oops! sorry. Bad suggestion. ::)
Oh,Christ,,you'll start her off again,Grahame. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Why not ask Jeremy about the ring?.....Oops! sorry. Bad suggestion. ::)
You could ask him.
-
Oh,Christ,,you'll start her off again,Grahame. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No point Lookout his version is on the official site but there is another version. If both are posted then people can make up their own minds ;D
-
No point Lookout his version is on the official site but there is another version. If both are posted then people can make up their own minds ;D
Well I suppose it does no harm to see the two versions,,then I can toss a coin. ;D ;D
-
Well I suppose it does no harm to see the two versions,,then I can toss a coin. ;D ;D
Sometimes that's the only answer!! ;D ;D
-
Is the other version edited,by the way ? ;D Like the before and after of the police logs/notes ??
-
Hey,,I bet this didn't reach trial,did it ? It might have generated some interest if it had been.
Is this Davidson the same chap who'd reiterrated what he'd been told about there being two bodies on entry at WHF? A " murder and a suicide " ?
-
I am really sad now. GN :'(
-
Is the other version edited,by the way ? ;D Like the before and after of the police logs/notes ??
No, it's actually from the undertaker who explains why he took the rings off and who they were given to and why.
-
No, it's actually from the undertaker who explains why he took the rings off and who they were given to and why.
Oh,,I see.
-
I am really sad now. GN :'(
Alias, it's a little damp, but you can borrow my hankie :'( :'( :) :)
-
No, it's actually from the undertaker who explains why he took the rings off and who they were given to and why.
Between us, I think we added some wisdom/clarification/actual thought process.. to this 'horror!'
-
Between us, I think we added some wisdom/clarification/actual thought process.. to this 'horror!'
I hear the word propaganda looming close by - I'm sure Martin won't agree! ;D
-
I hear the word propaganda looming close by - I'm sure Martin won't agree! ;D
I'm sure he will congratulate you for shooting down what was becoming propaganda.
Either that or you'll wake up to a 4 paragraph post that talks about your genetics/moral code/real agenda and your star signs for the month. ;)
-
I posted the link - so the story is there . It names the police as passing the rings to other members of the family against Jeremys wishes - if it is not true then they can do something about it. If you are picking on my wording - then I have posted the link to get "the story correct"
Here is the link which shows Anne knew exactly what JB wanted done with the rings - So even if they HAD to be handed to the family then it is quite obvious where they should have gone.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
personally IMO ::) it shows an unhealthy relationship between the police and the family . But no doubt that will be questioned.
Actually I am coming off the forum for a while as I am tired of everything supporting Jeremy being questioned - if I wanted that I would go to the red forum .
Discussion is one thing - nit picking is another.
I will be back after a break, and hope things improve.
There is no doubt that Caroline’s change of position has altered the balance of the forum to a pro guilt bias. Her basic routine, now, is to play the roll we had preciously seen carried out by such astute posters as Hartley, Bridget and Ian Stephens in various disguises and of course Steve_uk.
There is a saying “handsome is as handsome does” and the same applies to “pro guilt” or to any other description. The fact of the matter is that Caroline is undoubtedly, nowadays, giving her full support to the pro guilt side on a number of crucial issues and her tone when talking about Jeremy has become one which, at times, strongly hints at an underlying loathing of someone she believes is guilty.
She is fully entitled to change her opinion on the case, but for a person in her position of administrator to misrepresent her intentions is a cause for concern.
Talk of doubts and opinions is besides the point, here. The fact is that Caroline is, from a practical point of view, committed to opposing Jeremy’s defence with respect to prima facie evidence of his innocence and this opposition has already become routine and predictable. I am talking about all of that evidence which his defence believe points to Sheila’s death as having occurred at a time when Jeremy was with the police.
-
You could ask him.
Nah! I've done writing to him. He's got a one track mind. Keeps talking about his innocence for some reason. ::)
-
No, it's actually from the undertaker who explains why he took the rings off and who they were given to and why.
So what is preventimg you from posting this other version Caroline? Also your source could prove interesting too.
-
I'm sure he will congratulate you for shooting down what was becoming propaganda.
Either that or you'll wake up to a 4 paragraph post that talks about your genetics/moral code/real agenda and your star signs for the month. ;)
(http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2012/06/28/DVD-Extra-Humphrey-Bogart-collections-T11P57PR-x-large.jpg)
You're callin' the shots, kid!
-
So what is preventimg you from posting this other version Caroline? Also your source could prove interesting too.
Because I had to find it Grahame - couldn't quite remember where I'd seen it but you're in luck because I have found it. It's from Colin's book and the passage is as follows
(From In Search of the Rainbows End by Colin Caffell Chapter 17, page 172)
On 16th February June's mother Granny Speakman, passed away peacefully, at the age of ninety-five. I was especially sad because since the shootings, Pam had not allowed me to visit her in case I caused a traumatic reminder of her family. That weekend I also went to tea at the Pargeter's, where I met several of Bamb's cousins and learnt a little more about what had been going on - not a lot but a few things finally began falling into place.
They were all as anxious as I was to see the legal proceedings commence but none were looking forward to the committal with any relish. There was, however, one thing they said that afternoon which bothered me; something they had also thought very strange but hadn't yet made a connection. They told me how Jeremy had given instructions that his parents and Bamb;s should be cremated with their rings on, and that once he was satisfied that this has happened he had been laughing and rubbing his hands with glee. The undertaker had apparently been upset at having to do this because it was not a normal procedure at cremations.
'But they weren't destroyed in the cremation' I said And then explained that Neville's executor. Mr Cock, had told me he had them all in his safe. Not knowing of Jeremy's earlier instructions, I had already asked for Bamb's wedding ring. He must have gone behind Jeremy's back and overruled that decision."
-
There is no doubt that Caroline’s change of position has altered the balance of the forum to a pro guilt bias. Her basic routine, now, is to play the roll we had preciously seen carried out by such astute posters as Hartley, Bridget and Ian Stephens in various disguises and of course Steve_uk.
There is a saying “handsome is as handsome does” and the same applies to “pro guilt” or to any other description. The fact of the matter is that Caroline is undoubtedly, nowadays, giving her full support to the pro guilt side on a number of crucial issues and her tone when talking about Jeremy has become one which, at times, strongly hints at an underlying loathing of someone she believes is guilty.
She is fully entitled to change her opinion on the case, but for a person in her position of administrator to misrepresent her intentions is a cause for concern.
Talk of doubts and opinions is besides the point, here. The fact is that Caroline is, from a practical point, of view committed to opposing Jeremy’s defence with respect to prima facie evidence of his innocence and this opposition has already become routine and predictable. I am talking about all of that evidence which his defence believe points to Sheila’s death having occurred at a time when Jeremy was with the police.
I am not assuming that you agree with any of my opinions on any aspect of the case, but your posts are very much valued and I hope that you will return soon, Jansus.
What? No horoscope? ;D
-
Because I had to find it Grahame - couldn't quite remember where I'd seen it but you're in luck because I have found it. It's from Colin's book and the passage is as follows
(From In Search of the Rainbows End by Colin Caffell Chapter 17, page 172)
On 16th February June's mother Granny Speakman, passed away peacefully, at the age of ninety-five. I was especially sad because since the shootings, Pam had not allowed me to visit her in case I caused a traumatic reminder of her family. That weekend I also went to tea at the Pargeter's, where I met several of Bamb's cousins and learnt a little more about what had been going on - not a lot but a few things finally began falling into place.
They were all as anxious as I was to see the legal proceedings commence but none were looking forward to the committal with any relish. There was, however, one thing they said that afternoon which bothered me; something they had also thought very strange but hadn't yet made a connection. They told me how Jeremy had given instructions that his parents and Bamb;s should be cremated with their rings on, and that once he was satisfied that this has happened he had been laughing and rubbing his hands with glee. The undertaker had apparently been upset at having to do this because it was not a normal procedure at cremations.
'But they weren't destroyed in the cremation' I said And then explained that Neville's executor. Mr Cock, had told me he had them all in his safe. Not knowing of Jeremy's earlier instructions, I had already asked for Bamb's wedding ring. He must have gone behind Jeremy's back and overruled that decision."
Thank you Caroline. I don't remember reading that when I read the book? It was of course a long time ago when I read it, I got it from the library and of course had to return it.
-
Thank you Caroline. I don't remember reading that when I read the book? It was of course a long time ago when I read it, I got it from the library and of course had to return it.
Should have done this in the first place ;D
-
Should have done this in the first place ;D
From In Search of the Rainbow’s End
"My thoughts immediately went back to what Maggie had told me
about psychometry, which is an ability some mediums have to view a
whole scenario just by holding an item of jewellery or clothing, It is
well known that the police occasionally use clairvoyants to help them
in their investigations. Maybe this was what Jeremy was afraid of.
“It had troubled me for some time that Jeremy had possibly made
what Michael Bentine had described as a ‘Faustian pact’ with the
darker side of his own mind. His description of such a person sent a
shudder of recognition through me when I read it- especially when I
thought back to the party. Was it also possible that Jeremy had been
getting involved in some form of occult practice or ritual magic? In
the light of what I had just heard, it was not beyond the bounds of
reality.
I was also told, that day, that Jeremy had displayed overt
transvestite tendencies, sometimes appearing around the village
dressed as a woman. On one occasion, in the supermarket at the
family’s caravan site, his disguise was so good the woman behind the…"
(copied with GT Text)
I find this disturbing reading, but it, possibly, helps me to understand how, probably, a good many people of think and of how misunderstandings can occur.
However much sympathy we have for Colin Caffell, there is good reason to question the reliability of his judgement when it comes to his opinions about Jeremy.
-
From In Search of the Rainbow’s End
"My thoughts immediately went back to what Maggie had told me
about psychometry, which is an ability some mediums have to view a
whole scenario just by holding an item of jewellery or clothing, It is
well known that the police occasionally use clairvoyants to help them
in their investigations. Maybe this was what Jeremy was afraid of.
“It had troubled me for some time that Jeremy had possibly made
what Michael Bentine had described as a ‘Faustian pact’ with the
darker side of his own mind. His description of such a person sent a
shudder of recognition through me when I read it- especially when I
thought back to the party. Was it also possible that Jeremy had been
getting involved in some form of occult practice or ritual magic? In
the light of what I had just heard, it was not beyond the bounds of
reality.
I was also told, that day, that Jeremy had displayed overt
transvestite tendencies, sometimes appearing around the village
dressed as a woman. On one occasion, in the supermarket at the
family’s caravan site, his disguise was so good the woman behind the…"
(copied with GT Text)
I find this disturbing reading, but it, possibly, helps me to understand how, probably, a good many people of think and of how misunderstandings can occur.
However much sympathy we have for Colin Caffell, there is good reason to question the reliability of his judgement when it comes to his opinions about Jeremy.
The point of posting the page was to prove that the passage that I typed came from Colin's book. Interesting that you picked up on the comment farther down the page. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Jeremy was a transvestite but it would also not make any difference to whether or not he was a MOJ case.
But lets get back to the POINT which was that Basil Cock had the wedding rings and not a police officer.
-
The point of posting the page was to prove that the passage that I typed came from Colin's book. Interesting that you picked up on the comment farther down the page. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Jeremy was a transvestite but it would also not make any difference to whether or not he was a MOJ case.
But lets get back to the POINT which was that Basil Cock had the wedding rings and not a police officer.
Do you think that the official site will correct their rubbish? I think not.
-
The point of posting the page was to prove that the passage that I typed came from Colin's book. Interesting that you picked up on the comment farther down the page. I don't think anyone seriously believes that Jeremy was a transvestite but it would also not make any difference to whether or not he was a MOJ case.
But lets get back to the POINT which was that Basil Cock had the wedding rings and not a police officer.
Point taken, Caroline. But I thought that the passage in question was worth quoting for it’s own sake, because it gives a real insight into how Jeremy became a demonized defendant, something which also happened to Sion Jenkins and to Amanda Knox. Knox was described by one italian lawyer as a "she-devil".
Sadly, many people, possibly a majority, are too easily fooled by that kind of crap.
-
Do you think that the official site will correct their rubbish? I think not.
I think Caroline said that before when something was pointed out to them that was wrong they corrected it? I don't think that those who run the OS want to deliberately deceive people. I think they genuinely want to correct a miscarriage of justice? I see no reason to demonise them.
-
Caroline/Martin. I think p.172 revealed much more to me this time round than when I first read it!! I found myself amazed by the amount of "stuff" Colin was told by others. We have the Pargeters telling him that having ascertained that beautiful family jewellery, presumably of some value was going through the cremator, Jeremy "laughed and rubbed his hands with glee"!!!! (THIS from the guy who was grabbing everything possible to SELL) I'm tempted to say it was Dickensian but I'm more inclined to think it has a Boutflour/Eaton ring to it...................as does the suggestion of transvestitism. Also of interest is Colin's concern that Jeremy had made some "Faustian pact" with his dark side. Such hypocrisy from someone who, along with Sheila, clearly dabbled in the arcane arts via the tarots. I don't imagine Jeremy knew MANY who did.
I was interested/AMUSED that Pam refused to let Colin see Granny Speakman, supposedly because he may remind her of the past. Equally as likely, I imagine, that Granny, a hell fires and brimstone Christian, whose God smote all and sundry, saw Colin as something conjured up by the Devil , who was responsible for her granddaughters further fall from grace and possibly the cause of her strange behaviour.
It is also worth noting that ANY foray into the dark arts can have the most CATASTROPHIC effect on those who are mentally ill.
-
Caroline/Martin. I think p.172 revealed much more to me this time round than when I first read it!! I found myself amazed by the amount of "stuff" Colin was told by others. We have the Pargeters telling him that having ascertained that beautiful family jewellery, presumably of some value was going through the cremator, Jeremy "laughed and rubbed his hands with glee"!!!! (THIS from the guy who was grabbing everything possible to SELL) I'm tempted to say it was Dickensian but I'm more inclined to think it has a Boutflour/Eaton ring to it...................as does the suggestion of transvestitism. Also of interest is Colin's concern that Jeremy had made some "Faustian pact" with his dark side. Such hypocrisy from someone who, along with Sheila, clearly dabbled in the arcane arts via the tarots. I don't imagine Jeremy knew MANY who did.
I was interested/AMUSED that Pam refused to let Colin see Granny Speakman, supposedly because he may remind her of the past. Equally as likely, I imagine, that Granny, a hell fires and brimstone Christian, whose God smote all and sundry, saw Colin as something conjured up by the Devil , who was responsible for her granddaughters further fall from grace and possibly the cause of her strange behaviour.
It is also worth noting that ANY foray into the dark arts can have the most CATASTROPHIC effect on those who are mentally ill.
April I am in no doubt that in his weakened state of bereavement Colin was "worked on" by certain relatives to the detrement of Jeremy. This certainly has a relative ring to it.
-
Can I now upset the applecart by saying that I didn't like Colin. He was more than pleased/satisfied to go along with what others were saying,by not questioning any motives that there might be.
I'm put off straightaway by the fact that such gobble-de-gook as mediums/clairvoyancy/tarot,ouija and all that crap,is taken seriously,and as gospel.
Only the weak minded and mostly vulnerable fall for this nonsense when at their lowest ebb thinking that some sort of a miracle will show itself. Witchery and witch-hunting in progress.
The very fact that Colin,,at the funeral,was " looking for reactions from Jeremy " and even said that Jeremy was mimicking his way of mourning ? FGS,,what sort of a person says things like that ? Not a friend that's for sure. What a hateful way to act,,as well as childish too.The type of act where a child will look at another and slyly count their sweets to make sure they haven't got more than them.Yuk !
To my mind,,Colin himself was immature,,a fine one to talk about others,,but typical of those who don't/won't look at their own shortcomings.He must have really thought he was perfect !
Anything written by him ( feel sorry for ME ) reflects the sort of guilt he'd felt,,and people are taken in by it---------------------not me,,I'm sorry. I'd have seen right through him and his damaging ways to Sheila,with the occult. That's the way I viewed him anyway,,and I'm a good judge of character most of the time.
-
Point taken, Caroline. But I thought that the passage in question was worth quoting for it’s own sake, because it gives a real insight into how Jeremy became a demonized defendant, something which also happened to Sion Jenkins and to Amanda Knox. Knox was described by one italian lawyer as a "she-devil".
Sadly, many people, possibly a majority, are too easily fooled by that kind of crap.
Hi Martin I agree that Colin often appeared to be a little off the wall. I believe he wrote in his book that a robin showed him which window Jeremy entered and left WHF that night. This evidence appears rather fanciful and we have to remember that Colin's judgement of Jeremy may not have been too reliable due to his understandable extreme grieif. Imo
-
I think it's illuminating that the same words that I read in the 1990's can have such a very different meaning in 2014.
-
I don't think anyone reading Colin's book could fail to notice that his ideas are somewhat flaky. However, this page show that it was Basil Cock who rescued the rings and not EP - the rest is just deflecting from the original issue.
-
I don't think anyone reading Colin's book could fail to notice that his ideas are somewhat flaky. However, this page show that it was Basil Cock who rescued the rings and not EP - the rest is just deflecting from the original issue.
True enough Caroline .
-
Do you think that the official site will correct their rubbish? I think not.
As Grahame said, they have in the past - we shall have to see.
-
Caroline/Martin. I think p.172 revealed much more to me this time round than when I first read it!! I found myself amazed by the amount of "stuff" Colin was told by others. We have the Pargeters telling him that having ascertained that beautiful family jewellery, presumably of some value was going through the cremator, Jeremy "laughed and rubbed his hands with glee"!!!! (THIS from the guy who was grabbing everything possible to SELL) I'm tempted to say it was Dickensian but I'm more inclined to think it has a Boutflour/Eaton ring to it...................as does the suggestion of transvestitism. Also of interest is Colin's concern that Jeremy had made some "Faustian pact" with his dark side. Such hypocrisy from someone who, along with Sheila, clearly dabbled in the arcane arts via the tarots. I don't imagine Jeremy knew MANY who did.
I was interested/AMUSED that Pam refused to let Colin see Granny Speakman, supposedly because he may remind her of the past. Equally as likely, I imagine, that Granny, a hell fires and brimstone Christian, whose God smote all and sundry, saw Colin as something conjured up by the Devil , who was responsible for her granddaughters further fall from grace and possibly the cause of her strange behaviour.
It is also worth noting that ANY foray into the dark arts can have the most CATASTROPHIC effect on those who are mentally ill.
I did wonder why he would be rubbing his hands with glee? That doesn't seem to make sense and as they weren't cremated with the rings on - when was he told they were, or was he told at all? 'Rubbing his hands with glee' (I believe) was an add on.
-
I don't think anyone reading Colin's book could fail to notice that his ideas are somewhat flaky. However, this page show that it was Basil Cock who rescued the rings and not EP - the rest is just deflecting from the original issue.
Hi Caroline,,I wouldn't even begin to read his book. My life has stood me in good stead against people like him with their " sob stories ".Can't be doing with them.
A for instance during my nursing career-----------a consultant who thought he was God,,and gave the air that he was above others,,was so well thought of by EVERYONE,bar me,,who used to work for him,,that whatever would be said against him,would duly have been dismissed.
He was a pioneer in his field,,but I was getting vibes that worried me and I couldn't tell anyone,because naturally,they wouldn't have believed little old me.
However as time went on,,I kept picking up " odd " habits with him---------like dipping Kit-Kat biscs. in his chicken soup. Okay,,I thought,,he's developed the " potty professor " syndrome.
To cut a long story short,not forgetting I frequented his office quite regularly ( which was like a bin ) hunting for case notes which were literally all over the place.
I'd mentioned a few things to the manager,subtly,,and as I expected,she shunned whatever I had to say.
I continued to work for this consultant,,and when he went on holiday,,I decided to tidy his office as I went on my daily tasks.
When I was in his office,,there was a knock on the door and I opened it to a patient who was crying her eyes out. With the patient,,was a man,,well suited and booted and carrying a brief case.I explained that Mr X was on holiday,and could I take a message,etc.
No,,said the man,,but we'll be back !
Back from holiday,,Mr X,,was arrested ! I hadn't known the full extent of his offences,,but had had this gut-feeling for a long time.
It turned out that he ended up being one of five serious offenders in the NHS,,along with Allett,Shipman,etc.
The feeling I had at the time was the obvious guilt I'd had at not being believed of my suspicions. He was sent to Strangeways prison and served 6 years. His crime was hypnotising patients and then assaulting them.
He presently lives in Dubai.No NHS pension,and struck off the register.
It makes me feel heartily sick when he was claimed to be a " miracle-worker " at the time,when I knew that something was radically wrong,,but everyone else was taken-in by the fact that he'd developed this pioneering fertility treatment !! Yuk yuk yuk. If I'd have had a gun,,I'd have shot him. He had the ruddy cheek to say,one day," that there was something strange about ME ! ;D B'stard.
-
These are the kind of facts that I'd put in a book if I wrote one. The True,no nonsense grit,,minus the sob stories,,where I had to continue working as though nothing had happened,and it was worldwide news. No counselling for me.!
-
Hello lookout I would imagine when you were nursing you would have been hard working and loyal with a great deal of back bone it is a pity you had not been listened to earlier but quite often people do not want the truth they prefer to live in ignorance and have no thoughts for the victim this has been proved with events unfolding after the Savile revelations and now they are all being brought out of the woodwork and dealt with pity Savile escaped his prison sentence. Well done to you lookout for being the honest strong person you are :-* the world could do with more people like you as you will stand up and be counted whether it makes you popular or not.
-
The rings were still removed against Jeremy´s (the next of kin) wish. And it seems nobody told him that they were removed, which is WRONG.
Jeremy jumping up and down with glee and rubbing his hands??? I call BS on that one! It makes no sense at all
It doesn´t say who removed the rings.
I don´t understand though that Jeremy only learned about this in 2013 - it is in Colin´s book, hasn´t he read it? I find that hard to believe.
P.S. I think Colin was prevented by the relatives from seeing granny Speakman because she thought Jeremy was innocent. That wouldn´t fit with their (obvious) "working on" Colin.
-
Hello lookout I would imagine when you were nursing you would have been hard working and loyal with a great deal of back bone it is a pity you had not been listened to earlier but quite often people do not want the truth they prefer to live in ignorance and have no thoughts for the victim this has been proved with events unfolding after the Savile revelations and now they are all being brought out of the woodwork and dealt with pity Savile escaped his prison sentence. Well done to you lookout for being the honest strong person you are :-* the world could do with more people like you as you will stand up and be counted whether it makes you popular or not.
Hi Susan,,I was absolutely dedicated to my job,no doubt about that,and I was all for the patients and their welfare. This all blew up in about 1999 or thereabouts,,and roughly ten years later,the manager who I'd told of my suspicions ( Godzilla ) actually apologised to me and said how much misery could have been avoided if she'd listened to what I'd said.
I didn't make a big deal out of her apology,,nor am I the type to have said " about time too ". I just said that hindsight was a wonderful thing,,or words to that effect.
The monster in question is on the internet,,as after all these years,,I've only just looked for his name.Needless to say,,I haven't opened the link as yet to read it. How strange is that ?
Because of people like him,,it's made me even more wary of people in so-called high-places who are held in high-esteem.
Probably his reason why he thought " I was a strange person " was that I wasn't as vulnerable as his patients,who'd likened him to God ! Honestly,,my blood used to boil when his patients used to praise him in such a way. How I kept my mouth shut at times,I don't know ;D ;D ;D
His name is Darwish,,and sad to say,my name used to be listed with his when it was his clinic day. My name,,,next to that of a monster ! That's what got to me.
After that,,I took off to Australia, still thinking about the poor women that he'd duped.
Although I say it myself,,those who knew me at the time,and know me well now,,haven't got a bad word to say,,as I've never wronged anyone.
Susan,,the ones who don't like my honesty,,are exactly the ones who are not worth bothering with.
I will always stand against anyone,,without fear,,simply because I am honest,with nothing and no-one to fear at any time.
Given time,,I often wonder if I'd have stood up to this monster. I can't answer that one,as I don't know,when the world and his wife was once on his side.
I think a lot of my strength came from a courtroom in Sydney,when I sat through the trial of Lindy Chamberlain,,and the Dingo who took her baby. I'd believed that her and her then husband weren't guilty of murder,,while people were jeering and carrying on to the poor woman and her lovely husband.
That made me realise something about people in general.
P.S.my story is the best seller. ;D ;D
-
The rings were still removed against Jeremy´s (the next of kin) wish. And it seems nobody told him that they were removed, which is WRONG.
Jeremy jumping up and down with glee and rubbing his hands??? I call BS on that one! It makes no sense at all
It doesn´t say who removed the rings.
I don´t understand though that Jeremy only learned about this in 2013 - it is in Colin´s book, hasn´t he read it? I find that hard to believe.
P.S. I think Colin was prevented by the relatives from seeing granny Speakman because she thought Jeremy was innocent. That wouldn´t fit with their (obvious) "working on" Colin.
How right you are,Alias. On all counts. He was the manipulator !! The sh1t stirrer.
-
lookout you are a very honest strong lady and humourous as well and bring a smile to my face often ;D
-
lookout you are a very honest strong lady and humourous as well and bring a smile to my face often ;D
I was the same at work,,Susan. ;D ;D With colleagues and patients alike.
-
lookout you are a very honest strong lady and humourous as well and bring a smile to my face often ;D
Looking back,,I think it might have been the way I told the manager about the consultant,because what I'd said was; " that I think he's doing his own DIY fertility treatment ".To which she looked at me as if I had horns coming out of my head. Then I obviously explained in the right manner,,but she still poo-ppoed it,as she sat overflowing on her chair munching her 6th packet of crisps !
-
Looking back,,I think it might have been the way I told the manager about the consultant,because what I'd said was; " that I think he's doing his own DIY fertility treatment ".To which she looked at me as if I had horns coming out of my head. Then I obviously explained in the right manner,,but she still poo-ppoed it,as she sat overflowing on her chair munching her 6th packet of crisps !
Hi Lookout, in my experience there were some VERY suspect consultants around back in the day, (am speaking about early 70s) I saw some stuff in outpatients consultations that was questionable at the least and some of it pretty unacceptable. We all knew about these people but back then they had all the power and were pretty untouchable.
Glad your guy who was way, way out of line got caught, we know psychopaths are drawn to these powerful positions for their own ends NOT for their dedication to medicine, however brilliant the may be in their field.
-
Hi Lookout, in my experience there were some VERY suspect consultants around back in the day, (am speaking about early 70s) I saw some stuff in outpatients consultations that was questionable at the least and some of it pretty unacceptable. We all knew about these people but back then they had all the power and were pretty untouchable.
Glad your guy who was way, way out of line got caught, we know psychopaths are drawn to these powerful positions for their own ends NOT for their dedication to medicine, however brilliant the may be in their field.
Maggie,,we were taught,,and brought up,as kids,to show respect where it was recognised and deemed necessary,,but this is a two-way thing which you only realise later on as you get older and wiser when you learn who to respect or not,as the case may be.
I lost all respect for this guy when he told me I was a strange person. Whether or not he'd gathered that I'd become suspicious of him,I don't know,,but I'd say it was because of certain things I said or did. The day we nearly had a stand-up fight because I " dared " to put case-notes in order,was the day I'd asked him what his problem with that was. Other clinics around the hospital who needed certain notes had been met with a mountainous mess of case-notes which other nurses or secretaries had to wade through in order to find what they were looking for. It obviously made sense,before his clinic,to straighten things out,,but he was like a mad man,though I gave him as good,back.
It was at times like these as well,that I suspected he was a dangerous man. I suppose in a way,,I was waiting for him to lash out if I'm honest,,then it would have given me the excuse that I needed,,but it didn't happen. He was probably itching to slap me, ;D ;D ;D.I'd have walloped him back,,,self-defence you see. He now has a look of Shipman. :o :o
Oh yes,,Maggie. I saw a few" carry-on nurse" situations,,in the past,,where I was told " you haven't seen me ". I could indeed write a book of work experiences alone. ;D
-
When you think about it,,at the end of the day it's only a job,and says nothing whatsoever about the person doing that job,,,whatever it is,,or however high up the ladder they may be.
No more bowing and scraping,or standing on ceremony for me,,I've learned. ;D ;D
-
I don't think anyone reading Colin's book could fail to notice that his ideas are somewhat flaky. However, this page show that it was Basil Cock who rescued the rings and not EP - the rest is just deflecting from the original issue.
Shouldn't have Basil Cock have been acting in the interest of the estate and the next of kin ie Jeremy? It appears to me that he was communicating mich more with the extended family?
-
Hi Caroline,,I wouldn't even begin to read his book. My life has stood me in good stead against people like him with their " sob stories ".Can't be doing with them.
A for instance during my nursing career-----------a consultant who thought he was God,,and gave the air that he was above others,,was so well thought of by EVERYONE,bar me,,who used to work for him,,that whatever would be said against him,would duly have been dismissed.
He was a pioneer in his field,,but I was getting vibes that worried me and I couldn't tell anyone,because naturally,they wouldn't have believed little old me.
However as time went on,,I kept picking up " odd " habits with him---------like dipping Kit-Kat biscs. in his chicken soup. Okay,,I thought,,he's developed the " potty professor " syndrome.
To cut a long story short,not forgetting I frequented his office quite regularly ( which was like a bin ) hunting for case notes which were literally all over the place.
I'd mentioned a few things to the manager,subtly,,and as I expected,she shunned whatever I had to say.
I continued to work for this consultant,,and when he went on holiday,,I decided to tidy his office as I went on my daily tasks.
When I was in his office,,there was a knock on the door and I opened it to a patient who was crying her eyes out. With the patient,,was a man,,well suited and booted and carrying a brief case.I explained that Mr X was on holiday,and could I take a message,etc.
No,,said the man,,but we'll be back !
Back from holiday,,Mr X,,was arrested ! I hadn't known the full extent of his offences,,but had had this gut-feeling for a long time.
It turned out that he ended up being one of five serious offenders in the NHS,,along with Allett,Shipman,etc.
The feeling I had at the time was the obvious guilt I'd had at not being believed of my suspicions. He was sent to Strangeways prison and served 6 years. His crime was hypnotising patients and then assaulting them.
He presently lives in Dubai.No NHS pension,and struck off the register.
It makes me feel heartily sick when he was claimed to be a " miracle-worker " at the time,when I knew that something was radically wrong,,but everyone else was taken-in by the fact that he'd developed this pioneering fertility treatment !! Yuk yuk yuk. If I'd have had a gun,,I'd have shot him. He had the ruddy cheek to say,one day," that there was something strange about ME ! ;D B'stard.
He probably knew you were on to him lookout?
-
When you think about it,,at the end of the day it's only a job,and says nothing whatsoever about the person doing that job,,,whatever it is,,or however high up the ladder they may be.
No more bowing and scraping,or standing on ceremony for me,,I've learned. ;D ;D
We all learn with time lookout but back then a student nurse was about as low as you could get to these power crazy consultants, they had no real respect from the nurses
Your guy was no doubt a total controlling freakish monster.... sad but true. The one I am particularly remembering was a Sir, knighted for his services to medicine ..... sexual predator if you ask me!!!
-
I believe Granny Speakman was originally led to believe that the WHOLE of the Bamber family had been killed. Does anyone have proof that she was ever actually told that Jeremy survived? She changed her will as per RWB's advice,is it possible that she was deceived? A very good reason for not wanting Colin coming face to face with GS.
-
He probably knew you were on to him lookout?
Hi Lookout/Grahame, think people like that sense when they've been rumbled and tried to rubbish you for it. ;D
-
I believe Granny Speakman was originally led to believe that the WHOLE of the Bamber family had been killed. Does anyone have proof that she was ever actually told that Jeremy survived? She changed her will as per RWB's advice,is it possible that she was deceived? A very good reason for not wanting Colin coming face to face with GS.
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
-
Hello tyler good point I got the impression she thought the whole family had been killed including Jeremy that is why she changed her will have read that somewhere but is it true how would I know but it makes sense what you have just said.
-
I believe Granny Speakman was originally led to believe that the WHOLE of the Bamber family had been killed. Does anyone have proof that she was ever actually told that Jeremy survived? She changed her will as per RWB's advice,is it possible that she was deceived? A very good reason for not wanting Colin coming face to face with GS.
Hi tyler, :) that's an interesting thought and very possibly could have been what happened. Would certainly have been a good reason to keep Colin away from her.
-
I believe Granny Speakman was originally led to believe that the WHOLE of the Bamber family had been killed. Does anyone have proof that she was ever actually told that Jeremy survived? She changed her will as per RWB's advice,is it possible that she was deceived? A very good reason for not wanting Colin coming face to face with GS.
There was method in their madness that's for sure,,something that I'd have sussed.
-
He probably knew you were on to him lookout?
I think so Grahame. Strange person indeed. ;D Now if he'd said suspicious person---------------------
-
Hi tyler, :) that's an interesting thought and very possibly could have been what happened. Would certainly have been a good reason to keep Colin away from her.
Sounds a bit like " I forgot the date the NOTW signed me up ".
-
Didn't everyone appear to have selective memories ?
-
It's the things that you can't remember that you'd rather forget !!
-
" Skull-Cracker "---------13 life sentences---------Open prison-----------Erm ? Now Escaped !
-
" Skull-Cracker "---------13 life sentences---------Open prison-----------Erm ? Now Escaped !
Lookout, I've opened a new thread for this Off Topic called "Could Someone Please Explain This."
-
Thankyou,April. Yes,,once,,or is it thrice that I digressed. ;D
-
Thankyou,April. Yes,,once,,or is it thrice that I digressed. ;D
Tut Lookout, naughty, naughty, think I am guilty too!! ;D ;D sorry April. :'(
-
Maggie/lookout who is a goody two shoes of late MOI ;D ;D ;D
-
Thankyou,April. Yes,,once,,or is it thrice that I digressed. ;D
Lookout, it's less to do with digression than that I thought it was important enough to have a thread all to itself.
-
Lookout, it's less to do with digression than that I thought it was important enough to have a thread all to itself.
Yes,April,,it is important considering Jeremys' plight.
-
I believe Granny Speakman was originally led to believe that the WHOLE of the Bamber family had been killed. Does anyone have proof that she was ever actually told that Jeremy survived? She changed her will as per RWB's advice,is it possible that she was deceived? A very good reason for not wanting Colin coming face to face with GS.
I tend to agree with you Tyler.
-
" Skull-Cracker "---------13 life sentences---------Open prison-----------Erm ? Now Escaped !
?? :o :o
-
Hi Caroline,,I wouldn't even begin to read his book. My life has stood me in good stead against people like him with their " sob stories ".Can't be doing with them.
A for instance during my nursing career-----------a consultant who thought he was God,,and gave the air that he was above others,,was so well thought of by EVERYONE,bar me,,who used to work for him,,that whatever would be said against him,would duly have been dismissed.
He was a pioneer in his field,,but I was getting vibes that worried me and I couldn't tell anyone,because naturally,they wouldn't have believed little old me.
However as time went on,,I kept picking up " odd " habits with him---------like dipping Kit-Kat biscs. in his chicken soup. Okay,,I thought,,he's developed the " potty professor " syndrome.
To cut a long story short,not forgetting I frequented his office quite regularly ( which was like a bin ) hunting for case notes which were literally all over the place.
I'd mentioned a few things to the manager,subtly,,and as I expected,she shunned whatever I had to say.
I continued to work for this consultant,,and when he went on holiday,,I decided to tidy his office as I went on my daily tasks.
When I was in his office,,there was a knock on the door and I opened it to a patient who was crying her eyes out. With the patient,,was a man,,well suited and booted and carrying a brief case.I explained that Mr X was on holiday,and could I take a message,etc.
No,,said the man,,but we'll be back !
Back from holiday,,Mr X,,was arrested ! I hadn't known the full extent of his offences,,but had had this gut-feeling for a long time.
It turned out that he ended up being one of five serious offenders in the NHS,,along with Allett,Shipman,etc.
The feeling I had at the time was the obvious guilt I'd had at not being believed of my suspicions. He was sent to Strangeways prison and served 6 years. His crime was hypnotising patients and then assaulting them.
He presently lives in Dubai.No NHS pension,and struck off the register.
It makes me feel heartily sick when he was claimed to be a " miracle-worker " at the time,when I knew that something was radically wrong,,but everyone else was taken-in by the fact that he'd developed this pioneering fertility treatment !! Yuk yuk yuk. If I'd have had a gun,,I'd have shot him. He had the ruddy cheek to say,one day," that there was something strange about ME ! ;D B'stard.
Svengarli!! Sounds like one creepy guy and I guess with his chicken soup, kitkat habit we won't be seeing him on 'Come Dine With Me' any time soon!!
-
The rings were still removed against Jeremy´s (the next of kin) wish. And it seems nobody told him that they were removed, which is WRONG.
Jeremy jumping up and down with glee and rubbing his hands??? I call BS on that one! It makes no sense at all
It doesn´t say who removed the rings.
I don´t understand though that Jeremy only learned about this in 2013 - it is in Colin´s book, hasn´t he read it? I find that hard to believe.
P.S. I think Colin was prevented by the relatives from seeing granny Speakman because she thought Jeremy was innocent. That wouldn´t fit with their (obvious) "working on" Colin.
A small correction to my post from earlier today (during lunch break). I read Caroline´s transcript of part of the page in Colin´s book, and it doesn´t mention the undertaker in the transcript.
I have just read the page from the book that Caroline later put up, and it does mention the undertaker. It says that he was "upset" by leaving the rings on Jeremy´s parents and Sheila (must include Nevill, Colin writes: His parents and Bambs, so perhaps Nevill wore a wedding band?) - or what does it say? Colin is a little vague in his wording here, I think.
Why would the undertaker be upset by that - does that even make sense? And as I wrote earlier: Jeremy´s laughing and rubbing his hands with glee makes even less sense!
From what Colin writes, it seems that the rellies thought the rings were on their fingers when they were cremated - and that HE, Colin, told them that the Mr Cock had the jewellery in his safe deposit box. Apparently, Colin writes, the undertaker (on the order of Mr Cock??), had gone behind Jeremy´s back and removed the jewellery after all..... Really??? I mean, REALLY?! Sounds unethical and perhaps even illegal to me.
Then Colin goes on to write that Jeremy might have made a pact with "the dark side" (!!!) and had been afraid that someone by touching the jewellery might "see" the whole scene as it had happened........ - "Occult practice and ritual magic"....... Seems the Sheila not only had a mother who was a religous maniac, but also a husband/ex who had some PRETTY weird thoughts about spirituality. :o
Now I take Colin´s remark about Jeremy, "studying him to learn how to mimick grief", even less seriously!
Can just see the rellies around that tea table telling Colin about Jeremy´s "transvestite tendencies." Good LORD!
I think we would have heard about Jeremy prancing around the village in women´s clothing from other sources if that had really happened! That is something people would notice and talk about.
I don´t believe this. He had a gay friend, yes. He may be/have been bi-sexual, I don´t know, and it is none of my business. I think the family exaggerated the fact he had a gay friend into this crazy story! Surprised they didn´t say he sat on his tractor every day in a pink tutu.
I have a lot of sympathy for what Colin went through, I can´t even begin to imagine; but this just made me lose a little bit of trust in his judgement overall.
-
Hi Alias, I am sure I have read a claim somewhere that Jeremy DID sit on his tractor dressed in a tutu or something like that. Can't remember quite who or why this was said but am pretty sure it was, don't think I have dreamed it. :-\
-
Because I had to find it Grahame - couldn't quite remember where I'd seen it but you're in luck because I have found it. It's from Colin's book and the passage is as follows
(From In Search of the Rainbows End by Colin Caffell Chapter 17, page 172)
On 16th February June's mother Granny Speakman, passed away peacefully, at the age of ninety-five. I was especially sad because since the shootings, Pam had not allowed me to visit her in case I caused a traumatic reminder of her family. That weekend I also went to tea at the Pargeter's, where I met several of Bamb's cousins and learnt a little more about what had been going on - not a lot but a few things finally began falling into place.
They were all as anxious as I was to see the legal proceedings commence but none were looking forward to the committal with any relish. There was, however, one thing they said that afternoon which bothered me; something they had also thought very strange but hadn't yet made a connection. They told me how Jeremy had given instructions that his parents and Bamb;s should be cremated with their rings on, and that once he was satisfied that this has happened he had been laughing and rubbing his hands with glee. The undertaker had apparently been upset at having to do this because it was not a normal procedure at cremations.
'But they weren't destroyed in the cremation' I said And then explained that Neville's executor. Mr Cock, had told me he had them all in his safe. Not knowing of Jeremy's earlier instructions, I had already asked for Bamb's wedding ring. He must have gone behind Jeremy's back and overruled that decision."
Hi Alias, the transcript from the book I typed does mention the undertaker and also mentions why he was upset - it wasn't their usual policy to leave jewellery on the deceased. Mat mentioned that when his gran died, they had to remove the jewellery. So the undertaker probably felt awkward given the circumstances of the Bambers deaths.
-
Caroline/Martin. I think p.172 revealed much more to me this time round than when I first read it!! I found myself amazed by the amount of "stuff" Colin was told by others. We have the Pargeters telling him that having ascertained that beautiful family jewellery, presumably of some value was going through the cremator, Jeremy "laughed and rubbed his hands with glee"!!!! (THIS from the guy who was grabbing everything possible to SELL) I'm tempted to say it was Dickensian but I'm more inclined to think it has a Boutflour/Eaton ring to it...................as does the suggestion of transvestitism. Also of interest is Colin's concern that Jeremy had made some "Faustian pact" with his dark side. Such hypocrisy from someone who, along with Sheila, clearly dabbled in the arcane arts via the tarots. I don't imagine Jeremy knew MANY who did.
Alias, forgive me for blowing my own trumpet, but the above is what I posted earlier. The more I think about it, frankly the more I wonder what Colin was on to encourage his mentally ill wife into the use of the occult, however benign the tarot might be. This, I have to confess, isn't the view I held back in the 90's when I was in no way averse to using the tarot, however, I wasn't mentally fragile. NOW, I can quite see that June and Nevill might have had serious misgivings about Colin's influence on Sheila.
I was interested/AMUSED that Pam refused to let Colin see Granny Speakman, supposedly because he may remind her of the past. Equally as likely, I imagine, that Granny, a hell fires and brimstone Christian, whose God smote all and sundry, saw Colin as something conjured up by the Devil , who was responsible for her granddaughters further fall from grace and possibly the cause of her strange behaviour.
It is also worth noting that ANY foray into the dark arts can have the most CATASTROPHIC effect on those who are mentally ill.
-
ONE reason the undertaker may have been concerned is that diamonds burn at 800 degrees C and a cremator reaches 900 degrees C. An horrendous waste but, arguably, not his decision to make.
-
It has just occurred to me that the possible removal of rings by EP caused us to give them a real, albeit, unheard, ear-bashing. Is it my imagination that we are no longer as insensed, and it isn't quite as important now we know it was a joint (illegal?) effort by the undertaker and BC?
-
Alias, forgive me for blowing my own trumpet, but the above is what I posted earlier. The more I think about it, frankly the more I wonder what Colin was on to encourage his mentally ill wife into the use of the occult, however benign the tarot might be. This, I have to confess, isn't the view I held back in the 90's when I was in no way averse to using the tarot, however, I wasn't mentally fragile. NOW, I can quite see that June and Nevill might have had serious misgivings about Colin's influence on Sheila.
I was interested/AMUSED that Pam refused to let Colin see Granny Speakman, supposedly because he may remind her of the past. Equally as likely, I imagine, that Granny, a hell fires and brimstone Christian, whose God smote all and sundry, saw Colin as something conjured up by the Devil , who was responsible for her granddaughters further fall from grace and possibly the cause of her strange behaviour.
It is also worth noting that ANY foray into the dark arts can have the most CATASTROPHIC effect on those who are mentally ill.
You don´t have to ask for forgiveness from me!! And I agree with what you say. :)
OK, Caroline, I read it too quickly during my lunchbreak, it was all there.
Who gave Cock orders to tell the undertaker to remove the rings? It wasn´t Jeremy.
-
Hi Alias, I am sure I have read a claim somewhere that Jeremy DID sit on his tractor dressed in a tutu or something like that. Can't remember quite who or why this was said but am pretty sure it was, don't think I have dreamed it. :-\
Really?! I wish you could remember where you saw that!
-
I was wondering who this Michael Bentine was who Colin mentions. Seems he was mainly a comedian (you all know him of course!) with a variety of other interests, among others:
His interests included parapsychology. This was as a result of his and his family's extensive research into the paranormal, which resulted in his writing The Door Marked Summer and The Doors of the Mind. He was, for the final years of his life, president of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena.
-
You don´t have to ask for forgiveness from me!! And I agree with what you say. :)
OK, Caroline, I read it too quickly during my lunchbreak, it was all there.
Who gave Cock orders to tell the undertaker to remove the rings? It wasn´t Jeremy.
As executor of the will, all assets were under his authority. The rings can be seen as assets and it 'could' be argued that that's all Basil was doing.
-
As Grahame said, they have in the past - we shall have to see.
Of course it depends on which is the correct version?
-
Really?! I wish you could remember where you saw that!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4386.msg180380.html#msg180380
I think the above link is an answer to a complaint Jeremy made to the BBC about a programme which was shown quite a while back, I am sure it was in the original letter or transcript of the programme where there is mention of Jeremy driving the tractor wearing a fairy dress or something like that. Mike knows he should be able to tell is unless someone tells us first. ????
-
Hi Alias, I am sure I have read a claim somewhere that Jeremy DID sit on his tractor dressed in a tutu or something like that. Can't remember quite who or why this was said but am pretty sure it was, don't think I have dreamed it. :-\
Sounds like a dream to me? ;D Reminds me of the time I dreamt I was in Southend Victoria Circus completely naked with no place to hide. I could have done with a tutu then. ::)
-
Of course it depends on which is the correct version?
Well, the relatives had no idea that the rings had been saved. If EP had intervened it would have been because the relatives asked them to. Basil Cock himself told Colin how he received the rings just after the funerals and Jeremy knew nothing about it until 2013. Now which do you think it the real story?
-
Hi Alias, I am sure I have read a claim somewhere that Jeremy DID sit on his tractor dressed in a tutu or something like that. Can't remember quite who or why this was said but am pretty sure it was, don't think I have dreamed it. :-\
Maggie, back in the 80's, my then husband and I were invited to friends for a meal. I was putting my face on when he asked me what he should wear. I told him to look in the wardrobe. After a few minutes he called to me that he'd got the wine and would wait in the car. When I joined him I discovered he was wearing one of my dresses ;D. During the 25 mile drive we were overtaken by a police car. They did a double take and grinned. We arrived. He unfolded himself from the car, all 6'3", shoulder length hair and full beard in a gypsy style dress ;D Some wedding guests passed by. One of them remarked on that "bloody young fool. What does he think he looks like." Said wedding guest was all of 5'3" wearing a hired morning suit with a coat which brushed the top of his shoes and a top hat which sat on top of his ears and made them stand out like Dumbo's. I couldn't resist asking him when he'd last looked at himself in a mirror. Neither of us saw it as being a big deal -he definitely didn't make a habit of it- and we certainly didn't think it in any way offensive, but we thought it was HUGELY amusing when people reacted like the man in the hat.
-
Maggie, back in the 80's, my then husband and I were invited to friends for a meal. I was putting my face on when he asked me what he should wear. I told him to look in the wardrobe. After a few minutes he called to me that he'd got the wine and would wait in the car. When I joined him I discovered he was wearing one of my dresses ;D. During the 25 mile drive we were overtaken by a police car. They did a double take and grinned. We arrived. He unfolded himself from the car, all 6'3", shoulder length hair and full beard in a gypsy style dress ;D Some wedding guests passed by. One of them remarked on that "bloody young fool. What does he think he looks like." Said wedding guest was all of 5'3" wearing a hired morning suit with a coat which brushed the top of his shoes and a top hat which sat on top of his ears and made them stand out like Dumbo's. I couldn't resist asking him when he'd last looked at himself in a mirror. Neither of us saw it as being a big deal -he definitely didn't make a habit of it- and we certainly didn't think it in any way offensive, but we thought it was HUGELY amusing when people reacted like the man in the hat.
Hi April, sounds like fun ;D ;D
-
Of course it depends on which is the correct version?
Well, the relatives had no idea that the rings had been saved. If EP had intervened it would have been because the relatives asked them to. Basil Cock himself told Colin how he received the rings just after the funerals and Jeremy knew nothing about it until 2013. Now which do you think it the real story?
Sounds like deception to me. So why didn't Jeremy hear about it til 2013? One could forgive him for thinking his story to be correct. As clearly he knew that the rings were given to Ann Eaton and they probably were? It certainly doesn't show the relatives in a good light does it, whichever version you care to believe?
-
Well, the relatives had no idea that the rings had been saved. If EP had intervened it would have been because the relatives asked them to. Basil Cock himself told Colin how he received the rings just after the funerals and Jeremy knew nothing about it until 2013. Now which do you think it the real story?
Caroline, at which point did Ann ask Jeremy for "Aunt June's" jewellery and didn't she take some with her, overseen by Basil Cock, supposedly for safe keeping after Jeremy had refused to let her have it.
-
April I agree sounds like loads of fun to me the type of fun I like ;D bet you have never forgot it ;D
-
Sorry Caroline for not keeping up :'( but who told Jeremy in 2013 about the rings.
-
Caroline, at which point did Ann ask Jeremy for "Aunt June's" jewellery and didn't she take some with her, overseen by Basil Cock, supposedly for safe keeping after Jeremy had refused to let her have it.
They took the jewellery on the day they 'supposedly' found the silencer on the instruction of BC. AE asked for the ring later, I guess when they were discussing the funerals.
-
Sorry Caroline for not keeping up :'( but who told Jeremy in 2013 about the rings.
I don't know, Jansus copied the explanation from the OS Susan.
-
Basically it was harmless fun Susan made more so when people looked shocked/embarrassed. We were part of an arty/lovey set and ALL my male friends, gay and straight, took the opportunity when circumstances allowed.........................then we grew up ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I do remember reading a statement from AE where she is asking about pieces from Granny Bamber's jewellery but I'd have to look for it.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D,I liked that one April.
-
As executor of the will, all assets were under his authority. The rings can be seen as assets and it 'could' be argued that that's all Basil was doing.
If that were here, it would have taken jeremy´s consent - had Jeremy signed over to Cook (heh, think I called him something naughty!) that he had the authority to make all decisions and even go agains an expressed wish of the next of kin - without even informing him?
This is really a legal question. Did Cook have the right to go against Jeremy´s expressed wish in this matter?
-
april you sounded as if you had a blast pity you all had to grow up I use to wear a huge floppy hat with large flowers on it loved it to bits ;D
-
I do remember reading a statement from AE where she is asking about pieces from Granny Bamber's jewellery but I'd have to look for it.
I'm probably getting muddled up with that, Caroline, but Ann asking specifically for Aunt June's engagement ring rings a bell.
-
If that were here, it would have taken jeremy´s consent - had Jeremy signed over to Cook (heh, think I called him something naughty!) that he had the authority to make all decisions and even go agains an expressed wish of the next of kin - without even informing him?
This is really a legal question. Did Cook have the right to go against Jeremy´s expressed wish in this matter?
Alias, over here I believe it's entirely down to the executor's discretion as to who gets what.
-
April I remember reading that AE asked Jeremy if she could have June's engagement ring and he said NO have read it on this forum that is for sure.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4386.msg180380.html#msg180380
I think the above link is an answer to a complaint Jeremy made to the BBC about a programme which was shown quite a while back, I am sure it was in the original letter or transcript of the programme where there is mention of Jeremy driving the tractor wearing a fairy dress or something like that. Mike knows he should be able to tell is unless someone tells us first. ????
Thanks maggie. It says this:
The programme?s commentary explained that Mr Bamber started to do farm work on his parents? farm in “full new romantic clubbinggear”.The programme then featured the former secretary of Mr Bamber?s father, Ms Barbara Wilson, saying (over
reconstructed footage of a person dressed in new romantic? costume driving atractor) that:
“I did see him at odd times dressed in various apparel and also make - up. I think this was to shock people and it was done to annoy Mr and Mrs Bamber, which it did”.
-
Alias, over here I believe it's entirely down to the executor's discretion as to who gets what.
But at that point in time, wasn´t Jeremy the sole heir? And it wasn´t quite about who should get what, but the wish of Jeremy that his family be buried WITH their jewellery.
-
Maggie/Alias don't see any harm in Jeremy dressing up just fooling around to shock his parents as he knew they would be horrified. Just a prank of a young lad.
-
Maggie/Alias don't see any harm in Jeremy dressing up just fooling around to shock his parents as he knew they would be horrified. Just a prank of a young lad.
It´s been seen before, hasn´t it!
-
Alias one of my favourite singers Boy George does not drive a tractor but does other daft stuff ;D
-
Thanks maggie. It says this:
The programme?s commentary explained that Mr Bamber started to do farm work on his parents? farm in “full new romantic clubbinggear”.The programme then featured the former secretary of Mr Bamber?s father, Ms Barbara Wilson, saying (over
reconstructed footage of a person dressed in new romantic? costume driving atractor) that:
“I did see him at odd times dressed in various apparel and also make - up. I think this was to shock people and it was done to annoy Mr and Mrs Bamber, which it did”.
8h ok Alias not exactly full fairy outfit but that's maybe how I imag7ned him being dressed :D He was young!!! I agree ..... so what if he did but sounds a little unlikely to me :-\
-
Alias one of my favourite singers Boy George does not drive a tractor but does other daft stuff ;D
I like him too! My husband says I have a bad taste, LOL, but I like him, can´t help it! ;D He can wear whatever he likes!
-
8h ok Alias not exactly full fairy outfit but that's maybe how I imag7ned him being dressed :D He was young!!! I agree ..... so what if he did but sounds a little unlikely to me :-\
Barbara Wilson says, "various apparel" - whatever that means, could be anything; and makeup - it was fairly typical of the eighties that guys wore a lot of makeup and coloured their hair. Nothing awful in that, but I can see that it would have stood out in a rural village, especially among the older generation.
-
Maggie we started to wear trousers suits and I loved wearing a tie and that was OK I also wore braces nobody minded at all so why not a male wear a dress and makeup ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias especially driving a tractor ;D ;D ;D
-
Barbara Wilson says, "various apparel" - whatever that means, could be anything; and makeup - it was fairly typical of the eighties that guys wore a lot of makeup and coloured their hair. Nothing awful in that, but I can see that it would have stood out in a rural village, especially among the older generation.
And heads in the local pub would most definitely have turned.
-
I like him too! My husband says I have a bad taste, LOL, but I like him, can´t help it! ;D He can wear whatever he likes!
Yeh I like Boy George .... loved his plaits back in the day!! ;D
-
They all made a big song and dance about Jeremy having Brett Collins as a friend. It was a " hanging offence " in those days. ;D Jeremy probably thought it was cool ! Awareness of these things had only just really come about in the early 80's where you had the publicity of certain pop stars to whom a lot of the youngsters used to emulate.
-
Barbara Wilson says, "various apparel" - whatever that means, could be anything; and makeup - it was fairly typical of the eighties that guys wore a lot of makeup and coloured their hair. Nothing awful in that, but I can see that it would have stood out in a rural village, especially among the older generation.
Yes I suppose they were shocked but that is the point isn't it, sounds like fun to me :D
AE went on about him dying his hair as if he had 'murderer dyed in red across the fringe but she was old before her time, possibly because of her controlling father, poor Ann. :-\
-
They all made a big song and dance about Jeremy having Brett Collins as a friend. It was a " hanging offence " in those days. ;D Jeremy probably thought it was cool ! Awareness of these things had only just really come about in the early 80's where you had the publicity of certain pop stars to whom a lot of the youngsters used to emulate.
For all their supposed stuffiness Jeremy took Brett to meet June and Nevill ...... I suppose he may have done that for a laugh when you think about it?
-
Yes I suppose they were shocked but that is the point isn't it, I would have loved it :D
AE went on about him dying his hair as if he had 'murderer dyed in red across the fringe but she was old before her time, possibly because of her controlling father, poor Ann. :-\
I think it is strange that Colin is taken in by those "transvestite" allegations made by the family. I seriously don´t think that Jeremy went around in Goldhanger or sat on his tractor dressed as a woman (!!) They may have drawn a paralell between his makeup and whatever eighties clothes he wore and tranvestism, but wouldn´t Colin, a big city boy who attended clubs in London not have seen through that?
Did he deliberately paint a bad picture of Jeremy here?
-
For all their supposed stuffiness Jeremy took Brett to meet June and Nevill ...... I suppose he may have done that for a laugh when you think about it?
It sounds like it,Maggie. ;D ;D I'd love to have seen their faces. Though I bet he was on his best behaviour. ;D
-
It sounds like it,Maggie. ;D ;D I'd love to have seen their faces. Though I bet he was on his best behaviour. ;D
They probably didn´t even know what gay was about and thought, what a polite, nice looking young man! ;D
I don´t know how June and Nevill perceived Brett! Perhaps they liked him and disliked Julie (we know that), and that made Julie furiously jealous of Brett.
I have never seen it mentioned anywhere that they disliked Brett.
-
I think it is strange that Colin is taken in by those "transvestite" allegations made by the family. I seriously don´t think that Jeremy went around in Goldhanger or sat on his tractor dressed as a woman (!!) They may have drawn a paralell between his makeup and whatever eighties clothes he wore and tranvestism, but wouldn´t Colin, a big city boy who attended clubs in London not have seen through that?
Did he deliberately paint a bad picture of Jeremy here?
I always get the feeling Colin preferred to believe Jeremy was the murderer as that was easier (if that is possible) than believing Sheila killed his boys.
-
I always get the feeling Colin preferred to believe Jeremy was the murderer as that was easier (if that is possible) than believing Sheila killed his boys.
Yes - it would absolve him of any feelings of guilt for having left the boys with Sheila. That makes a lot of sense, and is even understandable. I can´t imagine how horrible this must have been for him.
-
They probably didn´t even know what gay was about and thought, what a polite, nice looking young man! ;D
I don´t know how June and Nevill perceived Brett! Perhaps they liked him and disliked Julie (we know that), and that made Julie furiously jealous of Brett.
I have never seen it mentioned anywhere that they disliked Brett.
Neither have I Alias but again although called a 'harlot' by June we know Julie spent time at the farm and read bedtime stories to the twins but maybe she was and felt tolerated as opposed to Brett who may have been obviously liked. There's little doubt Julie was jealous of Brett.
-
They probably didn´t even know what gay was about and thought, what a polite, nice looking young man! ;D
I don´t know how June and Nevill perceived Brett! Perhaps they liked him and disliked Julie (we know that), and that made Julie furiously jealous of Brett.
I have never seen it mentioned anywhere that they disliked Brett.
To be honest,,I think that the fact that Jeremy was tagging on to Brett Collins was that his relationship with Julie was wearing thin,,so Collins came in handy as an excuse to get out of seeing her less often.
June was probably relieved to see a different face than JM's,,so would have welcomed him to the fold.Whether either parent knew Collins was gay,,I wouldn't know. They'd have soon heard from all the gossipers,,RWB especially.I'm surprised he didn't tell Collins to wear a bell round his neck,,he was so incensed.
JM just came in handy at weekends. ;D
Well you don't look at the mantelpiece when you're poking the fire,do you ?
-
Neither have I Alias but again although called a 'harlot' by June we know Julie spent time at the farm and read bedtime stories to the twins but maybe she was and felt tolerated as opposed to Brett who may have been obviously liked. There's little doubt Julie was jealous of Brett.
Maggie, that Julie read bedtime stories to the twins COULD translate that she did on ONE occasion. Julie was with Jeremy for 20 months? Sheila and presumably the twins hadn't been to the farm for the best part of a year. Where and when did these bedtime stories happen or is this just one more sweeping statement?
-
Maggie, that Julie read bedtime stories to the twins COULD translate that she did on ONE occasion. Julie was with Jeremy for 20 months? Sheila and presumably the twins hadn't been to the farm for the best part of a year. Where and when did these bedtime stories happen or is this just one more sweeping statement?
That's true I suppose April but she 'claimed' to have been able to tell the twins apart? ?
-
More like a fairy story,April.
-
Could Jeremy and Julie have visited Sheila in her flat in London from time to time. They could also have met there.
Different subject. Colin mentions on that page Caroline posted that he was thinking about "that party" - and Jeremy supposedly having done something bad - what was it? I haven´t read the book.
Didn´t Jeremy drive Sheila home from that party because she wasn´t feeling good? That sounds like a nice thing to do, but Colin is talking about the party as if Jeremy did something awful.
-
That's true I suppose April but she 'claimed' to have been able to tell the twins apart? ?
Who was there to say she couldn't? ;D
-
Who was there to say she couldn't? ;D
Obviously no one but bit odd behaviour to lie about it?
-
Could Jeremy and Julie have visited Sheila in her flat in London from time to time. They could also have met there.
Different subject. Colin mentions on that page Caroline posted that he was thinking about "that party" - and Jeremy supposedly having done something bad - what was it? I haven´t read the book.
Didn´t Jeremy drive Sheila home from that party because she wasn´t feeling good? That sounds like a nice thing to do, but Colin is talking about the party as if Jeremy did something awful.
Alias, our dear Steve would have us believe that Sheila wa so scared of Jeremy that she asked Colin to ask him to take her home from the party. I feel certain that closer to the truth was that Sheila wanted to get Colin on her own so she asked HIM to take her home. He told her that he'd had too much to drink and asked Jeremy to take her home. All I can think is that Jeremy told Sheila that Colin didn't want to take her home because he was with Heather, which WAS the truth, if a little cruel.
-
Obviously no one but bit odd behaviour to lie about it?
If we're still following the HPD path, self importance is a big part of it so it would make sense that she'd want to be seen at the centre of their lives.
-
Alias, our dear Steve would have us believe that Sheila wa so scared of Jeremy that she asked Colin to ask him to take her home from the party. I feel certain that closer to the truth was that Sheila wanted to get Colin on her own so she asked HIM to take her home. He told her that he'd had too much to drink and asked Jeremy to take her home. All I can think is that Jeremy told Sheila that Colin didn't want to take her home because he was with Heather, which WAS the truth, if a little cruel.
Yes, that could have been.
What I am asking is whether anyone here knows what Colin wrote in his book about that party? I don´t have the book and have not read it, maybe someone remembers?
-
Yes, that could have been.
What I am asking is whether anyone here knows what Colin wrote in his book about that party? I don´t have the book and have not read it, maybe someone remembers?
Alias, whilst I can recall reading about the party, I CAN'T recall WHAT I read about the party. It's getting on for 25 yrs since I read it ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, that could have been.
What I am asking is whether anyone here knows what Colin wrote in his book about that party? I don´t have the book and have not read it, maybe someone remembers?
I don't know Alias, haven't read Colin's book but I would love to know the answer as well.
-
Alias, whilst I can recall reading about the party, I CAN'T recall WHAT I read about the party. It's getting on for 25 yrs since I read it ;D ;D ;D
Haha, then I don´t blame you! It´s just so strange that Colin apparently has written about something sinister Jeremy did at that party, and Sheila possibly was scared of him - and then lets him drive her home? Doesn´t quite go together.
-
I don't know Alias, haven't read Colin's book but I would love to know the answer as well.
I have looked for Colin´s book on Amazon, but it is quite expensive! The only page I have read is the one Caroline posted, and that made me lose a lot of faith in his general mindset and judgement!
-
Haha, then I don´t blame you! It´s just so strange that Colin apparently has written about something sinister Jeremy did at that party, and Sheila possibly was scared of him - and then lets him drive her home? Doesn´t quite go together.
There's a whole lot that doesn't, Alias. :D
-
As executor of the will, all assets were under his authority. The rings can be seen as assets and it 'could' be argued that that's all Basil was doing.
But who's got the ring?
-
If that were here, it would have taken jeremy´s consent - had Jeremy signed over to Cook (heh, think I called him something naughty!) that he had the authority to make all decisions and even go agains an expressed wish of the next of kin - without even informing him?
This is really a legal question. Did Cook have the right to go against Jeremy´s expressed wish in this matter?
No you didn't Alias, that was his name!! It's not 'Cook' ;D
To be honest, I don't know but the rings 'could be seen as assets. Perhaps NGB will answer the question?
-
But who's got the ring?
My pretty :D :D :D
-
I have looked for Colin´s book on Amazon, but it is quite expensive! The only page I have read is the one Caroline posted, and that made me lose a lot of faith in his general mindset and judgement!
I'll have a look and see what he means by 'bad thing'
-
Hi Alias,
I know what he is referring to - when Colin writes about the party and Jeremy's arrival at the door, he talks about feeling strange and when he saw Jeremy's 'silhouetted figure' he claims to have felt a shudder. Colin is one of those people who believe in mediums and tarot stuff - bit of a hippy type.
-
No you didn't Alias, that was his name!! It's not 'Cook' ;D
To be honest, I don't know but the rings 'could be seen as assets. Perhaps NGB will answer the question?
Hahaha, allrighty then! I can be naughty again and have no qualms! ;D
-
Hahaha, allrighty then! I can be naughty again and have no qualms! ;D
That's why I usually just refer to him as BC ;D ;D
-
Hi Alias,
I know what he is referring to - when Colin writes about the party and Jeremy's arrival at the door, he talks about feeling strange and when he saw Jeremy's 'silhouetted figure' he claims to have felt a shudder. Colin is one of those people who believe in mediums and tarot stuff - bit of a hippy type.
I am disappointed in him. I always liked the look of him, but this is ridiculous!
So many people have spoken warmly about his book, but that must be out of sympathy for what he went through!
-
I am disappointed in him. I always liked the look of him, but this is ridiculous!
So many people have spoken warmly about his book, but that must be out of sympathy for what he went through!
Well, obviously I feel a great deal of sympathy for what he went through and he will no doubt still be haunted by it but I wasn't impressed with his book. He is very into the paranormal and talks about it as though t should be an everyday accepted science. But it is interesting to hear his version of events as an outsider from the family.
-
Hi Alias,
I know what he is referring to - when Colin writes about the party and Jeremy's arrival at the door, he talks about feeling strange and when he saw Jeremy's 'silhouetted figure' he claims to have felt a shudder. Colin is one of those people who believe in mediums and tarot stuff - bit of a hippy type.
My God, he could have terrified Sheila if he started telling her about shadows and predictions.
-
My God, he could have terrified Sheila if he started telling her about shadows and predictions.
It also occurs to me to wonder what sort of alternative therapies he had in mind for Sheila and if they included mind altering substances.
-
My God, he could have terrified Sheila if he started telling her about shadows and predictions.
Maybe it wasn´t only June who messed with Sheila´s mind. Not saying he did anything on purpose, but his "beliefs" can´t exactly have helped her!
-
I'm convinced that Sheila suffered from the illness known today as Puerperal Psychosis,,,and I wouldn't be surprised if that condition comes up during the processing of documents/files once they've been submitted to the CCRC.
-
Didn't Colin feel that Jeremy looked sinister as he had dyed his hair jet black? I will have to have a look in the book.
-
Didn't Colin feel that Jeremy looked sinister as he had dyed his hair jet black? I will have to have a look in the book.
No Tyler, he hadn't opened the door, it was just his silhouette. Jeremy (according to Julie) dyed his black hair the following day.
-
Following on from CC talking about the party,he says "On this occasion,he had dyed his hair and eyebrows black (his natural colour being brown),but his dark demeanour had the effect of being theatrically sinister rather than making him look like someone who was trying to keep up with fashion trends. It also somehow added to my uneasiness. In Search of the Rainbows End. Page 26 -27.
-
" She's finally done it ",,said Colin-----------then he changed his stance at the behest of others,,knowing that there was every possibility that she'd carried out the killings.
What DID make everyone change tack ? Did they find anything to substantiate their accusations. No,,only that nobody liked the guy ! ( Jeremy )
-
Just ordered Colin´s book on Amazon.uk. Last time I checked it was quite expensive (more than 20 pounds), but now it has dropped in price - I got my copy for 0.01 pounds (+shipping)!!!
So if anybody needs a copy, you can get it for practically no money - there are a few copies left! ;D
-
Following on from CC talking about the party,he says "On this occasion,he had dyed his hair and eyebrows black (his natural colour being brown),but his dark demeanour had the effect of being theatrically sinister rather than making him look like someone who was trying to keep up with fashion trends. It also somehow added to my uneasiness. In Search of the Rainbows End. Page 26 -27.
I died my hair once when it was beginning to go grey. When my friend from Cornwall visited us he said to me, "Your hair is exeedingly black lately". :)
-
i find you cant win with funereal you're e there showing to much emotion or not enough.
at funerals id consider any behavior normal.
people react to those things in all different ways.
-
i find you cant win with funereal you're e there showing to much emotion or not enough.
at funerals id consider any behavior normal.
people react to those things in all different ways.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't, eh Nugs? ;D ;D ;D
-
Following on from CC talking about the party,he says "On this occasion,he had dyed his hair and eyebrows black (his natural colour being brown),but his dark demeanour had the effect of being theatrically sinister rather than making him look like someone who was trying to keep up with fashion trends. It also somehow added to my uneasiness. In Search of the Rainbows End. Page 26 -27.
Interesting because JM stated that Jeremy dyed his hair on the Sunday just before she returned to London. I'll have to search for the reference, can't remember where I read it. Sounds like he just fancied a change and dyed it for the party. Although I have never seen the significance of his hair colour in relation to the murders?
-
Interesting because JM stated that Jeremy dyed his hair on the Sunday just before she returned to London. I'll have to search for the reference, can't remember where I read it. Sounds like he just fancied a change and dyed it for the party. Although I have never seen the significance of his hair colour in relation to the murders?
Neither have I Caroline, it was quite common for guys to dye their hair in the 80s wasn't it? Mybe not in deepest Essex but Jeremy was pretty right on with the fashion world imo.
-
OK, back to normal - ;D ;D
I have just had an email from a solicitor friend who I asked about ringgate - Apparently as executor Basil was well within his rights to stop destruction of property belonging to Neville and June until the wills had been settled. I guess he thought he might as well preserve Sheila's jewellery also.
-
OK, back to normal - ;D ;D
I have just had an email from a solicitor friend who I asked about ringgate - Apparently as executor Basil was well within his rights to stop destruction of property belonging to Neville and June until the wills had been settled. I guess he thought he might as well preserve Sheila's jewellery also.
Interesting Caroline. I find it hard to believe that 'greedy' Jeremy would have ordered rings to have been destroyed. Have no idea what June's engagement ring was worth but was probably worth a reasonable amount, surely the possession of the ring would have given 'greedy' Jeremy more pleasure than ensuring they were destroyed to upset his rellies?
-
Interesting Caroline. I find it hard to believe that 'greedy' Jeremy would have ordered rings to have been destroyed. Have no idea what June's engagement ring was worth but was probably worth a reasonable amount, surely the possession of the ring would have given 'greedy' Jeremy more pleasure than ensuring they were destroyed to upset his rellies?
Well, there is another side (if you'll forgive me for playing devil's advocate - Martin ;)), It could also be that he was spooked by the jewellery because they died wearing it but he didn't want the relatives to have it either. But who knows, Jeremy doesn't seem the sentimental type so I'm not sure why he didn't want the rings removed.
-
Interesting because JM stated that Jeremy dyed his hair on the Sunday just before she returned to London. I'll have to search for the reference, can't remember where I read it. Sounds like he just fancied a change and dyed it for the party. Although I have never seen the significance of his hair colour in relation to the murders?
Also of interest is that he SUPPOSEDLY dyed his eyebrows. I was colouring male heads very successfully during the 70's/80's but never had any success when it came to eyebrows. Due to the brow hair structure, tint just sat on the surface. Not to be recommended when walking in the rain.
Of greater interest is why a person open minded enough to explore the occult/alternative therapies/live a fairly Bohemian life style should have given a second thought to men colouring their hair.
-
OK, back to normal - ;D ;D
I have just had an email from a solicitor friend who I asked about ringgate - Apparently as executor Basil was well within his rights to stop destruction of property belonging to Neville and June until the wills had been settled. I guess he thought he might as well preserve Sheila's jewellery also.
Did you ask if this was the case when, like in this case, Co#k acted against the expressed wish of the next of kin - without informing him?
I find that plain wrong.
-
Well, there is another side (if you'll forgive me for playing devil's advocate - Martin ;)), It could also be that he was spooked by the jewellery because they died wearing it but he didn't want the relatives to have it either. But who knows, Jeremy doesn't seem the sentimental type so I'm not sure why he didn't want the rings removed.
Sometimes people who "act" and appear to be cool on the surface, are the most sensitive and sentimental. They need armour of coolness not to appear too vulnerable.
People are complex!
-
Did you ask if this was the case when, like in this case, Co#k acted against the expressed wish of the next of kin - without informing him?
I find that plain wrong.
Yes, it doesn't matter what the next of kin wanted, the ring was part of the estate and Jeremy would only have had the right to make such a request once the will was settled. As the funeral was before all the legalities were finalised, Basil didn't do anything wrong. I guess you could argue that he had no right to take Sheila's ring because Jeremy was next of kin and she left no will but it seems pointless to have saved June's rings and let Sheila's be destroyed.
-
Yes, it doesn't matter what the next of kin wanted, the ring was part of the estate and Jeremy would only have had the right to make such a request once the will was settled. As the funeral was before all the legalities were finalised, Basil didn't do anything wrong. I guess you could argue that he had no right to take Sheila's ring because Jeremy was next of kin and she left no will but it seems pointless to have saved June's rings and let Sheila's be destroyed.
Makes sense Caroline. ;)
-
Makes sense Caroline. ;)
I think so - not sure what happened to June's ring but I suspect that Pam would have eventually received it and to be honest, i think it's what June would have wanted.
-
To me it doesn´t make sense not to at least inform the next of kin.
-
What solicitors do in cases of personal rings and jewellery is to exercise disretion and they usually let the next of kin have them so that they are not included in the general estate. What Basil Cock did in this case appears to be unknown.
-
I think so - not sure what happened to June's ring but I suspect that Pam would have eventually received it and to be honest, i think it's what June would have wanted.
Caroline, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's within the remit of the executor's discretion to override written bequests, and for them to say who gets what.
-
Caroline, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's within the remit of the executor's discretion to override written bequests, and for them to say who gets what.
I have no idea April, I think in this case Basil perhaps didn't seen why the jewellery should be destroyed and knowing the family well, he perhaps thought that it would be a waste and that family members would like to keep them. The undertakes policy was to have the jewellery removed anyway so it's perhaps what Jeremy wanted is a moot point. The next of kin wouldn't have any say in what ultimately happened (in this case) so maybe they just thought it best not to tell him. But I have no idea where the OS get the notion that one of the officers took the rings? (which was the original point - I think?).
-
I have no idea April, I think in this case Basil perhaps didn't seen why the jewellery should be destroyed and knowing the family well, he perhaps thought that it would be a waste and that family members would like to keep them. The undertakes policy was to have the jewellery removed anyway so it's perhaps what Jeremy wanted is a moot point. The next of kin wouldn't have any say in what ultimately happened (in this case) so maybe they just thought it best not to tell him. But I have no idea where the OS get the notion that one of the officers took the rings? (which was the original point - I think?).
We've moved a long way from it, but officers/rings was indeed the original point :D
-
Do you think we've missed anything out,girls and boy ? Any little details you can think of ?
-
Do you think we've missed anything out,girls and boy ? Any little details you can think of ?
Do you have anything in mind?
-
Do you have anything in mind?
Not at the moment,, Alias. I've been trying to unearth something by going through different links.
-
interesting watching this forum as a bystander. It is getting more and more like a forum that is doing the opposite of what it was intended to do.
A lot of posts have been wasted because the question of mine was not that JB did not know that the rings had not stayed on his mothers fingers as he requested,but that at a later date it seems that he might have found out who actually got the rings and that the method by which they arrived at a certain member of his familys possession , may not have been the method/way that he was lead to believe.
So as we can not prove that at the moment I suggest you do not waste your time any more.
Over and out.
-
interesting watching this forum as a bystander. It is getting more and more like a forum that is doing the opposite of what it was intended to do.
A lot of posts have been wasted because the question of mine was not that JB did not know that the rings had not stayed on his mothers fingers as he requested,but that at a later date it seems that he might have found out who actually got the rings and that the method by which they arrived at a certain member of his familys possession , may not have been the method/way that he was lead to believe.
So as we can not prove that at the moment I suggest you do not waste your time any more.
Over and out.
May I ask what in your view, is the forums intended goal?
-
interesting watching this forum as a bystander. It is getting more and more like a forum that is doing the opposite of what it was intended to do.
A lot of posts have been wasted because the question of mine was not that JB did not know that the rings had not stayed on his mothers fingers as he requested,but that at a later date it seems that he might have found out who actually got the rings and that the method by which they arrived at a certain member of his familys possession , may not have been the method/way that he was lead to believe.
So as we can not prove that at the moment I suggest you do not waste your time any more.
Over and out.
The reason I believe Colin's version is because he is independent from the relatives and he states that the family didn't even know that the rings had been preserved. It was only because 'Colin' told the relatives that Basil had kept them that they knew they weren't destroyed.
I don't understand what you mean by "It is getting more and more like a forum that is doing the opposite of what it was intended to do" The intention of the forum is to 'debate' the case which is what we're doing.
-
The reason I believe Colin's version is because he is independent from the relatives and he states that the family didn't even know that the rings had been preserved. It was only because 'Colin' told the relatives that Basil had kept them that they knew they weren't destroyed.
I don't understand what you mean by "It is getting more and more like a forum that is doing the opposite of what it was intended to do" The intention of the forum is to 'debate' the case which is what were doing.
I think it wise to acknowledge that whilst Jeremy's version may not be correct, nevertheless we must remember that he is in prison and can only come to certain conclusions because (1) He has only the information that he is being fed by others, who themselves have incorrect information and (2) Hid mental health must suffer in that place even to the extent of paranoia? He himself probably believes his version to be the correct one.
-
I think it wise to acknowledge that whilst Jeremy's version may not be correct, nevertheless we must remember that he is in prison and can only come to certain conclusions because (1) He has only the information that he is being fed by others, who themselves have incorrect information and (2) Hid mental health must suffer in that place even to the extent of paranoia? He himself probably believes his version to be the correct one.
I'm not saying his version isn't correct - this is only MY opinion, others are free to believe whatever they like. Plus, it's not really down to Jeremy to check the info on the OS, the campaign team should be checking it before they publish it because it leads to criticism of the site. It would be interesting to know 'where' the OS claims originated?
-
The jewellery was still removed without even informing Jeremy. I find that wrong, and I have to wonder how THAT came about.
If Jeremy wasn´t informed and Co?k didn´t intend to, where was the jewellery supposed to go? There is something very wrong here, in my book, so I understand Jeremy´s anger over this.
-
The jewellery was still removed without even informing Jeremy. I find that wrong, and I have to wonder how THAT came about.
If Jeremy wasn´t informed and Co?k didn´t intend to, where was the jewellery supposed to go? There is something very wrong here, in my book, so I understand Jeremy´s anger over this.
Perhaps June wanted to leave Jewellery to her sister. I haven't seen her will in full but if that were the case then I can understand why he kept the rings. You can argue that 'morally' he should have told Jeremy but legally, he was in his rights to make sure the rings (or at least June's), remained part of the assets.
-
Perhaps June wanted to leave Jewellery to her sister. I haven't seen her will in full but if that were the case then I can understand why he kept the rings. You can argue that 'morally' he should have told Jeremy but legally, he was in his rights to make sure the rings (or at least June's), remained part of the assets.
I've often used the throw away line that "everything became Jeremy's" but that isn't quite right. If June had left instructions for certain items to go to specific people/places, those item wouldn't have been Jeremy's. So he could have demanded whatever he wanted about where HE wanted them to go but it could legally have been countermanded by Cock who had been charged with the duty of seeing that the terms of the will were carried out as per June's requests.
-
Yes,April,,it's down to the executor of the will,,and not necessarily those who are the next of kin.
-
If Jeremy had actually killed anyone at all,,he'd have made sure that most valuables such as small items like jewellery would have been well pocketed,,as nobody would then have been the wiser as to what was in Junes' possession. Also,,it would have been a far easier task who to pinpoint if certain items had been missing ( such as what the relatives knew of )
No sign of a break-in----jewellery missing,,it WOULD then have made more sense to blame Jeremy,as regards greed. I'd have blamed him myself.
All " sellable " items still remained in-situ. Seems strange to me,,seeing as he knew how to steal !
-
Anyone planning a murder would have made it look like a robbery with violence,,but not a thing was touched. Even Nevilles' watch was still there. So if Jeremy was supposed to have carried out such a massacre,,he must have been as thick as whatsits not to make it look like a robbery thrown in. I thought he was an intelligent man,who also looked shifty. So exactly what was it that he wanted from a farmhouse,,which didn't even belong to his parents,,or even its contents ?
So greed was obviously not a motive.
-
Whilst Jeremy may NOT have done it, Lookout, neither of the above would convince me of his innocence. There was no point, as you say, in him pocketing small valuables because he'd have been the first suspect. Secondly it appears that he believed that everything in the house was his anyway, as reflected in his wishes for the jewellery, so why not leave it in situ until such time as he was more composed and could go through it at his leiisure.
-
Whilst Jeremy may NOT have done it, Lookout, neither of the above would convince me of his innocence. There was no point, as you say, in him pocketing small valuables because he'd have been the first suspect. Secondly it appears that he believed that everything in the house was his anyway, as reflected in his wishes for the jewellery, so why not leave it in situ until such time as he was more composed and could go through it at his leiisure.
As campion junior has always said (and I have always been amazed by his insight into the most complicated of issues) Bamber was well and truly stitched up. The one who did it lies dead by her own hand.
-
As campion junior has always said (and I have always been amazed by his insight into the most complicated of issues) Bamber was well and truly stitched up. The one who did it lies dead by her own hand.
Grahame,,I miss that man.He was so wise.
-
I am a little confused? Why would Jeremy (if guilty) want to make the crime appear as a robbery? His defence was/is that his mentally ill sister was responsible.
-
I am a little confused? Why would Jeremy (if guilty) want to make the crime appear as a robbery? His defence was/is that his mentally ill sister was responsible.
Tyler,,I know that..I was just explaining that if the crime had appeared to have been a robbery with violence,,stuff taken and all that,,then and only then would I have quite possibly blamed Jeremy,with his albeit short history of theft through greed. As it stands,,my personal belief is and always has been that it was his sister.
-
Tyler,,I know that..I was just explaining that if the crime had appeared to have been a robbery with violence,,stuff taken and all that,,then and only then would I have quite possibly blamed Jeremy,with his albeit short history of theft through greed. As it stands,,my personal belief is and always has been that it was his sister.
I have always believed it happened as the police first said it happened.
-
Me too,Grahame. Then I'd also formed my own opinion back in 1985 anyway,as it happened.
-
Me too,Grahame. Then I'd also formed my own opinion back in 1985 anyway,as it happened.
So did I. While it was still fresh in people's minds. Long before all these young wippersnappers were even born. And I haven't really changed my overall opinion on the case. I questioned the verdict at the time and I remember that I was aghast when I heard it. I thought to myself, "How on earth could they6 find a man guilty on such flimsy evidence?" I also remember asking a barrister friend of mine at the time if I could get hold of the court manuscripts so that I could research the case further and she informed me that it would not be likely. I was on to the case long before all these little tyro authors came about.
-
Agreed Grahame. It would be interesting to learn as to what is contained within the files of the first investigation (and second) that led both Taff Jones and subsequently Jim Kinneally to assert that Sheila was responsible. I just cannot accept that EP arrived at this conclusion because 'Jeremy led them in this direction' and certainly cannot believe that upon seeing Sheila (as she is depicted in the crime scene photos) that they couldn't recognise that Sheila's body had been so very obviously 'staged'.
-
I too asked myself how could they arrest the man without any evidence to back up. Then when he was arrested 12 months later,again,,I thought it even more odd and honestly imagined that he'd be back out again in no time because " a big mistake had been made ". Of course the years go by and so many other things crop up and take over,that you forget about the case altogether.
Even though it was so long ago,I can remember it as though it was last year.
-
Agreed Grahame. It would be interesting to learn as to what is contained within the files of the first investigation (and second) that led both Taff Jones and subsequently Jim Kinneally to assert that Sheila was responsible. I just cannot accept that EP arrived at this conclusion because 'Jeremy led them in this direction' and certainly cannot believe that upon seeing Sheila (as she is depicted in the crime scene photos) that they couldn't recognise that Sheila's body had been so very obviously 'staged'.
Personally I can see that it was not Jeremy that led them in any direction. But rather the persistent worrying of the relatives that let them in Jeremy's direction?
-
Grahame,I had meant on the actual night/morning?
-
Grahame,I had meant on the actual night/morning?
It could be that the police inadvertently disturbed the scene around Sheila, moving the rifle/arm/bible, and then put it back together as best they could?
-
It could be that the police inadvertently disturbed the scene around Sheila, moving the rifle/arm/bible, and then put it back together as best they could?
I meant that in respect of the 'obviously staged' comment.
-
It could be that the police inadvertently disturbed the scene around Sheila, moving the rifle/arm/bible, and then put it back together as best they could?
Body? ::)
-
Let me just clarify something here; when I said 'Only Jeremy knows the truth' I was talking about whether he was guilty or innocent. Martin has taken this (with his great wisdom) to mean that I was saying he knew what happened in the farmhouse - which would mean he was there - and as such - guilty.
However, Martin simply assumes something and runs with it. When Steve first came here, he was accused by Martin of being Starryian (whoever he is) simply because he posted from a guilty stance. There were long winded posts where Martin had used his psychological prowess to analyse and compare the writing styles of both parties. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I found myself descending to such lengths but as it's quite obvious they are not the same person, I'd be even more embarrassed at having never apologised!
Like I said - debate the case and the posters behind them. Sometimes people question their opinions it's a good thing to do, it doesn't mean they should have to put up with the armchair psycho babble and flawed reasoning of Martin The Great.
Caroline
Sorry to backtrack, but just reading through this thread, I came to a post where I am accused by you of accusing Steve_uk of being starryian and even of failing to apologise for being wrong. The truth is, I have never, on this forum or any other, ever said that Steve_uk is starryian.
Just in case Steve should think that I have accused him of being starryian, I feel that I should set the record straight.
As for your main criticism, I did not misinterpret your meaning. My position is that Bamber can’t be the only person who knows he is innocent for a number of practical reasons which I have gone into elsewhere.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5219.msg231089.html#msg231089
-
no im starryian i feel i must confess.
-
Caroline
Sorry to backtrack, but just reading through this thread, I came to a post where I am accused by you of accusing Steve_uk of being starryian and even of failing to apologise for being wrong. The truth is, I have never, on this forum or any other, ever said that Steve_uk is starryian.
Just in case Steve should think that I have accused him of being starryian, I feel that I should set the record straight.
Must have mixed you up with someone else - sorry.
-
no im starryian i feel i must confess.
I knew it! ;D ;D
-
Must have mixed you up with someone else - sorry.
I just added something to the post berfore you replied. I really find it hard to get that point accross. My belief that some of the police know that Jeremy is innocent is based upon practical considerations, even at the level of hypothetical thinking.
I say that if he innocent it is hard to see how he could be the only one who knows it.
-
I just added something to the post berfore you replied. I really find it hard to get that point accross. My belief that some of the police know that Jeremy is innocent is based upon practical considerations, even at the level of hypothetical thinking.
I say that if he innocent it is hard to see how he could be the only one who knows it.
OK Martin, I will read your link tomorrow and reply when I can concentrate a little better - Can't stay wake tonight :).
-
If Jeremy had actually killed anyone at all,,he'd have made sure that most valuables such as small items like jewellery would have been well pocketed,,as nobody would then have been the wiser as to what was in Junes' possession. Also,,it would have been a far easier task who to pinpoint if certain items had been missing ( such as what the relatives knew of )
No sign of a break-in----jewellery missing,,it WOULD then have made more sense to blame Jeremy,as regards greed. I'd have blamed him myself.
All " sellable " items still remained in-situ. Seems strange to me,,seeing as he knew how to steal !
1) he would have no way to know that they would not find out such items were missing
2) he had no need to pocket them immediately as he would receive them in due course through the will
-
I created a thread yesterday. Ruling out Julie & the relatives in attempting to frame Jeremy. Julie too young & naive. The relatives already rich & respectable with not enough expertise.
So that leaves the police.
However the police had nothing to gain in framing Jeremy. There was no guarantee of a conviction. But a chance a frame attempt may be discovered. Which would ruin the careers of the officers concerned. Even after the conviction the police were heavily criticised. It has never been proved that the police tried to frame Jeremy.
So if the police, family & Julie did not frame Jeremy, who did ?
-
I created a thread yesterday. Ruling out Julie & the relatives in attempting to frame Jeremy. Julie too young & naive. The relatives already rich & respectable with not enough expertise.
So that leaves the police.
However the police had nothing to gain in framing Jeremy. There was no guarantee of a conviction. But a chance a frame attempt may be discovered. Which would ruin the careers of the officers concerned. Even after the conviction the police were heavily criticised. It has never been proved that the police tried to frame Jeremy.
So if the police, family & Julie did not frame Jeremy, who did ?
Of course you did ::)
Of course the police had something to gain! A successful conviction and of course it wasn't guaranteed which is why a silencer was produced and a coached star witness. Were the officers involved in the Birmingham Six case convicted? Were the officers involved in the Stephan Kizsco case convicted?
OBVIOUSLY it's never been proved because if it had, he would be a free man!! However, just because it hasn't been proven, doesn't mean they didn't!
-
Of course you did ::)
Of course the police had something to gain! A successful conviction and of course it wasn't guaranteed which is why a silencer was produced and a coached star witness. Were the officers involved in the Birmingham Six case convicted? Were the officers involved in the Stephan Kizsco case convicted?
OBVIOUSLY it's never been proved because if it had, he would be a free man!! However, just because it hasn't been proven, doesn't mean they didn't!
The police on their own would have lacked the knowledge and skill to pull it off.
First they would have needed to know that fatal wound would have caused blood to enter the suppressor. Only the experts knew that it would.
Fletcher and Hayward would have to have been the masterminds of it.
Hayward the one who checked the rifle for blood and found none. He would have found blood had the suppressor not been used so he would have to have lied about not finding any.
Fletcher would be the only one to know how to spray blood inside to make it resemble spatter. Why would he bother though if he was the one doing the tests he could just lie about it. But he didn't lie the defense expert found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles.
There is no evidence that any of Sheila's blood was missing from the samples so they would have to have found another source of group A blood.
They would have to have involved enough police to get them to speak to the family and get the family to lie about there being blood in the suppressor when they turned it over and maybe even the police and family lying about how it was turned over.
Then they get Julie involved in the lying.
The more people involved in a conspiracy the more people who talk and faster it gets caught. They would especially not want to let non-police know about it because they could mess up or rat the out and end their careers.
The grand conspiracy is highly unlikely.
-
The police on their own would have lacked the knowledge and skill to pull it off.
First they would have needed to know that fatal wound would have caused blood to enter the suppressor. Only the experts knew that it would.
Fletcher and Hayward would have to have been the masterminds of it.
Hayward the one who checked the rifle for blood and found none. He would have found blood had the suppressor not been used so he would have to have lied about not finding any.
Fletcher would be the only one to know how to spray blood inside to make it resemble spatter. Why would he bother though if he was the one doing the tests he could just lie about it. But he didn't lie the defense expert found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles.
There is no evidence that any of Sheila's blood was missing from the samples so they would
have to have found another source of group A blood.
They would have to have involved enough police to get them to speak to the family and get the family to lie about there being blood in the suppressor when they turned it over and maybe even the police and family lying about how it was turned over.
Then they get Julie involved in the lying.
The more people involved in a conspiracy the more people who talk and faster it gets caught. They would especially not want to let non-police know about it because they could mess up or rat the out and end their careers.
The grand conspiracy is highly unlikely.
Hi scipio, you are very trusting of the establishment and in theory your assumptions appear to hold water but in fact you are wrong. There are many instances of police conspiracy and corruption reaching the highest levels, framing of innocent individuals etc. Have you heard of Hillsborough?
-
The police on their own would have lacked the knowledge and skill to pull it off.
First they would have needed to know that fatal wound would have caused blood to enter the suppressor. Only the experts knew that it would.
Fletcher and Hayward would have to have been the masterminds of it.
Hayward the one who checked the rifle for blood and found none. He would have found blood had the suppressor not been used so he would have to have lied about not finding any.
Fletcher would be the only one to know how to spray blood inside to make it resemble spatter. Why would he bother though if he was the one doing the tests he could just lie about it. But he didn't lie the defense expert found microscopic drops of blood on the first 8 baffles.
There is no evidence that any of Sheila's blood was missing from the samples so they would have to have found another source of group A blood.
They would have to have involved enough police to get them to speak to the family and get the family to lie about there being blood in the suppressor when they turned it over and maybe even the police and family lying about how it was turned over.
Then they get Julie involved in the lying.
The more people involved in a conspiracy the more people who talk and faster it gets caught. They would especially not want to let non-police know about it because they could mess up or rat the out and end their careers.
The grand conspiracy is highly unlikely.
Yet despite the flamboyance of you assertions, after 39 years, no one has been able to find ONE piece of cast iron evidence that can point to a once and for all proof that Jeremy is guilty. You insist that corruption COULDN'T have occurred because..................... In a perfect world, perhaps so. NEWS FLASH. We live in a very IMperfect world in which people will go to vast lengths, playing on other peoples' fears/guilt/greed to cover their tracks. I agree that the more who know the greater the risk of discovery, but all these years on from Hillsborough nobody had spilled the beans. Maybe America is free of corruption(?), ENGLAND certainly ISN'T.
-
Hi scipio, you are very trusting of the establishment and in theory your assumptions appear to hold water but in fact you are wrong. There are many instances of police conspiracy and corruption reaching the highest levels, framing of innocent individuals etc. Have you heard of Hillsborough?
Saying there are instances doesn't establish it likely happened here. To establish it likely happend you need proof.
What I heard about Hillsborough is that police were told not to record things informally in notebooks to simply give statements and that the brass would review and amend such statements as desired. The police ratted out their superiors and actually have proof that some were amended. The amendments were to protect the department. An internal review was done and found evidence of the wrongdoing.
The investigation of the Bamber case found no evidence of wrongdoing like that.
You can list every example if where police wronging was proven and you will see someone tlaking to rat out what happened and or other evidence that proves it.
That is totally lacking here.
-
Yet despite the flamboyance of you assertions, after 39 years, no one has been able to find ONE piece of cast iron evidence that can point to a once and for all proof that Jeremy is guilty. You insist that corruption COULDN'T have occurred because..................... In a perfect world, perhaps so. NEWS FLASH. We live in a very IMperfect world in which people will go to vast lengths, playing on other peoples' fears/guilt/greed to cover their tracks. I agree that the more who know the greater the risk of discovery, but all these years on from Hillsborough nobody had spilled the beans. Maybe America is free of corruption(?), ENGLAND certainly ISN'T.
The cast Iron evidence is that Sheila can't have killed herself and then her dead body walk downstairs to put the suppressor away; Nevill can't have called Jeremy after he was wounded; Neville would have had no reason to call Jeremy before he was wounded and there is nothing to corroborate jeremy's claim such call went through; there is absolutely no evidence at all that Sheila fired a weapon at all let alone shot anyone or fought with Neville; Jereme's suspicious bevavior of calling Julie at 3AM and 6AM and refusing to go there to check things out until police were already on scene so they could see him arrive after them; Jeremy lies to try to suggest Sheila did it like the lie about her firing all weapons in the house and about his ridiculous rabbit story about the gun being out for her to grab which clearly was fabricated as established by the box of 30 rounds that he claims was never moved and was the source of the ammo used in the murders. Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from a box and with 30 remaining go to the gun closet to get more instead of continuing to refill the magazine from the same box she loaded the other rounds from? Then there is julies testimony which was very detialed. In cases lacking DNA evidence this is how they are made and it is a strong case. That is why all appeal efforts have failed.
Saying you believe the blood evidence was planted doesn't make it so you need evidence to prove it. But I have yet to see anyone deal with the other problems let alone the blood evidence. The call from Nevill is not credible at all and a giant problem. Unless someone deals with that in a convincing way there is no hope at all to convince anyone that the police, relative and Julie all got together in a massive conspiracy.
-
The cast Iron evidence is that Sheila can't have killed herself and then her dead body walk downstairs to put the suppressor away; Nevill can't have called Jeremy after he was wounded; Neville would have had no reason to call Jeremy before he was wounded and there is nothing to corroborate jeremy's claim such call went through; there is absolutely no evidence at all that Sheila fired a weapon at all let alone shot anyone or fought with Neville; Jereme's suspicious bevavior of calling Julie at 3AM and 6AM and refusing to go there to check things out until police were already on scene so they could see him arrive after them; Jeremy lies to try to suggest Sheila did it like the lie about her firing all weapons in the house and about his ridiculous rabbit story about the gun being out for her to grab which clearly was fabricated as established by the box of 30 rounds that he claims was never moved and was the source of the ammo used in the murders. Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from a box and with 30 remaining go to the gun closet to get more instead of continuing to refill the magazine from the same box she loaded the other rounds from? Then there is julies testimony which was very detialed. In cases lacking DNA evidence this is how they are made and it is a strong case. That is why all appeal efforts have failed.
Saying you believe the blood evidence was planted doesn't make it so you need evidence to prove it. But I have yet to see anyone deal with the other problems let alone the blood evidence. The call from Nevill is not credible at all and a giant problem. Unless someone deals with that in a convincing way there is no hope at all to convince anyone that the police, relative and Julie all got together in a massive conspiracy.
The silencer evidence did not help Jeremy either.
-
The silencer evidence did not help Jeremy either.
The technical name of a silencer is a sound suppressor, I mentioned it.
-
Saying there are instances doesn't establish it likely happened here. To establish it likely happend you need proof.
What I heard about Hillsborough is that police were told not to record things informally in notebooks to simply give statements and that the brass would review and amend such statements as desired. The police ratted out their superiors and actually have proof that some were amended. The amendments were to protect the department. An internal review was done and found evidence of the wrongdoing.
The investigation of the Bamber case found no evidence of wrongdoing like that.
You can list every example if where police wronging was proven and you will see someone
tlaking to rat out what happened and or other evidence that proves it.
That is totally lacking here.
I was not comparing like with like because the two cases are very different. But Hillsborough proves how a police cover up can succeed. There were thousands of witnesses at Hillsborough and they knew the truth but the police stuck together and lied for 25 years. It was the fans and relatives of those who died who knew the truth and continued to demand justice for the 96. It was NOT the police who 'ratted out' Amazingly, the police pretty much didn't speak out however much they knew the truth they kept quiet, watched their backs and their pensions, so don't preach to us that police corruption doesn't or can't happen en masse.
If you believe we should not question police behaviour that is naive, it's not about conspiracy theories or some kind of hero worship of Jeremy Bamber which causes people to question the evidence but a desire for the truth. Of course it's easy to prove guilt if you start from the stance tthat everyone, police and public are telling the truth therefore Jeremy Bamber has to be lying
but to do that you have to make huge assumptions yourself.
It's easy enough for you to swamp us with your theories but with respect that is all you are doing and it's been done many times before. I am sure you do believe we are all stupid, naive people on this forum who need telling where we are going wrong, you seem to enjoy sneering at us because we are incapable of understanding the truth according to scipio but I do wonder why you can be bothered.
As has been said many times before, Jeremy Bamber is in prison, has already served almost thirty years so what is your problem, certainly not proof of Jeremy Bamber's guilt so to my mind your 'amusement' is about polishing your own over inflated ego.
-
The technical name of a silencer is a sound suppressor, I mentioned it.
Moderator.
-
The technical name of a silencer is a sound suppressor, I mentioned it.
Or even moderator. But who cares?
-
I was not comparing like with like because the two cases are very different. But Hillsborough proves how a police cover up can succeed. There were thousands of witnesses at Hillsborough and they knew the truth but the police stuck together and lied for 25 years. It was the fans and relatives of those who died who knew the truth and continued to demand justice for the 96. It was NOT the police who 'ratted out' Amazingly, the police pretty much didn't speak out however much they knew the truth they kept quiet, watched their backs and their pensions, so don't preach to us that police corruption doesn't or can't happen en masse.
If you believe we should not question police behaviour that is naive, it's not about conspiracy theories or some kind of hero worship of Jeremy Bamber which causes people to question the evidence but a desire for the truth. Of course it's easy to prove guilt if you start from the stance tthat everyone, police and public are telling the truth therefore Jeremy Bamber has to be lying
but to do that you have to make huge assumptions yourself.
It's easy enough for you to swamp us with your theories but with respect that is all you are doing and it's been done many times before. I am sure you do believe we are all stupid, naive people on this forum who need telling where we are going wrong, you seem to enjoy sneering at us because we are incapable of understanding the truth according to scipio but I do wonder why you can be bothered.
As has been said many times before, Jeremy Bamber is in prison, has already served almost thirty years so what is your problem, certainly not proof of Jeremy Bamber's guilt so to my mind your 'amusement' is about polishing your own over inflated ego.
How did it succeed? It got exposed, that is the whole point. In cases where wrongdoing is known to exist it is known to exist because it had been proven.
You have been swamped with the prosecution theories of the case that were proven at trial and that the appeal court judges even believe.
-
The technical name of a silencer is a sound suppressor, I mentioned it.
I posted a long time ago about this. Suppressor is the normal American description. Silencer or sound moderator are the terms normally used in the UK. The police here always use the description sound moderator when approving the ownership of the item under a Firearm Certificate.
-
I posted a long time ago about this. Suppressor is the normal American description. Silencer or sound moderator are the terms normally used in the UK. The police here always use the description sound moderator when approving the ownership of the item under a Firearm Certificate.
Sound moderator is a term used by European firearm manufacturers hence what the government uses.
Sound suppressor is what US industry and thus scientific experts use.
Silencer is a slang term popularized by books and movies that is universal but not a technical term. But since the military uses sound suppressor, (there are flash suppressors among other types) that is the term I use because that is what was instilled in me just like I frequently resort to weapon instead of firearm because that is what was instilled though a weapon can be anything from a fork to a cannon so is imprecise.
-
How did it succeed? It got exposed, that is the whole point. In cases where wrongdoing is known to exist it is known to exist because it had been proven.
You have been swamped with the prosecution theories of the case that were proven at trial and that the appeal court judges even believe.
What does that answer mean ...... zilch as far as I can see.
You obviously don't know anything about Hillsborough which is fair enough but please admit it. A little more sensitivity would be appreciatedl
-
Sound moderator is a term used by European firearm manufacturers hence what the government uses.
Sound suppressor is what US industry and thus scientific experts use.
Silencer is a slang term popularized by books and movies that is universal but not a technical term. But since the military uses sound suppressor, (there are flash suppressors among other types) that is the term I use because that is what was instilled in me just like I frequently resort to weapon instead of firearm because that is what was instilled though a weapon can be anything from a fork to a cannon so is imprecise.
I agree with you overall, but silencer is not just a lang term, it was in fact the term used by Sir Hiram Maxim, who was the first to develop and market the device. I only know this because it is referred to in the information leaflet provided by Parker Hale, the manufacturer of the silencer owned by Nevill Bamber.
-
Sound moderator is a term used by European firearm manufacturers hence what the government uses.
Sound suppressor is what US industry and thus scientific experts use.
Silencer is a slang term popularized by books and movies that is universal but not a technical term. But since the military uses sound suppressor, (there are flash suppressors among other types) that is the term I use because that is what was instilled in me just like I frequently resort to weapon instead of firearm because that is what was instilled though a weapon can be anything from a fork to a cannon so is imprecise.
That is right scipio. That is what ngb said. Good boy. I see that you are slowly catching on. ::)
-
How did it succeed? It got exposed, that is the whole point. In cases where wrongdoing is known to exist it is known to exist because it had been proven.
You have been swamped with the prosecution theories of the case that were proven at trial and that the appeal court judges even believe.
That was because they may have all accepted a lie. Not that the evidence was true. I submit to you that it was not true and a great deal of the prosecution case was false and even a lie.
-
That was because they may have all accepted a lie. Not that the evidence was true. I submit to you that it was not true and a great deal of the prosecution case was false and even a lie.
You claim it is not true but have no proof to prove any of it unture.
In the corruption cases cited there was evidence that proved police misconduct occurred.
You not only lack evidence but the alleged reasons for police misconduct make no snese and Jeremy's claims make no sense.
I presented very detaile darguments against Jeremy which no one here will address let alone has dented.
Peopel want to believe he is innocent regardless of rational thought and on that basis insist he had to have been set up.
That is not why the police misconduct was suspected nor how it was proven.
Forget about an explanation of hwo Sheila could commit the mrders without any evidence on her body of having done so or why Sheila would know how to load 11 round and why she would do so or why she would use 20 rounds form a box of ammo and despite 30 remaining go look in the gun closet for more, I am still waiting for a rational explanation of how and why Nevill would call Jeremy to ask him to come disarm Sheila instead of trying to do it himself or grabbing weapons to confront her with.
I listed something like a dozen different considerations why such makes no sense. Not one person has attempted to deal with that problem.
You gloss over everything or attribute it to a frameup nothing more. There is no serious attempt to look at what happened rather you start out from the position he has to be innocent and look for any way to try to pretend it is possible. That's not a search for the truth.
-
You claim it is not true but have no proof to prove any of it unture.
In the corruption cases cited there was evidence that proved police misconduct occurred.
You not only lack evidence but the alleged reasons for police misconduct make no snese and Jeremy's claims make no sense.
I presented very detaile darguments against Jeremy which no one here will address let alone has dented.
Peopel want to believe he is innocent regardless of rational thought and on that basis insist he had to have been set up.
That is not why the police misconduct was suspected nor how it was proven.
Forget about an explanation of hwo Sheila could commit the mrders without any evidence on her body of having done so or why Sheila would know how to load 11 round and why she would do so or why she would use 20 rounds form a box of ammo and despite 30 remaining go look in the gun closet for more, I am still waiting for a rational explanation of how and why Nevill would call Jeremy to ask him to come disarm Sheila instead of trying to do it himself or grabbing weapons to confront her with.
I listed something like a dozen different considerations why such makes no sense. Not one person has attempted to deal with that problem.
You gloss over everything or attribute it to a frameup nothing more. There is no serious attempt to look at what happened rather you start out from the position he has to be innocent and look for any way to try to pretend it is possible. That's not a search for the truth.
No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.
-
No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.
You make a very good point there, Grahame.
-
No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.
Good way of explaining what would pass for a Brian Rix farce. No disrespects to yourself,as it's a great explanatory post which does put things into perspective as regards Jeremys' conviction-------on what ?
-
No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.
He was proven guilty by a great deal of evidence. You simply irrationally chose to ignore it all or to discount it by claiming all testimony was false and all physical evidence doctored though you have not one shred of proof to establish it.
If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders. If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.
Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.
1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville. Evidence of this is:
A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes
B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy.
The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help. The claim that the phone was removed because of a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense. The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t. So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.
It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed. Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered. The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load. To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine. This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement. Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage.
The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill. When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit. They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him. There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.
No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.
C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either. This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else.
i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself? It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house. Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive? Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.
ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down. Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot. So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive? He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.
iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself. If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself. The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons. Why would Nevill not grab any but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done. If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent.
iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually. It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up. The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone. So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine. It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late. If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy.
v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him. Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up? Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her. Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?
There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims. The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.
2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job. He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.
“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”
He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche. Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house? He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead. He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it. She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out. If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached. So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up. This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders. These lies were carefully calculated. His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon. There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it. Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders. But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story. Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others. He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them. He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories. He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week. He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF. He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his. Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders. It obviously was not used much. It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose.
Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen. He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders. He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds. 25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained. Instead 30 remained. Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well? It makes no sense and is not credible. This establishes the ammo box was staged.
Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?
3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received. That is more evidence he made up the call.
Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look
He called Julie instead. Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie? She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern. He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly. A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort. Why did he call her? He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them. He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF. At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him. He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill. The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony.
After speaking to her what did he do? We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police. Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes. He finally calls police and then what/ He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene. The tell him to drive and meet them there. Does he go over and spy around for a while? No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them. Why would he act this way unless he did it? Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?
Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all. Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff. None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.
The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims. This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.
4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself.
A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it. No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time. The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.
B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone. No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.
C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself
D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it. She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done. He told her more details later. Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman. She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi. If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.
Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.
What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence? You largely ignore it. People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered. That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.
We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy. Why would they do this? No rational explanation had even been set forth. We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such. We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened. We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it. We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.
Why should we assume it? Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted. No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence. No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.
No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case.
The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do. You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction.
After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
-
He was proven guilty by a great deal of evidence. You simply irrationally chose to ignore it all or to discount it by claiming all testimony was false and all physical evidence doctored though you have not one shred of proof to establish it.
If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders. If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.
Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.
1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville. Evidence of this is:
A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes
B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy.
The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help. The claim that the phone was removed because of a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense. The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t. So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.
It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed. Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered. The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load. To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine. This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement. Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage.
The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill. When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit. They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him. There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.
No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.
C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either. This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else.
i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself? It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house. Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive? Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.
ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down. Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot. So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive? He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.
iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself. If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself. The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons. Why would Nevill not grab any but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done. If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent.
iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually. It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up. The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone. So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine. It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late. If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy.
v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him. Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up? Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her. Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?
There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims. The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.
2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job. He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.
“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”
He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche. Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house? He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead. He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it. She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out. If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached. So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up. This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders. These lies were carefully calculated. His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon. There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it. Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders. But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story. Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others. He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them. He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories. He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week. He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF. He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his. Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders. It obviously was not used much. It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose.
Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen. He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders. He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds. 25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained. Instead 30 remained. Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well? It makes no sense and is not credible. This establishes the ammo box was staged.
Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?
3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received. That is more evidence he made up the call.
Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look
He called Julie instead. Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie? She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern. He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly. A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort. Why did he call her? He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them. He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF. At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him. He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill. The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony.
After speaking to her what did he do? We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police. Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes. He finally calls police and then what/ He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene. The tell him to drive and meet them there. Does he go over and spy around for a while? No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them. Why would he act this way unless he did it? Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?
Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all. Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff. None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.
The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims. This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.
4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself.
A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it. No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time. The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.
B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone. No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.
C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself
D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it. She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done. He told her more details later. Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman. She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi. If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.
Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.
What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence? You largely ignore it. People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered. That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.
We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy. Why would they do this? No rational explanation had even been set forth. We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such. We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened. We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it. We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.
Why should we assume it? Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted. No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence. No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.
No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case.
The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do. You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction.
After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
scipio even the trial judge called it "circumstantial". The so called "evidence" was as I have clearly described it. He was not "proved" to be guilty. He was found guilty by 10 jurers. 2 of them were of the opposite opinion. I myself would like to speak to those 2 jurers who voted not guilty. In my opinion for a murder trial there should be complete agreement with ALL jurers. What a said concerning the evidence stands. It doesn't have to go away it wasn't there in the first place. You have just chosen to believe the 10 jurers and not the 2. It is an easy thing to go with the crown and swim with the stream. It doesn't take much intelligence to do that because you are just repeating what everyone else says by using hardly any brain power at all.
-
He was proven guilty by a great deal of evidence. You simply irrationally chose to ignore it all or to discount it by claiming all testimony was false and all physical evidence doctored though you have not one shred of proof to establish it.
If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders. If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.
Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.
1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville. Evidence of this is:
A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes
B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy.
The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help. The claim that the phone was removed because of a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense. The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t. So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.
It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed. Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered. The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load. To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine. This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement. Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage.
The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill. When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit. They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him. There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.
No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.
C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either. This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else.
i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself? It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house. Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive? Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.
ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down. Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot. So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive? He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.
iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself. If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself. The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons. Why would Nevill not grab any but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done. If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent.
iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually. It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up. The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone. So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine. It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late. If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy.
v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him. Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up? Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her. Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?
There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims. The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.
2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job. He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.
“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”
He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche. Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house? He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead. He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it. She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out. If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached. So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up. This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders. These lies were carefully calculated. His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon. There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it. Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders. But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story. Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others. He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them. He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories. He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week. He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF. He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his. Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders. It obviously was not used much. It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose.
Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen. He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders. He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds. 25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained. Instead 30 remained. Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well? It makes no sense and is not credible. This establishes the ammo box was staged.
Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?
3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received. That is more evidence he made up the call.
Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look
He called Julie instead. Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie? She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern. He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly. A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort. Why did he call her? He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them. He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF. At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him. He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill. The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony.
After speaking to her what did he do? We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police. Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes. He finally calls police and then what/ He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene. The tell him to drive and meet them there. Does he go over and spy around for a while? No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them. Why would he act this way unless he did it? Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?
Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all. Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff. None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.
The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims. This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.
4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself.
A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it. No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time. The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.
B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone. No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.
C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself
D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it. She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done. He told her more details later. Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman. She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi. If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.
Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.
What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence? You largely ignore it. People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered. That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.
We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy. Why would they do this? No rational explanation had even been set forth. We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such. We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened. We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it. We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.
Why should we assume it? Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted. No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence. No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.
No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case.
The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do. You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction.
After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
You obviously have not read my post where I explained all this to you? Or of course you have chosen to ignore my reasoned explanation?
-
You obviously have not read my post where I explained all this to you? Or of course you have chosen to ignore my reasoned explanation?
If you mean your claim that the telephone company was wrong I don't buy it I will take the expert's opinion on it.
If you mean a rational explantion for why he would call Jeremy I didn't see that. If you don't want to copy it tell me what thread and roughly what page it is on.
I have not seen anything address most of my points and he only thing to address the fact she could not have killed herself is the barebones claim that police doctored the evidence without any proof to establish such occurred. Eveyrthing I laid out lays bare that he was aware of the murders before police ever found the bodies and this combined with all the other evidence including testimonial evidence from Julie is far stronger than evidence against many other defendants who were convicted of murder.
You can say you choose not to believe the evidence all you want. That doesn't negate is existence. A juror can't simply pretend evidence doesn't exist it must be weighed impartially and doin so resulted in conviction.
You should be more concerned with why the 10 convicted him to try to see what evidence you have to try to find a way to challenge.
You might find an answer that is not favorable from the 2. The OJ Simpson jury spekaing out certianly hurt OJ more than the prosecution because it revealed their own stupidity lead to the acquittal. It looked bad for the proseuction lawyers for not explaining the sicentific evidence better but did not hit at the case it hit at the defense more by showing they got lucky. I don't know if you would like risking the same result. You could get a juror that says he believes all crazy people kill and need to be put down or that all women are crazy. It is not wise to open pandora's box when there is no need.
-
If you mean your claim that the telephone company was wrong I don't buy it I will take the expert's opinion on it.
If you mean a rational explantion for why he would call Jeremy I didn't see that. If you don't want to copy it tell me what thread and roughly what page it is on.
I have not seen anything address most of my points and he only thing to address the fact she could not have killed herself is the barebones claim that police doctored the evidence without any proof to establish such occurred. Eveyrthing I laid out lays bare that he was aware of the murders before police ever found the bodies and this combined with all the other evidence including testimonial evidence from Julie is far stronger than evidence against many other defendants who were convicted of murder.
You can say you choose not to believe the evidence all you want. That doesn't negate is existence. A juror can't simply pretend evidence doesn't exist it must be weighed impartially and doin so resulted in conviction.
You should be more concerned with why the 10 convicted him to try to see what evidence you have to try to find a way to challenge.
You might find an answer that is not favorable from the 2. The OJ Simpson jury spekaing out certianly hurt OJ more than the prosecution because it revealed their own stupidity lead to the acquittal. It looked bad for the proseuction lawyers for not explaining the sicentific evidence better but did not hit at the case it hit at the defense more by showing they got lucky. I don't know if you would like risking the same result. You could get a juror that says he believes all crazy people kill and need to be put down or that all women are crazy. It is not wise to open pandora's box when there is no need.
I am an expert on it. I can tell you exactly how the analogue phones worked and what happened when both parties hang up. I can demonstrate that if you put your finger on the button that would have the effect of making the line go dead at the other end. The receiver is then left off the hook. The other end would then hang up his phone thus clearing the line enabling the caller to make another call. But if he phones that same number the phone is off the hook thus gfiving the impression that the other party is engaged. Simples. I thought I had explained all this to you? Additionally the telephone engineer would get the impression that Jeremy would have hung up first, because stictly speaking he was in fact the one that did hang up as Ralph or someone at WHF only depressed the button momentarily. The fact that the phone was left off the hook would not mean that he hung up the phone. Because it would still have been Jeremy who did actually end the call. But in practice that was not what actually happened.
I know it's hard for you to accept and that the easy way out is to just say, "I'd rather believe the experts", whatever they are. But I can confirm as one who has experienced that actual phenomenon that what I have explained to you is in fact true. But go ahead, if you want to continue in your ignorance what is it to me? It's a free country. Although Jeremy may not agree with me at this moment? ::)
-
I am an expert on it. I can tell you exactly how the analogue phones worked and what happened when both parties hang up. I can demonstrate that if you put your finger on the button that would have the effect of making the line go dead at the other end. The receiver is then left off the hook. The other end would then hang up his phone thus clearing the line enabling the caller to make another call. But if he phones that same number the phone is off the hook thus gfiving the impression that the other party is engaged. Simples. I thought I had explained all this to you? Additionally the telephone engineer would get the impression that Jeremy would have hung up first, because stictly speaking he was in fact the one that did hang up as Ralph or someone at WHF only depressed the button momentarily. The fact that the phone was left off the hook would not mean that he hung up the phone. Because it would still have been Jeremy who did actually end the call. But in practice that was not what actually happened.
I know it's hard for you to accept and that the easy way out is to just say, "I'd rather believe the experts", whatever they are. But I can confirm as one who has experienced that actual phenomenon that what I have explained to you is in fact true. But go ahead, if you want to continue in your ignorance what is it to me? It's a free country. Although Jeremy may not agree with me at this moment? ::)
My argument though says even if true that such were possible that doesn't establish it definitely happened as opposed to Jeremy calling himself.
That is why a rational explanation of why Nevill would call is so important and trying to deal with the other evidence that Jeremy was actively trying to put the blame on Sheila.
There is a saying in law, if it doesn't make sense it didn't happen.
Some plausible explanation has to be given for why Nevill would call Jeremy to get peopel to believe it actually happened in spite of the telephone company testimony.
His knowledge of the murders sinks him because his explaantion of how he learned makes no sense. Plus other things done to frame her, other things he claimed about leaving the gun out etc do not make sense and too many bullet left in the box proving such was staged.
Even the 11 bullet sin the gun if something Sheila would not know or bother to do.
There are a lot of details that you think are not significant but peopel on the jury and the public at large looking at the case do and unless those are addressed there is no hope of convincing anyone your position has merit. To refute a position you must first understand it and I laid it out as simply as can be made with all the major points touched upon.