Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on July 03, 2014, 05:22:PM
-
'I will be the number one suspect. But they will never be able to prove it'.
Jeremy confidently said this about the caravan break in. After Julie told the police and the police asked Jeremy, Jeremy confessed. Telling the police he stole the money and stage managed the scene out of greed.
He later amazingly claimed he did it to show weak security. Why not just tell them. Rather than steal and spend the money ?
The judge repeated the above words when sentencing Jeremy.
The way Jeremy spent after the massacre, the caravan break in was never to keep him happy for long. A few lavish meals & some drugs (Julie testified Jeremy smoked dope a lot). But it had given Jeremy a taste of wealth. And he liked it.
The options after the caravan break in were not great -
Walk away - too much to lose.
Work on the farm - Jeremy wanted more.
Become a petty criminal - Jeremy wanted more and this risked a prison sentence.
However there was another option .....
The caravan break in showed Jeremy's complete comtempt for his family. Together with his other negative feelings which are well documented.
Barbara Wilson said the family knew about the caravan break in. Neville probably suspected and Jeremy admitted it, confident it would be kept private. This would have further strained relations within the family. Was it now unrepairable ?
The five month gap between the break in and massacre gave Jeremy time to fine tune his massacre plan. And summon up the courage. Finally, one night in August 1985, it was 'now or never'.
Do other people believe the caravan break in resulted in Jeremy going further in August 1985.
-
'I will the number one suspect. But they will never be able to prove it'.
Jeremy confidently said this about the caravan break in. After Julie told the police and the police asked Jeremy, Jeremy confessed. Telling the police he stole the money and stage managed the scene out of greed.
He later amazingly claimed he did it to show weak security. Why not just tell them. Rather than steal and spend the money ?
The judge repeated the above words when sentencing Jeremy.
The way Jeremy spent after the massacre, the caravan break in was never to keep him happy for long. A few lavish meals & some drugs (Julie testified Jeremy smoked dope a lot). But it had given Jeremy a taste of wealth. And he liked it.
The options after the caravan break in were not great -
Walk away - too much to lose.
Work on the farm - Jeremy wanted more.
Become a petty criminal - Jeremy wanted more and this risked a prison sentence.
However there was another option .....
The caravan break in showed Jeremy's complete comtempt for his family. Together with his other negative feelings which are well documented.
Barbara Wilson said the family knew about the caravan break in. Neville probably suspected and Jeremy admitted it, confident it would be kept private. This would have further strained relations within the family. Was it now unrepairable ?
The five month gap between the break in and massacre gave Jeremy time to fine tune his massacre plan. And summon up the courage. Finally, one night in August 1985, it was 'now or never'.
Do other people believe the caravan break in resulted in Jeremy going further in August 1985.
NO
-
That's not what you said this morning after making me breakfast in bed.
-
NO.
-
Seriously try and say something constructive.
Even Jeremy's supporters know he robbed the caravan site out of greed. But was it the final push to massacre ?
-
Sadly Lookout is 50 years too old to be making breakfast in bed for me. In the next life maybe.
-
I don´t know. I always have a problem with previous criminal conduct. I do think there is a risk that it will escalate.
It sure does not do Jeremy any good, does it? Nor Julie Mugford for that matter.
-
That's not what you said this morning after making me breakfast in bed.
Not gentleman enough to make breakfast in bed for a lady? Yeh, that figures.
-
If I am told where the Sugar Puffs are, maybe.
-
It showed a greed and a taste for money, yeah. Goes without saying really, if you steal money that isn't yours.
-
That's not what you said this morning after making me breakfast in bed.
Cheeky!!
-
I don´t know. I always have a problem with previous criminal conduct. I do think there is a risk that it will escalate.
It sure does not do Jeremy any good, does it? Nor Julie Mugford for that matter.
The fact there is no history of violence by JB at all is interesting to me. Surely a person capable of such violence in a cold blooded and calculating way would have shown signs of violence to partners etc before? There is usually a history of escalating violence rather than crime in general.
-
If I am told where the Sugar Puffs are, maybe.
My God, does mummy STILL get your breakfast? It comes to something when you don't even know where the cereal is kept.
-
Nice to see Mod April back.....and nice of her to bring the strange comments to all of Adams post back with her.
-
Sadly Lookout is 50 years too old to be making breakfast in bed for me. In the next life maybe.
Believe me,,you'd be wearing your bloody breakfast !!
-
Adam you are nothing but a two timing monkey thought I was the only one in your sleeping bag ;D ;D ;D ;D now Maggie :'(
-
Nice to see Mod April back.....and nice of her to bring the strange comments to all of Adams post back with her.
Nice to BE back, Mat. Can't WAIT to see what you're going to accuse me of next.
-
Ha Ha lookout little does Adam know plenty of good tunes played on an older fiddle notice I did not say old as I know you are not old Adam thinks anyone over 40 is old :'(
-
Adam I have to agree Jeremy and Julie robbed the caravan park purely for money as they liked lots of it I guess. Enough to murder for the jury is still out on that one.
-
Every one of those people were greedy-------------------the only exception was Pam.
-
The fact there is no history of violence by JB at all is interesting to me. Surely a person capable of such violence in a cold blooded and calculating way would have shown signs of violence to partners etc before? There is usually a history of escalating violence rather than crime in general.
I know he had never been violent, but he still crossed a line. I wonder why he did it, the loot wasn´t that great. Rehearsal to test his nerve?
I never liked this break-in, it is in the back of my mind and is one contributing factor to me being on the fence about the killings.
There is something else I read about that bothers me. I only remember it vaguely, and I don´t remember where I read it. It was about Jeremy spying on the house of a couple. He would sit in his car, as far as I recall. This is all I can remember. Can anyone help me?
-
Whether Jeremy stole purely for greed or for kicks it does suggest that his source of money from his parents had dried up,which does seem to back up Julie's claim that he resented having to refurbish the cottage out of his own money. Jeremy was living beyond his means,though of course this does not prove that he is a mass murderer.
-
The fact there is no history of violence by JB at all is interesting to me. Surely a person capable of such violence in a cold blooded and calculating way would have shown signs of violence to partners etc before? There is usually a history of escalating violence rather than crime in general.
The massacre if it went to plan was cold and clinical. Not violent. A few silent shots fired in the dark. Everyone dying quickly and painlessly.
It escalated into violence when Neville got downstairs. When that happened there was no turning back. Jeremy had to be violent in the kitchen to finish the job he had started.
-
I know he had never been violent, but he still crossed a line. I wonder why he did it, the loot wasn´t that great. Rehearsal to test his nerve?
I never liked this break-in, it is in the back of my mind and is one contributing factor to me being on the fence about the killings.
There is something else I read about that bothers me. I only remember it vaguely, and I don´t remember where I read it. It was about Jeremy spying on the house of a couple. He would sit in his car, as far as I recall. This is all I can remember. Can anyone help me?
I have never heard that before Alias but sounds a bit creepy, if it's true.
-
The massacre if it went to plan was cold and clinical. Not violent. A few silent shots fired in the dark. Everyone dying quickly and painlessly.
It escalated into violence when Neville got downstairs. When that happened there was no turning back. Jeremy had to be violent in the kitchen to finish the job he had started.
But there was overkill Adam.
-
Whether Jeremy stole purely for greed or for kicks it does suggest that his source of money from his parents had dried up,which does seem to back up Julie's claim that he resented having to refurbish the cottage out of his own money. Jeremy was living beyond his means,though of course this does not prove that he is a mass murderer.
His parents helped finance for a few jaunts abroad when Jeremy was younger.
But he now had to settle for a labourers wage working on the farm. Working long hours as well.
A million miles from the lifestyle he wanted.
-
The massacre if it went to plan was cold and clinical. Not violent. A few silent shots fired in the dark. Everyone dying quickly and painlessly.
It escalated into violence when Neville got downstairs. When that happened there was no turning back. Jeremy had to be violent in the kitchen to finish the job he had started.
There is no doubt in my mind that this was a violent crime, Adam. Whoever carried it out and whatever manner it was conducted, it was definitely horrendously violent.
-
Whether Jeremy stole purely for greed or for kicks it does suggest that his source of money from his parents had dried up,which does seem to back up Julie's claim that he resented having to refurbish the cottage out of his own money. Jeremy was living beyond his means,though of course this does not prove that he is a mass murderer.
Steve, he was earning £200 a week, a phenomenal sum in the 1980's. MUCH more, I imagine, than farm labourers. He had his own house, a car and probably numerous other perks. He also had £2000 in his account when he was arrested so how COULD he have been living beyond his means............though of course, this doesn't prove that he ISN'T a mass murderer.
-
But there was overkill Adam.
Jeremy underestimated the rifle power.
It took more than 11 bullets to kill five people. When he realised this, yes he did fire more than was needed. To make it look like a crazy Sheila was uncontrollable.
-
Steve, he was earning £200 a week, a phenomenal sum in the 1980's. MUCH more, I imagine, than farm labourers. He had his own house, a car and probably numerous other perks. He also had £2000 in his account when he was arrested so how COULD he have been living beyond his means............though of course, this doesn't prove that he ISN'T a mass murderer.
He was also making money from cannabis sales,but he had expensive tastes in gastronomy and would book smart London hotels for himself and Julie and shower her with gifts. Claire Powell touches upon this in her book.
-
Steve, he was earning £200 a week, a phenomenal sum in the 1980's. MUCH more, I imagine, than farm labourers. He had his own house, a car and probably numerous other perks. He also had £2000 in his account when he was arrested so how COULD he have been living beyond his means............though of course, this doesn't prove that he ISN'T a mass murderer.
He was fairly well off, no doubt about it. + His future was secured in every way thinkable. If he did this, I don´t think the primary reason was greed. To me the killings seem "personal", very violent and overkill, very messy (except in the case of Sheila); not the cool, calculated murders some guilters make them out to be.
-
His parents helped finance for a few jaunts abroad when Jeremy was younger.
But he now had to settle for a labourers wage working on the farm. Working long hours as well.
A million miles from the lifestyle he wanted.
Jeremy saved up and paid for most of his 'jaunts' abroad. I don't understand what was wrong with him travelling abroad and seeing other countries before he settled down. Many, many late teens/early 20s go abroad either to the third world to work on projects or to Australia and New Zealand so it wasn't that unusual, especially with his public school background and education.
Don't think he was really on a labourers wage. Farm labourers were very badly paid but Jeremy with his free house and car as well as his wages was very comfortable at 24. I cannot believe the risk of killing all those people and not getting caught was worth it just to get a half a million quid a few years earlier than if he waited for Granny Speakman to die..... doesn't ring true to me.
-
I know he had never been violent, but he still crossed a line. I wonder why he did it, the loot wasn´t that great. Rehearsal to test his nerve?
I never liked this break-in, it is in the back of my mind and is one contributing factor to me being on the fence about the killings.
There is something else I read about that bothers me. I only remember it vaguely, and I don´t remember where I read it. It was about Jeremy spying on the house of a couple. He would sit in his car, as far as I recall. This is all I can remember. Can anyone help me?
1000 pounds is a nice haul if you know you won't get caught. If you take Julie's claims at face value he got a thrill from doing illegal things and loved to spite his family so it was the thrill as well as the money.
I don't see it as a test run, I see it more as demonstrating his greed and immaturity that he still got off on petty crime that most people grow out of by the time they turn 21 and enjoyed spiting his family.
If this tale had been a literary work instead of real life the burglary this would be viewed as foreshadowing.
I never heard the peeper claims it sounds made up. Peepers tend more towards sexual crimes but if true would not be a good sign.
-
He was also making money from cannabis sales,but he had expensive tastes in gastronomy and would book smart London hotels for himself and Julie and shower her with gifts. Claire Powell touches upon this in her book.
A vast amount of money to spend and still be in credit. Even more amazing is that he'd taken holidays, presumably paying for Julie AND he'd given her £400 pounds for a holiday to Malta, which in those days would certainly have bought her accommodation in a 5* hotel. There doesn't seem to have been any evidence of him borrowing from anywhere or much would have been made of it.
-
When did his gran die ?
Wikipedia says Jeremy filed a lawsuit in 2003.
-
He was fairly well off, no doubt about it. + His future was secured in every way thinkable. If he did this, I don´t think the primary reason was greed. To me the killings seem "personal", very violent and overkill, very messy (except in the case of Sheila); not the cool, calculated murders some guilters make them out to be.
But in some ways that's worse Alias if he's stealing for kicks why not kill for kicks as well. He told Julie how Nevill "put up a good fight for his age",suggesting that the whole thing was part entertainment for him.
-
1000 pounds is a nice haul if you know you won't get caught. If you take Julie's claims at face value he got a thrill from doing illegal things and loved to spite his family so it was the thrill as well as the money.
I don't see it as a test run, I see it more as demonstrating his greed and immaturity that he still got off on petty crime that most people grow out of by the time they turn 21 and enjoyed spiting his family.
If this tale had been a literary work instead of real life the burglary this would be viewed as foreshadowing.
I never heard the peeper claims it sounds made up. Peepers tend more towards sexual crimes but if true would not be a good sign.
As far as I remember, he wasn´t spying for some "peeping Tom" reason; he was contemplating breaking into their house.
Maybe I have been dreaming this! I THINK it was in some of Julie Mugford´s utterings.
-
As far as I remember, he wasn´t spying for some "peeping Tom" reason; he was contemplating breaking into their house.
Maybe I have been dreaming this! I THINK it was in some of Julie Mugford´s utterings.
Never read it.
-
Jeremy saved up and paid for most of his 'jaunts' abroad. I don't understand what was wrong with him travelling abroad and seeing other countries before he settled down. Many, many late teens/early 20s go abroad either to the third world to work on projects or to Australia and New Zealand so it wasn't that unusual, especially with his public school background and education.
Don't think he was really on a labourers wage. Farm labourers were very badly paid but Jeremy with his free house and car as well as his wages was very comfortable at 24. I cannot believe the risk of killing all those people and not getting caught was worth it just to get a half a million quid a few years earlier than if he waited for Granny Speakman to die..... doesn't ring true to me.
These public school types rarely have a sense of the value of money and I suspect the same in Jeremy's case. For them it's just a means to an end-enjoyment-not understanding how hard-earned it is by most ordinary folk.
-
But in some ways that's worse Alias if he's stealing for kicks why not kill for kicks as well. He told Julie how Nevill "put up a good fight for his age",suggesting that the whole thing was part entertainment for him.
I don´t know, Steve. I think we would have heard more about such behaviour if he had it in him to do this for a "kick". He would be stark raving mad, in my opinion, and would have had many violent episodes throughout his life. He hasn´t.
-
Jeremy saved up and paid for most of his 'jaunts' abroad. I don't understand what was wrong with him travelling abroad and seeing other countries before he settled down. Many, many late teens/early 20s go abroad either to the third world to work on projects or to Australia and New Zealand so it wasn't that unusual, especially with his public school background and education.
Don't think he was really on a labourers wage. Farm labourers were very badly paid but Jeremy with his free house and car as well as his wages was very comfortable at 24. I cannot believe the risk of killing all those people and not getting caught was worth it just to get a half a million quid a few years earlier than if he waited for Granny Speakman to die..... doesn't ring true to me.
True he was getting well paid for the work he was doing but he was not satisfied with his wages and wanted more. He was very jealous that his sister didn't have to work and was provide a place in london. He was exactly thrilled that his mother offered to pay for Julie to stay elsewhere. Obviously part of that annoyance is she would no longer be in his bed but he also was not happy that Julie would have been provided a free place.
For someone like him who feels he was being slightled to kill everyone so he would not have to work anymore and can enjoy the money right away and would get the entire fortune instead of having to share it with his sister or her kids is something that indeed happens.
So the notion it is implausible is not correct. Worse there is some evidence that suggests he was concerned about wills being changed.
If it is a matter of whether it is more plausible he did it or more plausible the grand conspiracy alleged to have occurred then hands down much more believable he did it.
The only thing more incredible than the conspiracy claims themselves is the notion that this conspiracy could occur without any evidence left behind to prove it happened.
All the supposed evidence that demonstrated a conspiracy occurred has turned out to be lies and gross distortions.
-
He was fairly well off, no doubt about it. + His future was secured in every way thinkable. If he did this, I don´t think the primary reason was greed. To me the killings seem "personal", very violent and overkill, very messy (except in the case of Sheila); not the cool, calculated murders some guilters make them out to be.
Money was the main motivator. The judge said it would total a lot more than £436,000. Which is well over a million pounds.
But there were lots other reasons. My recent thread shows this.
The caravan break in highlighted he was not afraid to upset his parents.
-
But in some ways that's worse Alias if he's stealing for kicks why not kill for kicks as well. He told Julie how Nevill "put up a good fight for his age",suggesting that the whole thing was part entertainment for him.
Hi Steve, anyone who carried out those murders unless mentally ill must be extremely wicked, whether they did it for money or for kicks or for a bit of both imo
-
A vast amount of money to spend and still be in credit. Even more amazing is that he'd taken holidays, presumably paying for Julie AND he'd given her £400 pounds for a holiday to Malta, which in those days would certainly have bought her accommodation in a 5* hotel. There doesn't seem to have been any evidence of him borrowing from anywhere or much would have been made of it.
Didn't he get some money from Nevill's wallet? I don't believe he funded the trips abroad for himself either-more likely wangled a loan out of Nevill which everyone knew he would never be able to repay.
-
I doubt Jeremy enjoyed the 14 hour days. He would have no time or energy to act the suave playboy.
If the 14 hour days were during a long period over the year, that would have been a factor.
-
When did his gran die ?
Wikipedia says Jeremy filed a lawsuit in 2003.
The old dear died in 1986,I think,so Jeremy would possibly have known that her days were numbered anyway,so why would he go on to kill for the sake of less than a years wait ??
-
True he was getting well paid for the work he was doing but he was not satisfied with his wages and wanted more. He was very jealous that his sister didn't have to work and was provide a place in london. He was exactly thrilled that his mother offered to pay for Julie to stay elsewhere. Obviously part of that annoyance is she would no longer be in his bed but he also was not happy that Julie would have been provided a free place.
For someone like him who feels he was being slightled to kill everyone so he would not have to work anymore and can enjoy the money right away and would get the entire fortune instead of having to share it with his sister or her kids is something that indeed happens.
So the notion it is implausible is not correct. Worse there is some evidence that suggests he was concerned about wills being changed.
If it is a matter of whether it is more plausible he did it or more plausible the grand conspiracy alleged to have occurred then hands down much more believable he did it.
The only thing more incredible than the conspiracy claims themselves is the notion that this conspiracy could occur without any evidence left behind to prove it happened.
All the supposed evidence that demonstrated a conspiracy occurred has turned out to be lies and gross distortions.
And majority of your post is assumptions. How do you know how JB felt about Sheila having a free place and as for claiming he was jealous of Julie Mugford having a free place to live that is just rubbish. There is no proof for your claims in this post. They are your assumptions, none of it is fact.
-
I know he had never been violent, but he still crossed a line. I wonder why he did it, the loot wasn´t that great. Rehearsal to test his nerve?
I never liked this break-in, it is in the back of my mind and is one contributing factor to me being on the fence about the killings.
There is something else I read about that bothers me. I only remember it vaguely, and I don´t remember where I read it. It was about Jeremy spying on the house of a couple. He would sit in his car, as far as I recall. This is all I can remember. Can anyone help me?
Never heard that before but IF true, that would be very worrying!!
-
Didn't he get some money from Nevill's wallet? I don't believe he funded the trips abroad for himself either-more likely wangled a loan out of Nevill which everyone knew he would never be able to repay.
I believe he saved up for his trips steve, now you are making assumptions.
-
And majority of your post is assumptions. How do you know how JB felt about Sheila having a free place and as for claiming he was jealous of Julie Mugford having a free place to live that is just rubbish. There is no proof for your claims in this post. They are your assumptions, none of it is fact.
Maggie that information comes from one of the books. In any case it is just hearsay.
-
I believe he saved up for his trips steve, now you are making assumptions.
We've heard already about the money in the wallet haven't we? He complained because it went missing and it turned out that Ann Eaton took it for safe keeping. He apparently knew how much was in it as well. Whether he took some of it is I suspect just guesswork?
-
Maggie that information comes from one of the books. In any case it is just hearsay.
Yes, gossip and hearsay. None of it is based on fact.
-
Never heard that before but IF true, that would be very worrying!!
I hope I didn´t just dream this! :-\ If no one remembers seeing this, I probably did! I have very vivid dreams.....
I have this feeling the couple knew Freddie Emami - or were of foreign descent somehow.
-
He was fairly well off, no doubt about it. + His future was secured in every way thinkable. If he did this, I don´t think the primary reason was greed. To me the killings seem "personal", very violent and overkill, very messy (except in the case of Sheila); not the cool, calculated murders some guilters make them out to be.
Greed is part of the overall equation of it being personal.
He was mad he was forced to work instead of just being handed everything like he perceived was handed to Sheila and he considered her flat much better than the place he was given to live. He felt slighted by this any anything given to others that he felt should have been given to him. This is part of what made him fell angry towards them
Whether there was really overkill or not is hard to say. If he had killed his parents with a single shot each would he have bothered pouring so many into them? Would Nevill have been beaten if he had not needed to knock him out to be able to safely reload? The twins offer the only clue but how reliable is it? After his experiences with the parents one coudl see why he would want to pump several bullets ino them to make sure. He hadn't exactly proved to be capable of killing with 1 shot. For all we know they died last after he even failed to kill Sheila with 1 shot when he killed them. So pumping several rounds into their head could have been simply to make sure not from rage. It could also have been his effort to make it look like Sheila did it. Maybe he felt to make it look like she did it he needed ot make sure they had multiple rounds each.
Could it have been rage? Sure not only would his adrenaline have been pumping after the previous kills but he was very likely jealous of how much time Nevill was spending with them. Nevill was reportedly taking care of them all day. Jeremy was not happy at being dumped in a prep school and probably felt slighted by the attention they were being given. So he did have a reason of sorts that could have caused him to shoot them so many times.
It is just hard to know though if he was being motivated more by the planning of trying to frame his sister, being scared they would not die or emotions at that point. If it was these 3 combined how can you really pick which was the most significant? Would it even matter if one was more significant than the rest anyway?
If it was just a personal problem with the parents he probably would have acted earlier and against them only. The fact he waited until his his sister and nephews were there so they coudl be killed as well seems to demonstrate to me the main motivation was greed. Of course you have to have some emotional problems to be able to kill your parents for money so that certainly factored in.
-
Didn't he get some money from Nevill's wallet? I don't believe he funded the trips abroad for himself either-more likely wangled a loan out of Nevill which everyone knew he would never be able to repay.
I doubt that Nevill would have carried enormous amounts around with him and I'm not sure who would have known that there was money there to verify that Jeremy had taken it. I agree that he was unlikely to have paid for the whole trip -he wouldn't have had the time to earn enough- but I believe he did casual work to help fund it. I've never known parents at the Bamber level who've EXPECTED their children to fund these trips UNLESS said "child" is very wealthy in their own right.
-
And majority of your post is assumptions. How do you know how JB felt about Sheila having a free place and as for claiming he was jealous of Julie Mugford having a free place to live that is just rubbish. There is no proof for your claims in this post. They are your assumptions, none of it is fact.
His complaints to Julie about Sheila haveing a free place ot stay whil ehe had to work in the fields for a lesser place to stay for starters...
Oh I forgot you don;t read anything that is negative about Jeremy and have a very poor grasp of the facts of this case, soorry I thoguht for a minute that after studying it for years you would be aware of basic things.
-
I believe he saved up for his trips steve, now you are making assumptions.
He borrowed somethign on the order of 1000 pounds to fund one of his trips. That was one of the issues- that by killing them he didn't have to pay it back.
-
Not sure how Jeremy could afford his long jaunts abroad.
He left private education penniless & with poor qualifications.
He would have had to have saved a lot of money quickly working at Little Chef & Sloppy Joe's. That is if his jaunts abroad were after those jobs.
-
Adam he probably made money out of growing wacky backy :'(
-
I always thought he started working away from the farm after his jaunts abroad. In that case his parents certainly paid for it.
It seems Jeremy returned to the farm after realising the grass is not greener. But did not like working on the farm either.
But there was another option....
-
Not sure how Jeremy could afford his long jaunts abroad.
He left private education penniless & with poor qualifications.
He would have had to have saved a lot of money quickly working at Little Chef & Sloppy Joe's. That is if his jaunts abroad were after those jobs.
I very much doubt that he was expected to fund trips to the Antipodes having only recently left education and I don't know of similar families who would expect it. These trips are the equivalent of the Victorian Grand Tour and are family funded.
-
His complaints to Julie about Sheila haveing a free place ot stay whil ehe had to work in the fields for a lesser place to stay for starters...
Oh I forgot you don;t read anything that is negative about Jeremy and have a very poor grasp of the facts of this case, soorry I thoguht for a minute that after studying it for years you would be aware of basic things.
Well it might be useful to know who it was who actually said that about Bamber?
-
Maggie bit drastic I would say murdering your entire family for £1000 :'( Ralph would have just written the debt off as they spoiled him and loved him.
-
I always thought he started working away from the farm after his jaunts abroad. In that case his parents certainly paid for it.
It seems Jeremy returned to the farm after realising the grass is not greener. But did not like working on the farm either.
But there was another option....
I think it is very common for parents to pay for their kids. I'm always baling my kids out of trouble. Probably explaines why I don't have much money these days? ::)
-
I very much doubt that he was expected to fund trips to the Antipodes having only recently left education and I don't know of similar families who would expect it. These trips are the equivalent of the Victorian Grand Tour and are family funded.
Jeremy was able to fund his own trips abroad in 1985.
-
It seems Jeremy did not spend a lot of his 24 years with his parents.
Being sent off to boarding school at a young age. Something he never forgave June for according to Mary Mugford.
He then spent a long time abroad. Funded by his parents. Then got low paid jobs outside the farm. Reluctantly returning to the farm after realising it was his best option.
-
I very much doubt that he was expected to fund trips to the Antipodes having only recently left education and I don't know of similar families who would expect it. These trips are the equivalent of the Victorian Grand Tour and are family funded.
Jeremy argued his corner successfully that he should gain parity with Sheila,whose photograph portfolio had been paid for by June along with her modelling course. When Sheila turned into a Lucie Clayton failure this took some of the pressure off Jeremy and he enjoyed a trouble-free few months lounging on the Auckland beaches,where he caught the eye of homosexual Brett Collins,who was running a sandwich bar there. The two became petty criminals and pilfered two Cartier watches from a jewellery store,one of which Jeremy gave to Suzette Ford upon his return to England. The precise reason for their departure from New Zealand is unknown,except that it was hasty and was rumoured to be in connection with a death at a city nightclub. They moved on to Sydney and became beach bums until the money ran out and June sent her son a one way ticket home,where the storm clouds were gathering as Jeremy realized he was shackled to a lifestyle he could never effectuate and ambitions planned for him he would never fulfil.
-
Yes I also read that June had to send Jeremy some emergency money so he could leave the country quickly.
-
Not sure how Jeremy could afford his long jaunts abroad.
He left private education penniless & with poor qualifications.
He would have had to have saved a lot of money quickly working at Little Chef & Sloppy Joe's. That is if his jaunts abroad were after those jobs.
I am pretty sure he saved up money and worked on a sugar cane farm when over in Australia as well on his first trip. How do you know he was penniless when he left private education? He then went to 6th form college before going to Australia.
-
I think it is very common for parents to pay for their kids. I'm always baling my kids out of trouble. Probably explaines why I don't have much money these days? ::)
Costs us a fortune Grahame, there's always something. :)
-
Jeremy argued his corner successfully that he should gain parity with Sheila,whose photograph portfolio had been paid for by June along with her modelling course. When Sheila turned into a Lucie Clayton failure this took some of the pressure off Jeremy and he enjoyed a trouble-free few months lounging on the Auckland beaches,where he caught the eye of homosexual Brett Collins,who was running a sandwich bar there. The two became petty criminals and pilfered two Cartier watches from a jewellery store,one of which Jeremy gave to Suzette Ford upon his return to England. The precise reason for their departure from New Zealand is unknown,except that it was hasty and was rumoured to be in connection with a death at a city nightclub. They moved on to Sydney and became beach bums until the money ran out and June sent her son a one way ticket home,where the storm clouds were gathering as Jeremy realized he was shackled to a lifestyle he could never effectuate and ambitions planned for him he would never fulfil.
I'm sure you know about the stop-overs en route to the Antipodes where one can get fake ANYTHINGS. That includes Cartier watches. As you say, the precise reason for Jeremy's return is unknown.
-
I am pretty sure he saved up money and worked on a sugar cane farm when over in Australia as well on his first trip. How do you know he was penniless when he left private education? He then went to 6th form college before going to Australia.
Was he working while at school ? That would explain his poor qualifications. Of he was just lazy. Or not academic. Or both ?
Again he would not have saved up much.
-
Greed is part of the overall equation of it being personal.
He was mad he was forced to work instead of just being handed everything like he perceived was handed to Sheila and he considered her flat much better than the place he was given to live. He felt slighted by this any anything given to others that he felt should have been given to him. This is part of what made him fell angry towards them
Whether there was really overkill or not is hard to say. If he had killed his parents with a single shot each would he have bothered pouring so many into them? Would Nevill have been beaten if he had not needed to knock him out to be able to safely reload? The twins offer the only clue but how reliable is it? After his experiences with the parents one coudl see why he would want to pump several bullets ino them to make sure. He hadn't exactly proved to be capable of killing with 1 shot. For all we know they died last after he even failed to kill Sheila with 1 shot when he killed them. So pumping several rounds into their head could have been simply to make sure not from rage. It could also have been his effort to make it look like Sheila did it. Maybe he felt to make it look like she did it he needed ot make sure they had multiple rounds each.
Could it have been rage? Sure not only would his adrenaline have been pumping after the previous kills but he was very likely jealous of how much time Nevill was spending with them. Nevill was reportedly taking care of them all day. Jeremy was not happy at being dumped in a prep school and probably felt slighted by the attention they were being given. So he did have a reason of sorts that could have caused him to shoot them so many times.
It is just hard to know though if he was being motivated more by the planning of trying to frame his sister, being scared they would not die or emotions at that point. If it was these 3 combined how can you really pick which was the most significant? Would it even matter if one was more significant than the rest anyway?
If it was just a personal problem with the parents he probably would have acted earlier and against them only. The fact he waited until his his sister and nephews were there so they coudl be killed as well seems to demonstrate to me the main motivation was greed. Of course you have to have some emotional problems to be able to kill your parents for money so that certainly factored in.
Some emotional problems!!!!! You have to be a total psychopathic, narcissistic monster to do what you claim he did. Trouble is he has never shown any signs of these disorders in any other situation. :-\
-
Grahame some kids refer to their Dad as "wallet" ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I very much doubt that he was expected to fund trips to the Antipodes having only recently left education and I don't know of similar families who would expect it. These trips are the equivalent of the Victorian Grand Tour and are family funded.
Think Lomax states that Jeremy did fund most of his trips himself, April on his return trip from Australia he stayed for a short time in Bali and Hong Kong, June insisted on paying for his ticket back from Australia and on the second trip Nevill did pay for his final flight home after his second trip when he spent time in New Zealand, Australia and the Middle East.
-
Think Lomax states that Jeremy did fund most of his trips himself, April on his return trip from Australia he stayed for a short time in Bali and Hong Kong, June insisted on paying for his ticket back from Australia and on the second trip Nevill did pay for his final flight home after his second trip when he spent time in New Zealand, Australia and the Middle East.
Aha!!! So THAT'S where those Cartier's came from. Even the fella's are fakes in those places ;D ;D ;D
-
How could he afford these long and winding trips to various countries ?
-
How could he afford these long and winding trips to various countries ?
Awwww :'( Wouldn't the bank of Mum and Dad fund you?
-
Jeremy argued his corner successfully that he should gain parity with Sheila,whose photograph portfolio had been paid for by June along with her modelling course. When Sheila turned into a Lucie Clayton failure this took some of the pressure off Jeremy and he enjoyed a trouble-free few months lounging on the Auckland beaches,where he caught the eye of homosexual Brett Collins,who was running a sandwich bar there. The two became petty criminals and pilfered two Cartier watches from a jewellery store,one of which Jeremy gave to Suzette Ford upon his return to England. The precise reason for their departure from New Zealand is unknown,except that it was hasty and was rumoured to be in connection with a death at a city nightclub. They moved on to Sydney and became beach bums until the money ran out and June sent her son a one way ticket home,where the storm clouds were gathering as Jeremy realized he was shackled to a lifestyle he could never effectuate and ambitions planned for him he would never fulfil.
Where did you read all that Steve? I have read something very different however, we can never know for sure which if either is closest to the truth as it is all hearsay, certainly not proven fact.
-
Adam I have told you once he sold wacky backy good money in that thinking of trying it myself as a little side line. He grew the stuff and Julie brought some in from other Countries naughty Julie.
-
The parents funding these long trips abroad was a mistake.
Jeremy became resentful when the money stopped. Trying to go it alone away from WHF, before reluctantly returning.
But the money didn't stop for Sheila.
-
I'm sure you know about the stop-overs en route to the Antipodes where one can get fake ANYTHINGS. That includes Cartier watches. As you say, the precise reason for Jeremy's return is unknown.
Once again Jeremy's trip was to be ill-fated as he failed his scuba-diving course,realizing finally the import of June's clumsiness when she had dropped him on the head as a baby. How many twists and turns are there in a story which could very well have ended differently,yet another opportunity for Jeremy to pursue his dreams without the confines of White House Farm had been dashed. Had Jeremy let slip to Nevill's New Zealand cousin Chris his real sentiments towards his parents when he dismissed them both as lily-livered and inconsistent in disciplinary matters,as June once again fell ill in the Autumn of 1983 and had to be hospitalized as her religion turned into a mania in an attempt to protect herself from her ever-disrespectful children? Nevill himself turned tearfully to neighbour John Seward and would confide occasionally in farm secretary Barbara Wilson on the subject,but both Sheila and Jeremy were spiralling out of control and it was Jeremy who exploited the vacuum left by June's absence to gain ever more status on the Farm when in reality he had done very little to earn it.
-
Hello steve uk source please on the watches.
-
Was he working while at school ? That would explain his poor qualifications. Of he was just lazy. Or not academic. Or both ?
Again he would not have saved up much.
You haven't got a clue how much money he may have had and where he may have got it from. You are spreading your own assumptions again.
-
How could he afford these long and winding trips to various countries ?
He saved up I suppose, he worked when he was over there, you must have missed out Adam, loads of kids do this kind of thing. ;D
-
You haven't got a clue how much money he may have had and where he may have got it from. You are spreading your own assumptions again.
So what ? I am giving my opinion.
Which is his parents funded his long, winding and expensive trips abroad. Straight after he left education.
-
Some emotional problems!!!!! You have to be a total psychopathic, narcissistic monster to do what you claim he did. Trouble is he has never shown any signs of these disorders in any other situation. :-\
1) people are good at hiding things though we know he was narcissistic enough to steal from his family.
2) the exact level of deparvity necessary is hard to calculate since it varies so much case to case/ is hard to quatify.
we don't know what other things he might have done that we are unaware of. Maybe he did have a personality he wasn't popular in school and didn't seem to have many friends.
Julie said he was constantly moaning about his hard work on the far and jealous anytime the fmaily spent money on others including his own sister who he was jealous of because she got a free ride while he had to work. He was jealous that his sister with mental problems who could not even be taught how to drive got a free place to live without having to work. He should have been thanking his lucky stars he was not like her. I don't get jealous if my parents help a sibling or even nieces and nephews out when they need it. He clearly had issues and some might have stemmed from being adopted, some from being dumped in a boarding school but there was more to it than that to be jealous of them supporting a sister with problems that prevented her from leading a normal life. That kind of jealousy is not normal at all. In fact it reminds me of the same kind of jealousy killer Ronald DeFeo Jr had where he felt his father should have given him the same amount of money to use for partying that he had spend on younger brother Marc's medical treatment (he had a broken leg from playing football).
-
Adam I have told you once he sold wacky backy good money in that thinking of trying it myself as a little side line. He grew the stuff and Julie brought some in from other Countries naughty Julie.
So Jeremy was the Scarface of Sloppy Joe's. Or was it Little Chef ?
-
Adam don't tell me you did not have a paper round before and after school :'(
-
So what ? I am giving my opinion.
Which is his parents funded his long, winding and expensive trips abroad. Straight after he left education.
Your opinion proves nothing. It is said that he funded most of the trips but even if June and Nevill did fund the trip, so what? I presume they funded them because they were happy to or are you trying to infer he MADE them pay for his trips? They could certainly afford to give him money and I am a little confused ...... a moment ago you were arguing that Jeremy was angry and bitter and full of hatred becausse Sheila was getting all the freebies, now you are telling us that Jeremy got free 'jaunts' abroad. Make your mind up.
-
Adam those are not the places he made his money he just worked there for free meals :'(
-
Why do people hate Jeremy so much even in this day and age? It have been twenty nine years since the murders. I can understand if Colin hated Jeremy - but he seems quite forgiving very soon after the murders and tries to "understand" Jeremy (which I in turn DON´T understand, but that is another story).
But why such passionate hate from people who don´t even know him?
Even if Jeremy did commit the murders, I think it is time he got out now, he served a longer sentence than most already.
He was dealt a lousy hand in life with biological parents who did not want him and sent to a household where the mother had already been to hospital suffering from mental illness. No child would be adopted into such a family today!
Sheila ended up a paranoid shizophrenic, Jeremy a mass murderer (if you believe he is guilty) - surely there must have been sever dysfunction within that household!
-
At first Neville & June spent an equal amount of money on Jeremy & Sheila.
Both being sent to boarding school. Sheila being supported & Jeremy spending a long time abroad in several different countries. Paid for by his parents.
But then the money suddenly stopped for Jeremy. But not for Sheila.
-
Adam only give your opinion when we ask for it please ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Once again Jeremy's trip was to be ill-fated as he failed his scuba-diving course,realizing finally the import of June's clumsiness when she had dropped him on the head as a baby. How many twists and turns are there in a story which could very well have ended differently,yet another opportunity for Jeremy to pursue his dreams without the confines of White House Farm had been dashed. Had Jeremy let slip to Nevill's New Zealand cousin Chris his real sentiments towards his parents when he dismissed them both as lily-livered and inconsistent in disciplinary matters,as June once again fell ill in the Autumn of 1983 and had to be hospitalized as her religion turned into a mania in an attempt to protect herself from her ever-disrespectful children? Nevill himself turned tearfully to neighbour John Seward and would confide occasionally in farm secretary Barbara Wilson on the subject,but both Sheila and Jeremy were spiralling out of control and it was Jeremy who exploited the vacuum left by June's absence to gain ever more status on the Farm when in reality he had done very little to earn it.
Steve, can you be saying that every child is disrespectful who refuses to conform to what their parents demand of them? I cannot imagine for a moment that Sheila can be said to have conformed. I feel certain that June would have preferred that she'd settled into a secretarial/PA position or worked in her own antiques shop before making a suitable marriage. Of the two, at least Jeremy made an effort, even if it was a half hearted one.
-
Adam those are not the places he made his money he just worked there for free meals :'(
I would prefer free meals at Strada.
-
Where did you read all that Steve? I have read something very different however, we can never know for sure which if either is closest to the truth as it is all hearsay, certainly not proven fact.
If you have read something different then do spill the beans,otherwise this is my interpretation of collating facts from the various books on the case.
-
1) people are good at hiding things though we know he was narcissistic enough to steal from his family.
2) the exact level of deparvity necessary is hard to calculate since it varies so much case to case/ is hard to quatify.
we don't know what other things he might have done that we are unaware of. Maybe he did have a personality he wasn't popular in school and didn't seem to have many friends.
Julie said he was constantly moaning about his hard work on the far and jealous anytime the fmaily spent money on others including his own sister who he was jealous of because she got a free ride while he had to work. He was jealous that his sister with mental problems who could not even be taught how to drive got a free place to live without having to work. He should have been thanking his lucky stars he was not like her. I don't get jealous if my parents help a sibling or even nieces and nephews out when they need it. He clearly had issues and some might have stemmed from being adopted, some from being dumped in a boarding school but there was more to it than that to be jealous of them supporting a sister with problems that prevented her from leading a normal life. That kind of jealousy is not normal at all. In fact it reminds me of the same kind of jealousy killer Ronald DeFeo Jr had where he felt his father should have given him the same amount of money to use for partying that he had spend on younger brother Marc's medical treatment (he had a broken leg from playing football).
Hi scipio, do you know Jeremy Bamber? If you don't how are you so clued up about his personality and how jealous he was etc.? This is all made up, second hand hearsay. Jeremy Bamber DID have friends and still has some of them now all these years later.
-
So what ? I am giving my opinion.
Which is his parents funded his long, winding and expensive trips abroad. Straight after he left education.
SO WHAT, Adam. It MAY sound strange to you. You MAY indeed be resentful of it, but believe me, the Bambers did no differently than any other parent of their social standing.
-
Adam only give your opinion when we ask for it please ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam offer your services then ;D
-
Why do people hate Jeremy so much even in this day and age? It have been twenty nine years since the murders. I can understand if Colin hated Jeremy - but he seems quite forgiving very soon after the murders and tries to "understand" Jeremy (which I in turn DON´T understand, but that is another story).
But why such passionate hate from people who don´t even know him?
Even if Jeremy did commit the murders, I think it is time he got out now, he served a longer sentence than most already.
He was dealt a lousy hand in life with biological parents who did not want him and sent to a household where the mother had already been to hospital suffering from mental illness. No child would be adopted into such a family today!
Sheila ended up a paranoid shizophrenic, Jeremy a mass murderer (if you believe he is guilty) - surely there must have been sever dysfunction within that household!
But he won't admit guilt Alias. In addition Colin doesn't ever want him released,and his opinion must surely be respectfully acknowledged. Is there a risk Jeremy might seek revenge on Julie or Ann Eaton's children? This is why if Jeremy is to be removed to more pleasant quarters they must be in a secure environment in an out of the way place on a remote Scottish isle..
-
At first Neville & June spent an equal amount of money on Jeremy & Sheila.
Both being sent to boarding school. Sheila being supported & Jeremy spending a long time abroad in several different countries. Paid for by his parents.
But then the money suddenly stopped for Jeremy. But not for Sheila.
When was this? What are you referring to? Jeremy had a free house and car for starters, as well as a well paid job and a guaranteed career.
-
Your opinion proves nothing. It is said that he funded most of the trips but even if June and Nevill did fund the trip, so what? I presume they funded them because they were happy to or are you trying to infer he MADE them pay for his trips? They could certainly afford to give him money and I am a little confused ...... a moment ago you were arguing that Jeremy was angry and bitter and full of hatred becausse Sheila was getting all the freebies, now you are telling us that Jeremy got free 'jaunts' abroad. Make your mind up.
Use you're brain and read my other posts on this thread.
It is certain that Jeremy's long and winding trips to lots of far away and expensive countries were paid for by his parents. Jeremy obviously persuaded his parents to fund this.
But then the funding stopped. But Sheila was living rent free in London.
Jeremy had a tantrum and tried to go it alone. Working in low paid jobs. Reluctantly returning to WHF.
-
Steve, can you be saying that every child is disrespectful who refuses to conform to what their parents demand of them? I cannot imagine for a moment that Sheila can be said to have conformed. I feel certain that June would have preferred that she'd settled into a secretarial/PA position or worked in her own antiques shop before making a suitable marriage. Of the two, at least Jeremy made an effort, even if it was a half hearted one.
That's true,but Sheila was ill. Jeremy dared not rock the boat for his own selfish purposes with an eye to a future inheritance. Nevill and June were partly at fault for not suggesting a career outside the Farm for their son,at an age when they could well have sold up and retired.
-
Hi scipio, do you know Jeremy Bamber? If you don't how are you so clued up about his personality and how jealous he was etc.? This is all made up, second hand hearsay. Jeremy Bamber DID have friends and still has some of them now all these years later.
I know him no better than you do but whereas you have decided to consisder anything negative a lie and refuse to believe it I consider Julie's claims to be credible and have found no evidence to suggest she lied.
She was with him before and after the murders and with him during his burglary and would be the most knowledgable position as opposed to people you prefer to listen to people who would not have known him as well and who he would not have confided in.
You have no evidence to prove Julie or the family have lied about anything. Instead of saying you believe it is lies though you have no proof you consistently state it is a fact they lied.
I will accept they lied when someone proves it not because someone wants to believe Jeremy is innocent so it is necessary to believe they lied.
-
When was this? What are you referring to? Jeremy had a free house and car for starters, as well as a well paid job and a guaranteed career.
But was it a kit car porsche. Or a nice big house ?
He was on a small wage. Working 14 hour days. Or was it 17 hours as Lookout said ?
-
Where did you read all that Steve? I have read something very different however, we can never know for sure which if either is closest to the truth as it is all hearsay, certainly not proven fact.
Hi Steve
I have posted already that Lomax states that Jeremy paid for his plane fare home but June insisted on reimbursing him. Now I am sure you will say that Scott Lomax is biased and I don't know where he got this information from, it may have come from JB therefore it may or may not be true but where did your info come from? ..... Claire Powell's book? Where did she get her info from? How can we be certain that is true either so maybe neither of us should post it as a truth just as a quote from someone else's book? Both scenarios are possibilities and no more. ;D
-
Use you're brain and read my other posts on this thread.
It is certain that Jeremy's long and winding trips to lots of far away and expensive countries were paid for by his parents. Jeremy obviously persuaded his parents to fund this.
But then the funding stopped. But Sheila was living rent free in London.
Jeremy had a tantrum and tried to go it alone. Working in low paid jobs. Reluctantly returning to WHF.
My God, you certainly have a bee in your bonnet about Nevill and June funding Jeremy's trips.
-
But was it a kit car porsche. Or a nice big house ?
He was on a small wage. Working 14 hour days. Or was it 17 hours as Lookout said ?
£200 a week!!! A small wage!!!! In 1985!!! Harvest historically demands long hours but it isn't like that all the time.
-
I have posted already that Lomax states that Jeremy paid for his plane fare home but June insisted on reimbursing him. Now I am sure you will say that Scott Lomax is biased and I don't know where he got this information from, it may have come from JB therefore it may or may not be true but where did your info come from? ..... Claire Powell's book? Where did she get her info from? How can we be certain that is true either so maybe neither of us should post it as a truth just as a quote from someone else's book? Both scenarios are possibilities and no more. ;D
That is where you use you're grey matter. Common sense.
The countries Jeremy went to. The time spent abroad would have cost thousands.
Jeremy could not have afforded it. Either before or after Little Chef.
-
But was it a kit car porsche. Or a nice big house ?
He was on a small wage. Working 14 hour days. Or was it 17 hours as Lookout said ?
I don't think Jeremy Bamber was a particularly physical child. I recall reading in some book about a knee injury he had sustained. He certainly never shone at school sports or he would have gained some credence or popularity with his peers and again this terrible alienation which he has somehow sustained throughout his life might not have taken hold. One never knows the truth of whether Nevill was a hard taskmaster or not(for example we are told Jeremy would never use the crop-sprayer or work overtime),but why no alternative career was suggested beats me.
-
Maggie you must use your grey area I have told you before about this ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That is where you use you're grey matter. Common sense.
The countries Jeremy went to. The time spent abroad would have cost thousands.
Jeremy could not have afforded it. Either before or after Little Chef.
The trips wouldn't have cost thousands and he worked over there. kids go abroad now, backpack all over asia or go to Australia and New Zealand and work while they're over there. It's what happens, believe me.
As I have just said anyway so what if June and Nevill paid for him, that was their business and you were the one who said Sheila got all the freebies well maybe they evened it up.
-
When was this? What are you referring to? Jeremy had a free house and car for starters, as well as a well paid job and a guaranteed career.
A career he apparently hated.
They educated him hoping he would make something of himself. He was too lazy to so so and thus ended up working on the farm. He hoped he would not have to do much work and just collect a paycheck for nothing. Instead he was forced to work. He was given a place to stay and car but forced to work to keep these things. He was at the mercy of his fmaily. If he said he wasn't workign anymore then what?
He would have to go get a job elsewhere that paid him less and he would have to pay for his own room and board to boot. Talk about resentment feeling you are stuck in a deadend job working for your parents because they won't pay for you to live in London without having to work like your sister.
How much work would it have been for him to strike out on his own in London starting out small and working his way up to a very well paying job so that he could afford to buy his own place etc? Far more than he wanted to do which is why he decided he wanted to work on the farm in the first place.
-
The most hours I have worked in a day is 12 hours. For a short period.
You basically just go home, eat and go to bed. You have to be up early the following day. Even if you have got some energy left, you know tomorrow will be another tough day and do not want to risk under performing the following day.
On days off you are just recovering.
So basically you're life is just work.
14/17 hours would be even worse.
Jeremy in the loads of money mid 80's wanted more.
-
The most hours I have worked in a day is 12 hours. For a short period.
You basically just go home, eat and go to bed. You have to be up early the following day. Even if you have got some energy left, you do not want to risk under performing the following day.
On days off you are just recovering.
So basically you're life is just work.
14/17 hours would be even worse.
Jeremy in the loads of money mid 80's wanted more.
He probably wanted more fun as any 20 + guy would have but I'm sure for all that he did ok. It doesn't turn you into a killer.
-
I don't think Jeremy Bamber was a particularly physical child. I recall reading in some book about a knee injury he had sustained. He certainly never shone at school sports or he would have gained some credence or popularity with his peers and again this terrible alienation which he has somehow sustained throughout his life might not have taken hold. One never knows the truth of whether Nevill was a hard taskmaster or not(for example we are told Jeremy would never use the crop-sprayer or work overtime),but why no alternative career was suggested beats me.
Steve, there was never a question of an alternative career for him. His future had been mapped out from the time they first got him.and they never gave a thought to what he might prefer. In this I can empathize. I, too, was in the same situation.
-
A career he apparently hated.
They educated him hoping he would make something of himself. He was too lazy to so so and thus ended up working on the farm. He hoped he would not have to do much work and just collect a paycheck for nothing. Instead he was forced to work. He was given a place to stay and car but forced to work to keep these things. He was at the mercy of his fmaily. If he said he wasn't workign anymore then what?
He would have to go get a job elsewhere that paid him less and he would have to pay for his own room and board to boot. Talk about resentment feeling you are stuck in a deadend job working for your parents because they won't pay for you to live in London without having to work like your sister.
How much work would it have been for him to strike out on his own in London starting out small and working his way up to a very well paying job so that he could afford to buy his own place etc? Far more than he wanted to do which is why he decided he wanted to work on the farm in the first place.
Doesn't make you a killer unless you have serious personality defects.
-
The trips wouldn't have cost thousands and he worked over there. kids go abroad now, backpack all over asia or go to Australia and New Zealand and work while they're over there. It's what happens, believe me.
As I have just said anyway so what if June and Nevill paid for him, that was their business and you were the one who said Sheila got all the freebies well maybe they evened it up.
As I said, the money suddenly stopping, but not for Sheila may have heightened his resentment.
What did he work as abroad ? Steve said he was a beach bum & involved in petty crime.
-
As I said, the money suddenly stopping, but not for Sheila may have heightened his resentment.
What did he work as abroad ? Steve said he was a beach bum & involved in petty crime.
Apparently he worked on a sugar cane farm in Australia on his first trip and in various bars and restaurants on his later trip, apparently. Have no idea where the suggestion he was involved in petty crime came from but Steve loves to quote it. Just hearsay again as far as I can make out.
-
A career he apparently hated.
They educated him hoping he would make something of himself. He was too lazy to so so and thus ended up working on the farm. He hoped he would not have to do much work and just collect a paycheck for nothing. Instead he was forced to work. He was given a place to stay and car but forced to work to keep these things. He was at the mercy of his fmaily. If he said he wasn't workign anymore then what?
He would have to go get a job elsewhere that paid him less and he would have to pay for his own room and board to boot. Talk about resentment feeling you are stuck in a deadend job working for your parents because they won't pay for you to live in London without having to work like your sister.
How much work would it have been for him to strike out on his own in London starting out small and working his way up to a very well paying job so that he could afford to buy his own place etc? Far more than he wanted to do which is why he decided he wanted to work on the farm in the first place.
It's what they had him for!!! Haven't you realized that yet? He wasn't given a choice.Effectively, he was groomed.
-
Maggie you must use your grey area I have told you before about this ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry Susie, where is my grey area? Don't believe I have one, I am a blondie. ;D
-
Does anyone know the average working hours for a farm labourer ? WHF seems like quite a big farm.
I understand it is very hard work and long hours.
At the massacre time Jeremy was working 14/17 hour days. Surely that was not going to be the case all year.
-
I don't think Jeremy Bamber was a particularly physical child. I recall reading in some book about a knee injury he had sustained. He certainly never shone at school sports or he would have gained some credence or popularity with his peers and again this terrible alienation which he has somehow sustained throughout his life might not have taken hold. One never knows the truth of whether Nevill was a hard taskmaster or not(for example we are told Jeremy would never use the crop-sprayer or work overtime),but why no alternative career was suggested beats me.
Steve,,it was that particular day in which he'd worked for 17 hours,probably because it was harvest-time.
Now you mentioned that he wasn't " physical ",,so how do you account for the fact that after a days harvesting,that he'd pedal like billyo climb through a fanlight and then set about murdering all his family,then pedal back home ? Without the slightest hint of exhaustion,thoroughly drained and as pale as marble ?
-
Hi Steve
I have posted already that Lomax states that Jeremy paid for his plane fare home but June insisted on reimbursing him. Now I am sure you will say that Scott Lomax is biased and I don't know where he got this information from, it may have come from JB therefore it may or may not be true but where did your info come from? ..... Claire Powell's book? Where did she get her info from? How can we be certain that is true either so maybe neither of us should post it as a truth just as a quote from someone else's book? Both scenarios are possibilities and no more. ;D
But the more I read about Jeremy the more I realize there are two Jeremies,and I'm reminded of the journalist who visited him in prison and remarked that he seemed perfectly plausible,apart from the side of him that was hidden..
-
Apparently he worked on a sugar cane farm in Australia on his first trip and in various bars and restaurants on his later trip, apparently. Have no idea where the suggestion he was involved in petty crime came from but Steve loves to quote it. Just hearsay again as far as I can make out.
Thanks.
You and Steve will have to provide you're sources.
I will recheck Wilkes's book. Soon.
-
Steve,,it was that particular day in which he'd worked for 17 hours,probably because it was harvest-time.
Now you mentioned that he wasn't " physical ",,so how do you account for the fact that after a days harvesting,that he'd pedal like billyo climb through a fanlight and then set about murdering all his family,then pedal back home ? Without the slightest hint of exhaustion,thoroughly drained and as pale as marble ?
That's a fair point lookout,but I assume that's why some young people resort to drug-taking to tap into a reservoir of nervous energy.
-
Steve,,it was that particular day in which he'd worked for 17 hours,probably because it was harvest-time.
Now you mentioned that he wasn't " physical ",,so how do you account for the fact that after a days harvesting,that he'd pedal like billyo climb through a fanlight and then set about murdering all his family,then pedal back home ? Without the slightest hint of exhaustion,thoroughly drained and as pale as marble ?
Not hard. The rewards were worth it. The motivation to do it great. It was a one off act. He was 24, slim and fit and did a physical job.
He just had to cycle at a decent pace.
-
£200 a week!!! A small wage!!!! In 1985!!! Harvest historically demands long hours but it isn't like that all the time.
Exactly April, everyone round here works every hour under the sun during silage making, they are always trying t beat the weather and get it all in before the rain comes therefore they work from early morning til late at night, sometimes by car headlights into the night but it's for a short time. Jeremy may have worked 10 hours a day generally but he would have been used to that and many people work those kind of hours. Adam, you keep telling us it was the '80s but the so called yuppies worked long, long hours without lunch breaks etc., ate badly, drank too much champagne and developed yuppie flu as it was known which became ME. They may have bee making money but they weren't having an easy life by any means.
-
Adam you made an inference earlier that Jeremy was not fit and did not excel at games. Make thy mind up lad ;D
-
Adam you made an inference earlier that Jeremy was not fit and did not excel at games. Make thy mind up lad ;D
Show me the post where I said that.
Steve has suggested it on this thread. Not me.
-
Maggie/steve sources please how many times does Adam have to tell you ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But the more I read about Jeremy the more I realize there are two Jeremies,and I'm reminded of the journalist who visited him in prison and remarked that he seemed perfectly plausible,apart from the side of him that was hidden..
I think you read too much into that as we all have a part of ourselves that is hidden so far as we only show what we choose to show. Surely the journalist was just using poetic licence?
-
Does anyone know the average working hours for a farm labourer ? WHF seems like quite a big farm.
I understand it is very hard work and long hours.
At the massacre time Jeremy was working 14/17 hour days. Surely that was not going to be the case all year.
Those points have already been addressed and Jeremy WASN'T a farm labourer, he was the employer's son.
-
Those points have already been addressed and Jeremy WASN'T a farm labourer, he was the employer's son.
Thank you.
-
Maggie/steve sources please how many times does Adam have to tell you ;D ;D ;D ;D
The depiction of Jeremy as a petty thief comes from the Claire Powell book. Roger Wilkes attempted to portray his subject in a better light as he had exclusive access,but singularly fails to rid the reader of lingering suspicion or ambiguity,and really achieves very little insight into what his motivations ever were,or why he fell out with his mother so disastrously as he turned seventeen years of age..
-
Thanks.
You and Steve will have to provide you're sources.
I will recheck Wilkes's book. Soon.
I have posted my source and the fact that I believe neither steve or I can prove any of what we quote as fact, it is all hearsay so you and Steve shouldn't present your hearsay as fact and I shall not present mine. They are all possibilities. :)
-
Adam have we two of you on this forum just a few posts ago to lookout you said Jeremy was 24 slim and FIT or perhaps I misread that you thought he was fit in another sense ;) ;) ;)
-
The depiction of Jeremy as a petty thief comes from the Claire Powell book. Roger Wilkes attempted to portray his subject in a better light as he had exclusive access,but singularly fails to rid the reader of lingering suspicion or ambiguity,and really achieves very little insight into what his motivations ever were,or why he fell out with his mother so disastrously as he turned seventeen years of age..
Much of Claire Powell's book is second hand hearsay surely? I see you can buy it on Amazon UK for about a quid.
-
Jeremy was indeed his fathers son. And also a farm labourer.
-
The depiction of Jeremy as a petty thief comes from the Claire Powell book. Roger Wilkes attempted to portray his subject in a better light as he had exclusive access,but singularly fails to rid the reader of lingering suspicion or ambiguity,and really achieves very little insight into what his motivations ever were,or why he fell out with his mother so disastrously as he turned seventeen years of age..
Thank you.
Mary Mugford said Jeremy never forgave June for sending him to boarding school. Her religious beliefs alienated him further. He called her a religious maniac. AE said this was not true.
-
Jeremy was indeed his fathers son. And also a farm labourer.
I imagine his jobs description was junior manager. I very MUCH doubt that Nevill would have dreamed of describing him as a labourer.
-
I imagine his jobs description was junior manager. I very MUCH doubt that Nevill would have dreamed of describing him as a labourer.
I still don't see in that case what Jeremy's grievance was,unless it's all made up and witnesses in court were lying.
-
If two different books say two different things then people just have to form their own opinions.
My view is Jeremy went to his family asking for money to travel the world. He claimed it was to broaden his mind etc. But really it was to go on a big bender. Perhaps doing some short term jobs and petty crime. Neville & June agreed and financed this.
However when the financing stopped, the reality of life hit Jeremy. But Sheila was still being financed. . He thought he could do better than the farm. But could not. So reluctantly returned.
He soon thought of a way out....
-
I imagine his jobs description was junior manager. I very MUCH doubt that Nevill would have dreamed of describing him as a labourer.
A 14/17 hour day on his tractor on the massacre night. Seems like a labourer to me.
He had small share in the caravan business.
-
I still don't see in that case what Jeremy's grievance was,unless it's all made up and witnesses in court were lying.
He supposedly worked long days including what he told police not jsut what he told Julie. Only he or the farm workers know if he was lying about how long he worked. He complained about the nature of the work as well to Julie.
His grievance seemed to be not being allowed to live in London and party and instead having to work.
-
I still don't see in that case what Jeremy's grievance was,unless it's all made up and witnesses in court were lying.
Well Steve, thus far we have VERY little, other than what others have said vociferously about what THEY'VE perceived Jeremy's grievances to be. They HAD to give him some sort of motive, didn't they?
-
A 14/17 hour day on his tractor on the massacre night. Seems like a labourer to me.
He had small share in the caravan business.
Adam, at harvest EVERYONE associated with a farm has to muck in and that includes the farmer, his wife and family. Guess you'd be calling Nevill a labourer, too, wouldn't you.
-
If two different books say two different things then people just have to form their own opinions.
My view is Jeremy went to his family asking for money to travel the world. He claimed it was to broaden his mind etc. But really it was to go on a big bender. Perhaps doing some short term jobs and petty crime. Neville & June agreed and financed this.
However when the financing stopped, the reality of life hit Jeremy. But Sheila was still being financed. . He thought he could do better than the farm. But could not. So reluctantly returned.
He soon thought of a way out....
Think rather than forming your own opinion you should accept that you don't know the truth about who funded the holiday otherwise you are just inventing a scenario which is inaccurate.imo
It's irrelevant anyway as you keep pointing out that Sheila was getting more freebies than Jeremy and if that was true his hols being paid for would have helped even it up. :-\
-
Think rather than forming your own opinion you should accept that you don't know the truth about who funded the holiday otherwise you are just inventing a scenario which is inaccurate.imo
It's irrelevant anyway as you keep pointing out that Sheila was getting more freebies than Jeremy and if that was true his hols being paid for would have helped even it up. :-\
When the long free holiday stopped. That is when the resentment started.
This thread has been very productive. We found out when Jeremy's resentment of Sheila started.
Thank you everyone.
-
::)
-
When the long free holiday stopped. That is when the resentment started.
This thread has been very productive. We found out when Jeremy's resentment of Sheila started.
Thank you everyone.
Think you make it up as you go along Adam!!!! :o
-
When the long free holiday stopped. That is when the resentment started.
This thread has been very productive. We found out when Jeremy's resentment of Sheila started.
Thank you everyone.
That in fact is all speculative. And the thread has not been productive, because no one has changed their minds about what they believe.
-
That in fact is all speculative. And the thread has not been productive, because no one has changed their minds about what they believe.
Gospel according to Adam, Grahame ;D ;D ;D
-
That in fact is all speculative. And the thread has not been productive, because no one has changed their minds about what they believe.
..............and no one bothered to read it, anyway.
-
April we all took the opportunity to have forty winks ;D ;D ;D
-
April we all took the opportunity to have forty winks ;D ;D ;D
Susan, it's amazing just how much boredom wearies one. Forty winks would be appropriate.................eighty would be better :D :D :D
-
April we all took the opportunity to have forty winks ;D ;D ;D
Oh susan did the earthquake not wake you up..
-
steve the earthquake your post created brought me round very quickly ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That in fact is all speculative. And the thread has not been productive, because no one has changed their minds about what they believe.
People have changed their stance in the last few months. Caroline was 100% behind Jeremy when I first joined. She recently said she is 70% sure of his guilt. There has been a hell of a lot of body blows for Jeremy in the last few months. Thread created.
But appreciate you are a hardcore Jeremy supporter. And will always defend him.
But do you not agree there was no reason for Jeremy to resent Sheila until after he returned from his free extensive jaunts abroad ?
-
People have changed their stance in the last few months. Caroline was 100% behind Jeremy when I first joined. She recently said she is 70% sure of his guilt. There has been a hell of a lot of body blows for Jeremy in the last few months. Thread created.
But appreciate you are a hardcore Jeremy supporter. And will always defend him.
But do you not agree there was no reason for Jeremy to resent Sheila until after he returned from his free extensive jaunts abroad ?
Really don't believe you had any influence on Caroline's mind change, Adam ;D
-
I certainly have not influenced Grahame.
This week he blamed the judge and said the prosecution had to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Bit hard to do that, as he did it at 2am along a remote seawall. There is no reason why there should be any evidence on the bike.
I have not influenced you either. You're responses to my threads have been 'NO'.
Maybe Lookout will change her mind.
-
Really don't believe you had any influence on Caroline's mind change, Adam ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
People have changed their stance in the last few months. Caroline was 100% behind Jeremy when I first joined. She recently said she is 70% sure of his guilt. There has been a hell of a lot of body blows for Jeremy in the last few months. Thread created.
But appreciate you are a hardcore Jeremy supporter. And will always defend him.
But do you not agree there was no reason for Jeremy to resent Sheila until after he returned from his free extensive jaunts abroad ?
This statement means that you are blind as well as daft. Find one post where I have said that I am a Bamber supporter, let alone a hardcore supporter. I am interested in justice alone as I have said from the beginning. Wait a minute why am I defending myself against someone who has the reasoning power of a two year old? ::)
-
I certainly have not influenced Grahame.
This week he blamed the judge and said the prosecution had to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Bit hard to do that, as he did it at 2am along a remote seawall. There is no reason why there should be any evidence on the bike.
I have not influenced you either. You're responses to my threads have been 'NO'.
Maybe Lookout will change her mind.
I don't think you've influenced anybody, except send them to sleep with your repetitive style of writing and your constant demand for exotic sauces?
Your big problem Adam is yourself. I do not care too much about my opinions and I doubt anyone else does either. But unfortunately your ego gets in the way of your posts. Advice: Get over yourself. You are not that influencial.
-
This statement means that you are blind as well as daft. Fine one post where I have said that I am a Bamber supporter, let alone a hardcore supporter. I am interested in justice alone as I have said from the beginning. Wait a minute why am I defending myself against someone who has the reasoning power of a two year old? ::)
It is obvious you are a hardcore Jeremy supporter.
You defend him every time something is written which highlights his guilt. Every source, expert, judge, reporter, judge, appeal, relative, policeman is wrong. Unless they say something nice of course.
Justice ? Jeremy hired the best lawyers available. They had months to get their case together. The trial lasted 19 days. There have been appeals, Jeremy assisted by lawyers. Now that is justice.
-
It is obvious you are a hardcore Jeremy supporter.
You defend him every time something is written which highlights his guilt. Every source, expert, judge, reporter, judge, appeal, relative, policeman is wrong. Unless they say something nice of course.
Justice ? Jeremy hired the best lawyers available. They had months to get their case together. The trial lasted 19 days. There have been appeals, Jeremy assisted by lawyers. Now that is justice.
No Adam I am not. This statement proves that you do not read other people's posts, let alone mine. What I do is challenge certain statements to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
If anyone has had an influence on my thinking lately it is scipio and Hartley, who I consider to be logical reasoners. And I must admit that they both have made certain arguments which I have not been able to answer.
But you I consider to be only the parrot on their shoulders. Nothing that you have said has convinced me one iota. You know why? Because you have no ability to listen to anyone else who posts if they are conceived by you to be some kind of Bamber supporter. If you had the ability to listen to others you would know by now that I am not a Bamber supporter, in spite of the fact that you still think I am a liar.
-
Yes you do challenge things which have already gone through the courts multiple times.
You have never submitted one negative post on Jeremy. Or ever agreed or accepted a fact which highlights Jeremy's guilt.
This week you have blamed the judge. Said it was a coincidence Jeremy brought the bike over 3 days before the massacre and said the prosecution has to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Something you know is impossible. Unless Jeremy admits to it.
-
Yes you do challenge things which have already gone through the courts multiple times.
You have never submitted one negative post on Jeremy. Or ever agreed or accepted a fact which highlights Jeremy's guilt.
This week you have blamed the judge. Said it was a coincidence Jeremy brought the bike over 3 days before the massacre and said the prosecution has to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Something you know is impossible. Unless Jeremy admits to it.
Yes I have because I scrutinize everything and I still do criticise the judge. That is because I believe in justice and not a Bamber supporter. Why are you accusing me of lying? Is it because you think I don't know my own mind? Or are you judging me by what you are? Why should I deny being a Bamber supporter if I am? Yoir suggestion doesn't make any sense?
-
Yes I have because I scrutinize everything and I still do criticise the judge. That is because I believe in justice and not a Bamber supporter. Why are you accusing me of lying? Is it because you think I don't know my own mind? Or are you judging me by what you are? Why should I deny being a Bamber supporter if I am? Yoir suggestion doesn't make any sense?
I have never called you a liar. Although you often do not provide sources I request.
But I am calling you a Jeremy supporter.
Would a non supporter create multiple threads quoting from a book called 'An innocent man' ?
Being a supporter is nothing to be ashamed of. I am not ashamed to say I believe he is guilty.
-
I certainly have not influenced Grahame.
This week he blamed the judge and said the prosecution had to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Bit hard to do that, as he did it at 2am along a remote seawall. There is no reason why there should be any evidence on the bike.
I have not influenced you either. You're responses to my threads have been 'NO'.
Maybe Lookout will change her mind.
And maybe Lookout WON'T change her mind.It's firmly fixed on Jeremy being innocent,but two women weren't,though there'd have been mitigating circumstances had they remained alive.
-
I have never called you a liar. Although you often do not provide sources I request.
But I am calling you a Jeremy supporter.
Would a non supporter create multiple threads quoting from a book called 'An innocent man' ?
Being a supporter is nothing to be ashamed of. I am not ashamed to say I believe he is guilty.
Yes they would. When a weight lifter practices he stretches himself to the limit. When manufacturers test tyres they test them to breaking point. The difference between you and me is that you never test any of the stuff you read. You simply believe it if it is against Bamber. On the other hand I take on board what is said by applying logic to it. In fact if you do a search you will find that I do actually post stuff against Bamber. In fact if something doesn't sound right I question anybody. That is one reason why you won't grow and expand your knowledge. Why you even posted against scipio when you criticised you. That actually exhibits prejudice rather than reason.
-
Yes they would. When a weight lifter practices he stretches himself to the limit. When manufacturers test tyres they test them to breaking point. The difference between you and me is that you never test any of the stuff you read. You simply believe it if it is against Bamber. On the other hand I take on board what is said by applying logic to it. In fact if you do a search you will find that I do actually post stuff against Bamber. In fact if something doesn't sound right I question anybody. That is one reason why you won't grow and expand your knowledge. Why you even posted against scipio when you criticised you. That actually exhibits prejudice rather than reason.
I have not read anything negative posts about Jeremy from you.
But you do stick up for him. And say the experts, CCRC, judge, police, relatives are wrong. Or lying. Or both.
What is you're view of Jeremy's caravan break in ?
-
I have not read anything negative posts about Jeremy from you.
But you do stick up for him. And say the experts, CCRC, judge, police, relatives are wrong. Or lying. Or both.
What is you're view of Jeremy's caravan break in ?
Which goes to prove that you never really read anyone's posts. You have an answer in your head as you read the first line, but just assume what I am going to say is wrong. You don't really explore what I post or even consider that what I say may be right.
-
I have not read any negatives posts from you about Jeremy. Fact.
You did not answer my question. What do you think of Jeremy's caravan site break in ?
-
I have not read any negatives posts from you about Jeremy. Fact.
You did not answer my question. What do you think of Jeremy's caravan site break in ?
Then you are blind. FACT.
-
I have perfect vision.
If you want to justify Jeremy's caravan break in. Or deny it happened, or blame Ann Eaton, just do it.
If you want to not make any comment. Then don't.
You are a Jeremy supporter. So that will be normal procedure.
-
It wouldn't matter to me if it was Jeremy or any other man. He's been wronged by the justice system and it badly needs rectifying. I'd support Joe Bloggs if he was in the same situation.
I supported Eddie Gilfoyle because I knew him in a professional capacity,,and those of us who supported him were proved right.He too was given a raw deal by the justice system.
-
I've always thought that the caravan burglary played a major part in sealing JB's fate re his relatives turning against him. I was puzzled when I saw Babs Wilson on telly expressing that Nevill knew of the crime and that they were going to keep it 'in house'. The voice she put on sounded as if this was a benevolent / fatherly act on the part of Nevill towards JB. It made me wonder whether any relatives had prior knowledge of this act of benevolence prior to the massacre and Julie Mugford's subsequent testimony? Was it used as leverage to put pressure on Mugford? Or did the relatives only find out, due to Mugford spilling the beans her self? They certainly reversed the fatherly good will shown by Nevill.
-
I have perfect vision.
If you want to justify Jeremy's caravan break in. Or deny it happened, or blame Ann Eaton, just do it.
If you want to not make any comment. Then don't.
You are a Jeremy supporter. So that will be normal procedure.
Actually as far as I know I have never expressed an opinion on the caravan break in, only to say that Mugsy was a willing accomplice. Moreover I have always criticised Bamber and even said that I dislike him. What I do find fascinating though is why you, someone who was probably a todler at the time of the murders should take a great interest in a man who was found guilty and banged of for nigh on 30 years?
-
You just said I was blind. Suggesting you had commented and I had not read it.
My understanding is Jeremy just took her there one evening and told her to wait outside and keep lookout. Julie could refuse or support her boyfriend.
Putting Julie in an very difficult situation. Just as he did 5 months later.
The case is always in the media, with Jeremy protesting his innocence. So I took an interest.
-
This is the trouble,it ISN'T always in the media !!
-
Adam I can not believe your posts. Grahame has always made his stance extremely clear as are his feelings about Jeremy. Do you not read his posts? He is here because he believes there was a MOJ. This may mean that Jeremy is innocent, but he has never defended his character. If I have understood this I can not see you have not?
-
So Grahame is a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.
Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.
-
So Grahame is a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.
Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.
I remember Grahame expressing a couple of years ago on here that he doesn't particularly like Jeremy Bamber (in so far as you disliking somebody that you dont actually know in person). I would describe Grahame as attempting to be a 'truth supporter'. I'm sure there are many others on here.
-
So Grahame is a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.
Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.
Grow up !
I'm not sure that Grahame is 100% towards innocence anyway.
What does it matter ? It's no big deal,and there are no prizes !
The more you debate against-----------the more one is forced to have opposing views. Simply because your views on guilt don't make sense.
-
You just said I was blind. Suggesting you had commented and I had not read it.
My understanding is Jeremy just took her there one evening and told her to wait outside and keep lookout. Julie could refuse or support her boyfriend.
Putting Julie in an very difficult situation. Just as he did 5 months later.
The case is always in the media, with Jeremy protesting his innocence. So I took an interest.
For someone who was so reluctant as an accomplice, JM seems to have had no qualms helping him spend the proceeds.
-
So Grahame is a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.
Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.
How on earth can you guage whether I had a tantrum or not? ::)
-
For someone who was so reluctant as an accomplice, JM seems to have had no qualms helping him spend the proceeds.
Lebaleb, identifying the two little boys doesn't seem to have put her off her stride, either.
-
For someone who was so reluctant as an accomplice, JM seems to have had no qualms helping him spend the proceeds.
He owned up to it as well, to his father. She only did after a long time probably to look lilly white for the trial.
-
It is so funny to read Julie´s account of how the "loot" from the cheque book fraud was handled. She says that Susan quickly threw hers in the garbage, but Julie "doesn´t remember" what she did with hers. She says that she probably gave some of it to the Sally Army! BS!!! She is so transparent!
BTW, it was she who forged the signatures on the cheques, she practiced Susan´s signature. Such a nice girl!
-
It is so funny to read Julie´s account of how the "loot" from the cheque book fraud was handled. She says that Susan quickly threw hers in the garbage, but Julie "doesn´t remember" what she did with hers. She says that she probably gave some of it to the Sally Army! BS!!! She is so transparent!
BTW, it was she who forged the signatures on the cheques, she practiced Susan´s signature. Such a nice girl!
If that is so Alias then the crime was much more serious than cheque book fraud. Byt the way I've seen people go down for three years for similar frauds.
-
If that is so Alias then the crime was much more serious than cheque book fraud. Byt the way I've seen people go down for three years for similar frauds.
So there is now forgery on top of fraud on top of aiding a burglary on top of dope peddling..
-
If that is so Alias then the crime was much more serious than cheque book fraud. Byt the way I've seen people go down for three years for similar frauds.
It is considered a serious crime. No more calling it "minor", right!
-
The jury didn't know the half of it. Though if any of them glance on this forum,they'll know now !
-
2Forgery of certain documents with, intent to defraud
(1)Forgery of the following documents, if committed with intent to defraud, shall be felony and punishable with penal servitude for life :—
(a)Any will, codicil, or other testamentary document, either of a dead or of a living person, or any probate or letters of administration, whether with or without the will annexed;
(b)Any deed or bond, or any assignment at law or in equity of any deed or bond, or any attestation of the execution of any deed or bond ;
(c)Any bank note, or any indorsement on or assignment of any bank note.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1913/27/body/enacted
-
I remember Grahame expressing a couple of years ago on here that he doesn't particularly like Jeremy Bamber (in so far as you disliking somebody that you dont actually know in person). I would describe Grahame as attempting to be a 'truth supporter'. I'm sure there are many others on here.
Exactly Roch but unfortunately Adam only believes in his own particular truth and anyone else's truths are to be mocked.
-
It wouldn't matter to me if it was Jeremy or any other man. He's been wronged by the justice system and it badly needs rectifying. I'd support Joe Bloggs if he was in the same situation.
I supported Eddie Gilfoyle because I knew him in a professional capacity,,and those of us who supported him were proved right.He too was given a raw deal by the justice system.
It is your unsupported opinion he has been wronged.
It is the opinion of most that he has not been wronged, you ar eint he minority.
The majority has facts and evidence to rely on that establish his guilt and that he got a fair trial.
The burden is on you to prove he didn't get a fair trial or is innocent to establish a MOJ occurred.
You have not a shred of evidence to establish either. I have challenged you and other supporters repeatedly to provide evidence that he is innocent or that he did not get a fair trial. Neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide a shred of evidence to establish either.
To be sure some have made attempts but the supposed evidence ended up not proving what they claimed it did and in many cases was thoroughly misrepresented.
Anytime I apply pressure to get a Jeremy supporter to provide the evidendiary basis for their assertions I am met with the claim that people can believe anythign they desire and have no need to justify their opinions by providing evidence.
All that states at the end of the day is that people have the right to believe something even if there is no evidence to establish it is true.
That is the case, people are free to believe anything they want but most people require evidence and the courts require evidence and if there is no evidence to prove a MOJ happened then it is not a fact it happened.
Debates are about more than expressing unsupported opinions, debates are over evidence to establish which opinions are factually sound.
-
When I look at the comment section of articles about Jeremy Bamber, I would say that it is pretty much 50/50 what people believe about his guilt/innocense.
-
When I look at the comment section of articles about Jeremy Bamber, I would say that it is pretty much 50/50 what people believe about his guilt/innocense.
Most people who believe he is guilty do not bother to respond. If not for ridiculous claims by innocenters virtually no one who believes he is guilty would bother to respond, most responses are to correct eggregious errors.
I think the blue red forum disconnect says a lot. Almost everyone on the red forum believes he is guilty, it is not even close. Here there are some who think he is guilty but a greater precentage who think he is innocent. Since many say they are on the fence and won't commit to a position or don't want to publicly reveal it, it is hard to tell how close the mix here truly is. I think some are afraid of being ostracized if they admit they think he is guilty.
Combine the forums though and the innocent camp would be in the minority for sure. It seems like that is the reason for the split. The clash got personal.
-
Most people who believe he is guilty do not bother to respond. If not for ridiculous claims by innocenters virtually no one who believes he is guilty would bother to respond, most responses are to correct eggregious errors.
I think the blue red forum disconnect says a lot. Almost everyone on the red forum believes he is guilty, it is not even close. Here there are some who think he is guilty but a greater precentage who think he is innocent. Since many say they are on the fence and won't commit to a position or don't want to publicly reveal it, it is hard to tell how close the mix here truly is. I think some are afraid of being ostracized if they admit they think he is guilty.
Combine the forums though and the innocent camp would be in the minority for sure. It seems like that is the reason for the split. The clash got personal.
You have an answer for everything and you are a master of twisting and bending facts to suit your agenda.
People who think he is guilty are very active almost thrity years after the crimes - you have to wonder why, since he GOT the strictest sentence possible and IS in jail, so what are you trying to prove? It is as you want it to be!
You can CLAIM that more pro Bambers than antis comment on the articles, but that is just a claim, nothing more.
And seriously, you cannot make a statistic on a handful of nutters on two internet forums!! BTW, I am a member on red forum, Holly is, she believes he is innocent.
What you say has no merit.
-
You have an answer for everything and you are a master of twisting and bending facts to suit your agenda.
People who think he is guilty are very active almost thrity years after the crimes - you have to wonder why, since he GOT the strictest sentence possible and IS in jail, so what are you trying to prove? It is as you want it to be!
You can CLAIM that more pro Bambers than antis comment on the articles, but that is just a claim, nothing more.
And seriously, you cannot make a statistic on a handful of nutters on two internet forums!! BTW, I am a member on red forum, Holly is, she believes he is innocent.
What you say has no merit.
You wanted to make the claim based on peopel repsonding on the net to articles.
There is no public clamoring our outpouring for Jeremy in the UK. The most likely reason for that is because a majority do not believe he is innocent. If he had more support this site would be far more active. A smaller percentage of people used the internet from 1999-2010 yet the History Channel Message board had tens of thousands of people posting daily. There were more daily UK posters in the Iraqi Freedom board than here and that was one of the least popular as far as the war boards. The WWI, WWII and prior European War Boards had a ton of posters from the UK. There were over 100 I can think of offhand and of course there were thousands of others from Europe. Evne though it was an American run site it had only about 40-50 percent Americans, the remainder from other countries mainly Europe and to a lesser degree Australia but some from Asia and a few from South America and Africa.
The Napeolonic Wars commanded greater interest from Uk web users than this case, what does that say?
-
You wanted to make the claim based on peopel repsonding on the net to articles.
There is no public clamoring our outpouring for Jeremy in the UK. The most likely reason for that is because a majority do not believe he is innocent. If he had more support this site would be far more active. A smaller percentage of people used the internet from 1999-2010 yet the History Channel Message board had tens of thousands of people posting daily. There were more daily UK posters in the Iraqi Freedom board than here and that was one of the least popular as far as the war boards. The WWI, WWII and prior European War Boards had a ton of posters from the UK. There were over 100 I can think of offhand and of course there were thousands of others from Europe. Evne though it was an American run site it had only about 40-50 percent Americans, the remainder from other countries mainly Europe and to a lesser degree Australia but some from Asia and a few from South America and Africa.
The Napeolonic Wars commanded greater interest from Uk web users than this case, what does that say?
This begs the question: why are you here? Everything is as you wish, Jeremy behind bars, not many people believing in his innocense. WHAT is it you are trying to achieve? I don´t quite get it!
-
I doubt you'll get a straight answer,Alias.
-
I doubt you'll get a straight answer,Alias.
Perhaps not straight, but answer he will. :P
-
You wanted to make the claim based on peopel repsonding on the net to articles.
There is no public clamoring our outpouring for Jeremy in the UK. The most likely reason for that is because a majority do not believe he is innocent. If he had more support this site would be far more active. A smaller percentage of people used the internet from 1999-2010 yet the History Channel Message board had tens of thousands of people posting daily. There were more daily UK posters in the Iraqi Freedom board than here and that was one of the least popular as far as the war boards. The WWI, WWII and prior European War Boards had a ton of posters from the UK. There were over 100 I can think of offhand and of course there were thousands of others from Europe. Evne though it was an American run site it had only about 40-50 percent Americans, the remainder from other countries mainly Europe and to a lesser degree Australia but some from Asia and a few from South America and Africa.
The Napeolonic Wars commanded greater interest from Uk web users than this case, what does that say?
Undoubtedly if this was current/a major part of world history, forums and tghe internet in general would be overwhelmed with it. If you weren't here at the time, you can have NO idea how big it was, but life goes on and what was SO important then has much less meaning now. The incidents of which YOU speak had far greater effect on lives that did this comparatively small, albeit tragic, local event.
-
Perhaps not straight, but answer he will. :P
With a sermon. ;D ;D According to Scipio
-
Most people who believe he is guilty do not bother to respond. If not for ridiculous claims by innocenters virtually no one who believes he is guilty would bother to respond, most responses are to correct eggregious errors.
I think the blue red forum disconnect says a lot. Almost everyone on the red forum believes he is guilty, it is not even close. Here there are some who think he is guilty but a greater precentage who think he is innocent. Since many say they are on the fence and won't commit to a position or don't want to publicly reveal it, it is hard to tell how close the mix here truly is. I think some are afraid of being ostracized if they admit they think he is guilty.
Combine the forums though and the innocent camp would be in the minority for sure. It seems like that is the reason for the split. The clash got personal.
That's a bit of a silly claim. It has no basis in fact. Prove it.
-
You wanted to make the claim based on peopel repsonding on the net to articles.
There is no public clamoring our outpouring for Jeremy in the UK. The most likely reason for that is because a majority do not believe he is innocent. If he had more support this site would be far more active. A smaller percentage of people used the internet from 1999-2010 yet the History Channel Message board had tens of thousands of people posting daily. There were more daily UK posters in the Iraqi Freedom board than here and that was one of the least popular as far as the war boards. The WWI, WWII and prior European War Boards had a ton of posters from the UK. There were over 100 I can think of offhand and of course there were thousands of others from Europe. Evne though it was an American run site it had only about 40-50 percent Americans, the remainder from other countries mainly Europe and to a lesser degree Australia but some from Asia and a few from South America and Africa.
The Napeolonic Wars commanded greater interest from Uk web users than this case, what does that say?
What kind of comparison is that? So does the second world war. I consider you to be an intelligent man. But every now and then you say silly things like this. Puzzling. You would probably have more people on your side if you were not so egotistic. You are knowledgeable (for an American) But then you get on one of your ego trips that gets everyone's backs up, thus defeating your object of trying to persuade everyone to come round to your views.
-
Adam I can not believe your posts. Grahame has always made his stance extremely clear as are his feelings about Jeremy. Do you not read his posts? He is here because he believes there was a MOJ. This may mean that Jeremy is innocent, but he has never defended his character. If I have understood this I can not see you have not?
A MOJ. So he is a Jeremy supporter. A hardcore one to. Nothing to be ashamed of.
I will find my thread -'Was the 1986 trial unfair'.
-
The jury didn't know the half of it. Though if any of them glance on this forum,they'll know now !
What didn't the jury know from the 19 day trial ?
Why didn't his defence bring it up ?
-
What didn't the jury know from the 19 day trial ?
Why didn't his defence bring it up ?
Because they didn't know,,as so much was withheld at trial. I've said before that the defence were working with one arm tied behind their backs.
-
What didn't they know ?
Why didn't they find out ?
They had the best witness - Jeremy.
-
What didn't they know ?
Why didn't they find out ?
They had the best witness - Jeremy.
Any witness is only ever as good as they're allowed to be by the person asking them the questions.
-
Any witness is only ever as good as they're allowed to be by the person asking them the questions.
Thought Jeremy would be pro active. He has been pro active enough since conviction.
-
Thought Jeremy would be pro active. He has been pro active enough since conviction.
I believe witnesses are instructed only to answer questions they're asked, resulting, I imagine in the innocent staying within the boundaries in case they're found guilty and the guilty doing the same in case they're found out. Purely speculative as I've never been in court.
-
I believe witnesses are instructed only to answer questions they're asked, resulting, I imagine in the innocent staying within the boundaries in case they're found guilty and the guilty doing the same in case they're found out. Purely speculative as I've never been in court.
No I meant tell his defence before the trial. So the defence can get a 'not guilty' verdict.
-
No I meant tell his defence before the trial. So the defence can get a 'not guilty' verdict.
Not something I can answer but I'm having lunch next week with a friend who's a magistrate. She will probably know more about it than I.
-
What didn't the jury know from the 19 day trial ?
Why didn't his defence bring it up ?
as you well know I posted a whole list of evidence that was kept from the defence team at tthe original trial.
Secondly you should question yourself on how willing you are to use the break in to indicate it was a factor in proving Jeremy had the character to commit mass murder, but you refuse to accept Julies crimes as an indication of her character or ability just to tell lies.
-
as you well know I posted a whole list of evidence that was kept from the defence team at tthe original trial.
Secondly you should question yourself on how willing you are to use the break in to indicate it was a factor in proving Jeremy had the character to commit mass murder, but you refuse to accept Julies crimes as an indication of her character or ability just to tell lies.
I must have missed you're list.
Jeremy's crime was against his family. Julie told the police about it.
Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud in 1984 was immature teenagers. So I do not see why see should lead to committing such serious perjury.
-
I must have missed you're list.
Jeremy's crime was against his family. Julie told the police about it.
Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud in 1984 was immature teenagers. So I do not see why see should lead to committing such serious perjury.
And it sounds as if you may not know that £700 ish amounted to a months salary. Julie FORGED her friend's signature and DEFRAUDED the bank. If you believe that robbing his family, of what was PARTLY his anyway, shows a propensity for crime in Jeremy, why does it not occur to you that a crime that was entirely Julie's idea, doesn't show the same propensity. At the very least it shows a capability of deviousness which, naturally, makes me question what she later said of Jeremy, yet YOU dismiss it as the work of "immature teenagers." I believe she may have been 20................and a deviously clever 20, at that.
-
It was for £634.00.
Julie was 50 this month. So it depends which month Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was.
-
It was for £634.00.
Julie was 50 this month. So it depends which month Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was.
I wonder why it bothers you so much that the crime and the idea for it was Julie's. £158.50 per week is what most paid living expenses from; rent, mortgage, food, utilities, recreation. It bothers ME that she did it for fun and HAD she been caught there was nothing to link her to the crime. Pretty devious, that. Some friend, eh.
-
I wonder why it bothers you so much that the crime and the idea for it was Julie's. £158.50 per week is what most paid living expenses from; rent, mortgage, food, utilities, recreation. It bothers ME that she did it for fun and HAD she been caught there was nothing to link her to the crime. Pretty devious, that. Some friend, eh.
is it not strange that Adam keeps repeating the same untruths over and over again. He knows the facts about who's idea the cheque book fraud was and yet cannot even admit it to himself.
-
I must have missed you're list.
Jeremy's crime was against his family. Julie told the police about it.
Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud in 1984 was immature teenagers. So I do not see why see should lead to committing such serious perjury.
Adam that statement is not true .You did not miss the list it was a reply to your post on the thread "time to agree with Jeremyabout the silencer" your post 16 my post 17. So I am not falling for your silly tactics any more.
-
is it not strange that Adam keeps repeating the same untruths over and over again. He knows the facts about who's idea the cheque book fraud was and yet cannot even admit it to himself.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Julie's WS on the bank fraud to me suggests it was a joint decision. Using Susan Battersby's cheque book.
Susan called the bank to report her cheque book stolen.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Julie's WS on the bank fraud to me suggests it was a joint decision. Using Susan Battersby's cheque book.
Susan called the bank to report her cheque book stolen.
It doesn't matter what it suggests to you, Julie admitted that it was her idea! ::)
-
It doesn't matter what it suggests to you, Julie admitted that it was her idea! ::)
he knows that.but watch out he might ask you for the source. It is his deflection tactic
-
It does not say it was Julie's idea in her WS.
Source please.
-
It does not say it was Julie's idea in her WS.
Source please.
so predicable
-
It does not say it was Julie's idea in her WS.
Source please.
I don't recall that it was Susan who wanted to buy something for Jeremy, so who did Julie blame?
-
I will check what she testified.
-
It seems pretty certain it was a joint idea. Two teenagers daring each other.
Whose idea it was is neither here or there. It is a big jump from a £634.00 fraud to murder perjury in two years. The jury were aware of the fraud.
-
The law as it stands on fraud. Scroll to the bottom to see the penalties. You will observe that fraud is not taken lightly by the police or the law courts. Mugford/Battersby cheque book fraud was anything but "minor"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#introduction
-
When testifying Julie does not say Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was her idea.
-
It seems pretty certain it was a joint idea. Two teenagers daring each other.
Whose idea it was is neither here or there. It is a big jump from a £634.00 fraud to murder perjury in two years. The jury were aware of the fraud.
Well done you for trying so hard to exonerate her. I wonder how proud you'd be if it was your daughter who'd shared a bed for nearly two years with a man she claimed to KNOW was going to murder his family, helped him to rob his family business, sold drugs at her college on his behalf, and defrauded a bank after forging someone else's name on a cheque book. A daughter to be proud of? I think not.
-
When testifying Julie does not say Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was her idea.
it's on her 2002 statement she was " the stronger influence" her own words. And the whole statement about how they got off is laughable. Especially when you read the bank managers version. It beggars belief.
-
Well done you for trying so hard to exonerate her. I wonder how proud you'd be if it was your daughter who'd shared a bed for nearly two years with a man she claimed to KNOW was going to murder his family, helped him to rob his family business, sold drugs at her college on his behalf, and defrauded a bank after forging someone else's name on a cheque book. A daughter to be proud of? I think not.
She did not know. She did not believe him. How often are families massacred by their own son/brother/nephew ?
She knew nothing of Jeremy's idea to rob his own family until Jeremy arrived there. Then told her to wait outside.
Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was brought up in court by the defence. Jeremy would have told them about it.
-
The law as it stands on fraud. Scroll to the bottom to see the penalties. You will observe that fraud is not taken lightly by the police or the law courts. Mugford/Battersby cheque book fraud was anything but "minor"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#introduction
Sorry, forgot the link
-
I'm sure if you walked into a police station today saying you committed a cheque book fraud that they would not consider it a "minor" offence?
-
She did not know. She did not believe him. How often are families massacred by their own son/brother/nephew ?
She knew nothing of Jeremy's idea to rob his own family until Jeremy arrived there. Then told her to wait outside.
Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was brought up in court by the defence. Jeremy would have told them about it.
But it rather seems she might have believed him.
Are you saying that she went on her own to the caravan site in the middle of the night to wait for Jeremy? Let me explain that said caravan site is SEVERAL miles from Goldhanger. How might Julie have got there on her own? It's a B road with twists and bends, no street lights, no PATH!!!!! Perhaps she took a taxi.
I think we have clarified her forgery of her friend's signature on the cheque book.
-
The law as it stands on fraud. Scroll to the bottom to see the penalties. You will observe that fraud is not taken lightly by the police or the law courts. Mugford/Battersby cheque book fraud was anything but "minor"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#introduction
Well it was 30 years ago. It may have been minor.
It's called politics Grahame. The police looked at the big picture.
Get Julie & Susan to pay the £634.00 back. The bank do not press charges on minor fraud. Julie can testify regarding a X5 murder trial.
As it happened the defence still brought the issue up in court.
-
Well it was 30 years ago. It may have been minor.
It's called politics Grahame. The police looked at the big picture.
Get Julie & Susan to pay the £634.00 back. The bank do not press charges on minor fraud. Julie can testify regarding a X5 murder trial.
As it happened the defence still brought the issue up in court.
As you said, Adam, it seems the police thought if they got her off they could catch a bigger fish. If Jeremy was UNlucky it must have made her the luckiest woman alive.
-
But it rather seems she might have believed him.
Are you saying that she went on her own to the caravan site in the middle of the night to wait for Jeremy? Let me explain that said caravan site is SEVERAL miles from Goldhanger. How might Julie have got there on her own? It's a B road with twists and bends, no street lights, no PATH!!!!! Perhaps she took a taxi.
I think we have clarified her forgery of her friend's signature on the cheque book.
Oh no, she arrived at the caravan site with Jeremy. She was told to wait outside as a lookout. Jeremy had a bit of after hours business and staging to attend to.
-
She did not know. She did not believe him. How often are families massacred by their own son/brother/nephew ?
She knew nothing of Jeremy's idea to rob his own family until Jeremy arrived there. Then told her to wait outside.
Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was brought up in court by the defence. Jeremy would have told them about it.
Adam
She in her own words on the night of the murder lay in bed and KNEW that he had done it. then in the next few days she made statements defending him and went to the morgue to see the victims.
Now personally I don't believe her statements and the ONLY excuse that I can think of for her making up all the statements was that the police CONVINCED her that they had a piece of evidence that proved he was guilty and that her "stories" would be the icing on the cake.
Because if she was telling the truth she was guilty of the Minimum charge of perverting the course of justice - result jail
And if she was telling lies , coached by EP then they put her in an extremely difficult position as her stories had to be very hard hitting and built up over a period of time which put her involvement at the forefront of her evidence . No wonder she was so upset when giving evidence . In theory she was in a lose lose situation.
-
Adam
She in her own words on the night of the murder lay in bed and KNEW that he had done it. then in the next few days she made statements defending him and went to the morgue to see the victims.
Now personally I don't believe her statements and the ONLY excuse that I can think of for her making up all the statements was that the police CONVINCED her that they had a piece of evidence that proved he was guilty and that her "stories" would be the icing on the cake.
Because if she was telling the truth she was guilty of the Minimum charge of perverting the course of justice - result jail
And if she was telling lies , coached by EP then they put her in an extremely difficult position as her stories had to be very hard hitting and built up over a period of time which put her involvement at the forefront of her evidence . No wonder she was so upset when giving evidence . In theory she was in a lose lose situation.
Even Jeremy's defence lawyers found her WS believable. Which is why they focused on the bank fraud.
She approached the police.
-
Even Jeremy's defence lawyers found her WS believable. Which is why they focused on the bank fraud.
She approached the police.
rubbish - the judge said her testimony could not be relied upon in isolation.
so in your eyes then she is only guilty of perverting the course of justice ?
-
rubbish - the judge said her testimony could not be relied upon in isolation.
so in your eyes then she is only guilty of perverting the course of justice ?
Rubbish.
I did not mention the judge. The defence lawyers said her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Julie approached the police.
-
Rubbish.
I did not mention the judge. The defence lawyers said her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Julie approached the police.
It seems the judge trumped it.
I suspect Julie managed to make it seem like someone else's responsibility that she went to the police.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4911.0.html
These are the points the judge said in his summing up.
-
It does not say it was Julie's idea in her WS.
Source please.
Yes, she does, go away and read it properly.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
I did.
I did not see the words 'it was my idea'.
But I did see the words 'Susan & I'.
I did read the words 'Stronger influence'. But it seems like it was teenage girls misbehaving. It does happen.
-
Interesting that she admits they may have left Stan Jones number at the bank.
-
Even Jeremy's defence lawyers found her WS believable. Which is why they focused on the bank fraud.
She approached the police.
Up until now Adam I have accepted your word for this as I haven't been able to find it anywhere? But for want of a better expression could you please provide a "source"?
-
Morning Adam
I have read this statement but cannot find a source could you provide one please. Thank you.
-
Adam where's the source ;D ;D ;D ;D bet you don't have one ;D
-
Adam
if it was such a minor crime in your eyes and you believe they told the police - why would they do that only because of this crime? There would be no reason would there? they would not have been on trial - so why confess at this particular time?
-
Adam where's the source ;D ;D ;D ;D bet you don't have one ;D
You know I always provide a source.
Page 167 - Blood Relations, Roger Wilkes.
A critically acclaimed unbiased book.
-
'The lawyers went over her statement, line by line. Geoffrey Rivlin repeated the process personally'.
'Looking for the smallest loose brick that might be dislodged to bring the whole story crashing down'.
'But all her statements meshed convincingly, and her story undeniably resounded with a 'ring of truth'.
-
Adam thank you I agree you do always provide a source ;D
-
I also believe her WS seems perfectly believable.
Several other people also testified how Jeremy did not like his immediate family.
What Julie & Jeremy did before and after the massacre must be true. They were often with other people or went to public places. So it can easily be checked.
-
'The lawyers went over her statement, line by line. Geoffrey Rivlin repeated the process personally'.
'Looking for the smallest loose brick that might be dislodged to bring the whole story crashing down'.
'But all her statements meshed convincingly, and her story undeniably resounded with a 'ring of truth'.
Thank you Adam. I would like to know where he got this information though? Is he telling the story from his perspective, or from the defence's actual words? It just doesn't sound like something the defence lawyers would say? If they did say it, then it means that they were half convinced already that he was guilty? With defence lawyers like that who need a bill?
-
I also believe her WS seems perfectly believable.
Several other people also testified how Jeremy did not like his immediate family.
What Julie & Jeremy did before and after the massacre must be true. They were often with other people or went to public places. So it can easily be checked.
who were those witnesses?
There were others who said he had a normal family relationship. Even Barbara said he was like a son to her.
-
who were those witnesses?
There were others who said he had a normal family relationship. Even Barbara said he was like a son to her.
Mary Mugford.
Ann Eaton.
James Richards.
Dorothy Folkes.
Robert Boutflour.
Barbara Wilson.
-
Thank you Adam. I would like to know where he got this information though? Is he telling the story from his perspective, or from the defence's actual words? It just doesn't sound like something the defence lawyers would say? If they did say it, then it means that they were half convinced already that he was guilty? With defence lawyers like that who need a bill?
The introduction to the book, Wilkes says he interviewed everyone connected to the case. Including Jeremy, but not including Julie.
-
So did Scott Lomax,who also campaigned for Barry George and others of high-profile.
As did Claire Powell.
-
Lomax's book is very biased.
After reading about the case online, I looked for the least biased and best reviewed book. Then bought 'Blood Relations'.
-
Claire Powells' book is very biased towards Jeremys' guilt,,but at the same time,she doesn't wrap anything up about Sheilas' life-style.
-
Mary Mugford.
Ann Eaton.
James Richards.
Dorothy Folkes.
Robert Boutflour.
Barbara Wilson.
Barbara Wilson changed her story considerably
Robert and Anne as we know now had a motive to keep Jeremy inside and apparently did not like him anyway before the incident - I believe they Thought he was guilty ( although they had no proof) and were quite happy to embelish thier evidence ( backed up with how they allegedly treated Colin)
Dorothy Folkes - can you post her whole testimony?
And the same for James Richard ?
-
RB's diaries suggest this was pre planned.
Jeremy persuading Neville to leave the money in the safe, rather than taking it back to WHF. RB then saying immediately after the break in 'you know who that was don't you'.
It would not be rocket science for Neville to work out it was Jeremy. Barabara Wilson said Neville knew it was Jeremy, but did not prosecute. Which Jeremy probably suspected would happen.
Poor Neville couldn't even get the money back from Jeremy. As Jeremy quickly spent it, on slap up meals.
Perhaps Neville added it to the £2,000 RB said Jeremy already owed Neville. But Jeremy had told Neville he couldn't pay him back. Oh dear.
Five months later, Jeremy executed another pre planned crime. Or did he ?
-
RB's diaries suggest this was pre planned.
Jeremy persuading Neville to leave the money in the safe, rather than taking it back to WHF. RB then saying immediately after the break in 'you know who that was don't you'.
It would not be rocket science for Neville to work out it was Jeremy. Barabara Wilson said Neville knew it was Jeremy, but did not prosecute. Which Jeremy probably suspected would happen.
Poor Neville couldn't even get the money back from Jeremy. As Jeremy quickly spent it, on slap up meals.
Perhaps Neville added it to the £2,000 RB said Jeremy already owed Neville. But Jeremy had told Neville he couldn't pay him back. Oh dear.
Five months later, Jeremy executed another pre planned crime. Or did he ?
I think June had put her foot down as well,refusing to write out more personal cheques. Jeremy had to learn the harsh lesson like all of us that we must live within our means.
-
I think June had put her foot down as well,refusing to write out more personal cheques. Jeremy had to learn the harsh lesson like all of us that we must live within our means.
But it's beginning to look as if they didn't insist that Sheila learned the same lesson. An expensive London address, a monthly allowance, weekly food parcels, private psych care. I wonder how all of that balanced against what they'd given/lent Jeremy.
-
But it's beginning to look as if they didn't insist that Sheila learned the same lesson. An expensive London address, a monthly allowance, weekly food parcels, private psych care. I wonder how all of that balanced against what they'd given/lent Jeremy.
House, car, probably food from time to time, travels. a fair salary, stocks in family businesses. June and Nevill were generous to their children, both Sheila and Jeremy, and I don´t think Jeremy had reason to complain. Whether he did, I don´t know, but he was well off for his age.
-
If JB was allegedly planning to kill his family for many month to inherit the cavern park why would he break into it a month beforehand if in his mind it will soon be his anyway?
-
House, car, probably food from time to time, travels. a fair salary, stocks in family businesses. June and Nevill were generous to their children, both Sheila and Jeremy, and I don´t think Jeremy had reason to complain. Whether he did, I don´t know, but he was well off for his age.
Sheila too was comparatively well off and she had a husband as well,but was still provided for by her parents.
-
If JB was allegedly planning to kill his family for many month to inherit the cavern park why would he break into it a month beforehand if in his mind it will soon be his anyway?
Because,it would seem,he was stupid like that.
-
If JB was allegedly planning to kill his family for many month to inherit the cavern park why would he break into it a month beforehand if in his mind it will soon be his anyway?
Because he would have to share it with Ann Eaton,whom he attempted to keep onside by sending her a birthday card for the first time in her life.
-
But it's beginning to look as if they didn't insist that Sheila learned the same lesson. An expensive London address, a monthly allowance, weekly food parcels, private psych care. I wonder how all of that balanced against what they'd given/lent Jeremy.
But Sheila was not a materialistic person for all her faults. She was ill anyway,though with the rumours of the drug debt it's true she was not living within her means.
-
House, car, probably food from time to time, travels. a fair salary, stocks in family businesses. June and Nevill were generous to their children, both Sheila and Jeremy, and I don´t think Jeremy had reason to complain. Whether he did, I don´t know, but he was well off for his age.
This is about how Jeremy may have felt as a sibling and his will have been a completely different view from ours, even if ours DOES seem more logical.
-
This is about how Jeremy may have felt as a sibling and his will have been a completely different view from ours, even if ours DOES seem more logical.
I did say I didn´t know whether he found the whole thing unjust.
If you have an ill sibling, you can also feel jealous of the attention the other sibling gets. I do realize that.
-
This is about how Jeremy may have felt as a sibling and his will have been a completely different view from ours, even if ours DOES seem more logical.
..and it's as if he's now mimicking Sheila's passivity in jail now and seemingly accepting everything which is thrown at him. Whether he has any faith left in his lawyers is anyone's guess..
-
But Sheila was not a materialistic person for all her faults. She was ill anyway,though with the rumours of the drug debt it's true she was not living within her means.
I'm not saying she was. She actually had no need to be. It almost seems as if the Bambers anticipated her needs before she did. MAYBE they'd used it as a way of pacifying her all her life. I'm speculating, I know, but IMO, this has NEVER been about a good child at one end of the spectrum and a bad child at the other.
-
But Sheila was not a materialistic person for all her faults. She was ill anyway,though with the rumours of the drug debt it's true she was not living within her means.
It was quite possible that Sheila was addicted to cocaine Steve, she had massive problems but cocaine does not make you passive, it makes you unpredictable and a very angry loose canon. There was far more to Sheila than she's often given credit for, she was a mass of contradictions and between her paranoid schizophrenia, her drug taking etc. she was capable of having a severe psychotic episode imo.
-
Sheila too was comparatively well off and she had a husband as well,but was still provided for by her parents.
She had an ex husband who wasn't in permanent work.
-
It was quite possible that Sheila was addicted to cocaine Steve, she had massive problems but cocaine does not make you passive, it makes you unpredictable and a very angry loose canon. There was far more to Sheila than she's often given credit for, she was a mass of contradictions and between her paranoid schizophrenia, her drug taking etc. she was capable of having a severe psychotic episode imo.
Well said, Maggie!
-
It was quite possible that Sheila was addicted to cocaine Steve, she had massive problems but cocaine does not make you passive, it makes you unpredictable and a very angry loose canon. There was far more to Sheila than she's often given credit for, she was a mass of contradictions and between her paranoid schizophrenia, her drug taking etc. she was capable of having a severe psychotic episode imo.
It would explain her poor timekeeping and inability to hold down a job. I have often wondered why such a philosophical person ended up such a wreck..
-
It would explain her poor timekeeping and inability to hold down a job. I have often wondered why such a philosophical person ended up such a wreck..
If you´d ask Colin, he would say it had to do with the toxic relationship with June.
-
..and it's as if he's now mimicking Sheila's passivity in jail now and seemingly accepting everything which is thrown at him. Whether he has any faith left in his lawyers is anyone's guess..
That's maybe not as strange as it might seem. He'd watched Sheila getting her needs met by doing comparatively nothing -in his eyes- so perhaps it feels good, to him, to turn responsibility over to others.
-
Jeremy will be feeling the guilt at not having known nor understood just how ill his sister was. As he states in his video,neither his mum nor dad realised the extent of her illness.
Well none of them could have ever blamed themselves if nothing was ever explained to them,Lord knows Neville was paying enough in medical bills,so should have demanded to have known.
-
Jeremy will be feeling the guilt at not having known nor understood just how ill his sister was. As he states in his video,neither his mum nor dad realised the extent of her illness.
Well none of them could have ever blamed themselves if nothing was ever explained to them,Lord knows Neville was paying enough in medical bills,so should have demanded to have known.
Didn't Nevill make some remark to farm secretary Barbara Wilson about children today not knowing the value of money? Of course he had every right to bewail how his children turned out and contrast this with his own family,whose contemporaries by that time sadly had all predeceased him.
-
Didn't Nevill make some remark to farm secretary Barbara Wilson about children today not knowing the value of money? Of course he had every right to bewail how his children turned out and contrast this with his own family,whose contemporaries by that time sadly had all predeceased him.
In my opinion it is the parents´ fault mostly how their children turn out.
-
In my opinion it is the parents´ fault mostly how their children turn out.
Nevill and June hadn't invested any emotional capital in their children in stark contrast to the family business,the couple's initials N@J intertwined depicting their propinquity,a bond which neither Sheila nor Jeremy fully understood and could never break. It was Pamela strangely enough who expressed the astonishment at the tragic turn of events by saying out loud that the children had every material benefit and subliminally suggesting that they were ingrates,though ironically Nevill and June never cast this aspersion at their children but turned the blame internally,which Robert Boutflour jumped upon as the source of their illness.
-
If JB was allegedly planning to kill his family for many month to inherit the cavern park why would he break into it a month beforehand if in his mind it will soon be his anyway?
The caravan break in was in March. The massacre in August.
-
Nevill and June hadn't invested any emotional capital in their children in stark contrast to the family business,the couple's initials N@J intertwined depicting their propinquity,a bond which neither Sheila nor Jeremy fully understood and could never break. It was Pamela strangely enough who expressed the astonishment at the tragic turn of events by saying out loud that the children had every material benefit and subliminally suggesting that they were ingrates,though ironically Nevill and June never cast this aspersion at their children but turned the blame internally,which Robert Boutflour jumped upon as the source of their illness.
Steve, do you REALLY credit RWB with the ability to RECOGNIZE internalized blame, let alone the sensitivity to link it to illness?!!!!!!! I imagine he'd have viewed anything to do with mental illness as "claptrap" or weakness on the part of the sufferer and psychiatry as a form of promoting devil worship......................however, had he known of Sheila's problems I feel he'd possibly have viewed them with self satisfaction and smugness.
-
David Jeremy already had shares in the caravan park and on the death of his family he would only inherit a further share not the whole.
-
If JB was allegedly planning to kill his family for many month to inherit the cavern park why would he break into it a month beforehand if in his mind it will soon be his anyway?
Julie was involved as well >Jb said he had repeatedly told them security was lax and they needed to upgrade it . So he broke in and yes kept the money . Apparently his father did find out - allegedly but did not take it any further.
-
In my opinion it is the parents´ fault mostly how their children turn out.
I would agree with that Alias.
-
Didn't Nevill make some remark to farm secretary Barbara Wilson about children today not knowing the value of money? Of course he had every right to bewail how his children turned out and contrast this with his own family,whose contemporaries by that time sadly had all predeceased him.
Think every generation bewails the way the younger generation behave at some time, it's the order of life, I believe?
-
Julie was involved as well >Jb said he had repeatedly told them security was lax and they needed to upgrade it . So he broke in and yes kept the money . Apparently his father did find out - allegedly but did not take it any further.
He didn't keep the money. He spent it. Quickly.
-
I know someone else who'd said the money was spent,but it was a lot more than a measley grand.
-
He didn't keep the money. He spent it. Quickly.
That meant he kept it and did not return it.
And I suppose you have "inside" information about how he spent it as well.
-
That meant he kept it and did not return it.
And I suppose you have "inside" information about how he spent it as well.
He donated it to his favourite charity.
-
He donated it to his favourite charity.
sarcasm again. Not quite sure still why you hero worship him so much you use his picture on your posts?
Is that so you will be ready to change your stance quickly if need be?
-
This person who I have in mind------------spent and wasted his money admitting it quite openly too. :o