Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on July 23, 2014, 02:01:PM
-
Taken from David Shaws manuscript
Anji Greaves had stood by Jeremy during his twelve months in custody awaiting trial. On remand Jeremy had written over 100 letters to her. She’d said at the time: ‘I can’t believe that someone who blushed like a schoolboy and longed to be hugged all the time could possibly have murdered his family.’ During the latter stages of the trial she had organized a party for his release from court and a subsequent holiday. With two girlfriends she had decorated the room with banners. One of them was fifteen foot long and said: ‘Faith, love, truth, freedom. Welcome home, Jeremy.’ Considering the recent turn of events, she told a reporter: ‘I don’t know if I can bring myself to go on visiting now. It could be a life sentence for both of us.’
There are a lot of misconceptions about Jeremys strict upbringing by his parents and I believe this rumour has been circulated to give further reasons for him to carry out the murders
From my own personal experience and phone calls with Jeremy he had been bought up strictly but with a lot of love. The Jeremy described above by an ex girlfriend was definitely shown love while growing up . Jeremy can be very open about his feelings for many different people from his past.
-
Taken from David Shaws manuscript
Anji Greaves had stood by Jeremy during his twelve months in custody awaiting trial. On remand Jeremy had written over 100 letters to her. She’d said at the time: ‘I can’t believe that someone who blushed like a schoolboy and longed to be hugged all the time could possibly have murdered his family.’ During the latter stages of the trial she had organized a party for his release from court and a subsequent holiday. With two girlfriends she had decorated the room with banners. One of them was fifteen foot long and said: ‘Faith, love, truth, freedom. Welcome home, Jeremy.’ Considering the recent turn of events, she told a reporter: ‘I don’t know if I can bring myself to go on visiting now. It could be a life sentence for both of us.’
There are a lot of misconceptions about Jeremys strict upbringing by his parents and I believe this rumour has been circulated to give further reasons for him to carry out the murders
From my own personal experience and phone calls with Jeremy he had been bought up strictly but with a lot of love. The Jeremy described above by an ex girlfriend was definitely shown love while growing up . Jeremy can be very open about his feelings for many different people from his past.
Maybe he longed to be hugged because he felt neglected and was affection starved.
In any event it is silly to try mentioning anything about his childhood to try to suggest he can't have done it.
You seem to believe he is innocent for very silly reaosns and in order to believe it you ignore and refuse to discuss the pertinent evidence and facts instead harming on red herrings.
-
You don't know Jeremy and have never had any contact him so maybe you are the wrong person to make a judgement like that
But the notion that Jeremy didn't like life on the farm is ridiculous when it is well known he didn't like boarding school and was happier at home
-
well are we supposed to belive he dident like farming but then killed to get hold of a farm.
-
Jeremy still chose farming when he was in NewZealand/Australia,in preference to bar work,considering he was supposed to have been the " playboy " type who went for the night life.
-
well new zealands hardley a place to be playboy.
-
Maybe he longed to be hugged because he felt neglected and was affection starved.
In any event it is silly to try mentioning anything about his childhood to try to suggest he can't have done it.
You seem to believe he is innocent for very silly reaosns and in order to believe it you ignore and refuse to discuss the pertinent evidence and facts instead harming on red herrings.
Why not write to him scipio? He will reply I promise.
-
Why not write to him scipio? He will reply I promise.
Write to him for what purpose? Aside from the fact he would lie as opposed to honestly answer any questions I might have about the murders I don't have any questions to ask.
The relevant questions were already asked by police and at trial.
The evidence that proves him guilty can't be refuted by him. Other evidence is required for instance clothing Sheila wore that had blood from the victims and GSR or testimony of who planted evidence and how. That is required to try to establish his innocence.
I could write to annoy him asking if 28 years has been enough time for him to make up an excuse to explain away the 30 bullets remaining in the kitchen but such would serve little value. Just doing things to annoy people is childish and pointless when I do things it is for a reason not childishness.
-
this is a man who so hated farming he moved to country that only has one industry and that is farming.
-
this is a man who so hated farming he moved to country that only has one industry and that is farming.
He wanted his family to provide a house, car and high pay and the only way they woudl do so is if he worked on the farm. Killing them was a way to get the money without having to work on the farm anymore. This issues is not a wise one to broach if you want to try to pretend Jeremy had no motive.
-
Write to him for what purpose? Aside from the fact he would lie as opposed to honestly answer any questions I might have about the murders I don't have any questions to ask.
The relevant questions were already asked by police and at trial.
The evidence that proves him guilty can't be refuted by him. Other evidence is required for instance clothing Sheila wore that had blood from the victims and GSR or testimony of who planted evidence and how. That is required to try to establish his innocence.
I could write to annoy him asking if 28 years has been enough time for him to make up an excuse to explain away the 30 bullets remaining in the kitchen but such would serve little value. Just doing things to annoy people is childish and pointless when I do things it is for a reason not childishness.
For the same purpose that a psychiatrist would contact him. In order to make a personal assessment of someone that you havent even met and yet take it upon yourself to judge by the words that others have said rather than coming to a conclusion upon what you yourself might discober first hand.
-
He wanted his family to provide a house, car and high pay and the only way they woudl do so is if he worked on the farm. Killing them was a way to get the money without having to work on the farm anymore. This issues is not a wise one to broach if you want to try to pretend Jeremy had no motive.
My friend met him once in a pub where he was with the Essex Young Farmers. He got talking with him and found out that he knew a great deal about tractors. Hardly someone who didn't like farming.
-
He wanted his family to provide a house, car and high pay and the only way they woudl do so is if he worked on the farm. Killing them was a way to get the money without having to work on the farm anymore. This issues is not a wise one to broach if you want to try to pretend Jeremy had no motive.
he allready had a house and a car and was set to inherit plenty of cash from his grandmother so yes he did have no real motive.
-
he allready had a house and a car and was set to inherit plenty of cash from his grandmother so yes he did have no real motive.
That is true. It was after the killings that RWB went over to Grandma to get her to change her will to exclude Jeremy. Before these terrible events of the 7th of August 1985, (which I am sure must be etched into the memories of all the surviving family, not without trauma to all involved) Granny Speakman was very ill and not expected to live that long, apparently was going to leave Jeremy half her estate, which was a considerable amount so they say? So what motive did he have?
-
The other half--------------if you're referring to RWB,Grahame.
-
As well,I should have added.
-
and when you facter in that it wasn't certain he would inherit the farm..
and that inheriting the farm to begin with wouldent get him any cash just a load of bills to pay you have abslutly no motive.
-
I'm afraid bills etc get overlooked when you see an amount as a whole. Things are never as they seem in that respect.
-
i mean i cant belive someone would kill all there relatives on spec that they might inherit something.
-
It shows a lack of honesty when people try and make out that Jeremy wasn't going to inherit much, of course he was going to - there is no denying it and to see the things people come up with in order to make out he'd get very little is strange.
-
he wasnt to start with all he was a lardge tax bill a wage bill oh and of course utitility bills .
-
No way,nugs. Although Jeremy appeared to look,and be grown up,he was still irresponsible so far as the business side of farming and all that it entailed,and he certainly wouldn't have even thought of going all out to slaughter his family. It's not something you do on a whim.
The person who carried out those murders was positively unbalanced,and could be forgiven for not knowing or realising what they were doing,and it wasn't Jeremy.
Sheila had always been the thorn in the side of her mother,and sadly it remained that way on the day that Sheila and the boys were dropped off at the farmhouse as both mother and daughter were immediately embroiled in yet another of their usual " spats ".
Did you know that even Neville couldn't calm such situations because June had the upper hand ?
-
well from what of seen his inheritence from nevile wasnt a forgone conclusion where as his inheritence from granny certanly was.
-
It shows a lack of honesty when people try and make out that Jeremy wasn't going to inherit much, of course he was going to - there is no denying it and to see the things people come up with in order to make out he'd get very little is strange.
I agree in todays money the estate even without the farm was a lot of money if you convert it into tdays worth - but worth risking killing your whole family for?
You would definitely have to be deranged wouldn't you?
How much would have stood to inherit from granny if he had not been written out of her will?
-
and from what i hear hes granny was almost on deaths door anyway so he wouldent of had to wait very long.
-
How do we even know Jeremy was aware he was in her will before the murders.
-
How do we even know Jeremy was aware he was in her will before the murders.
You could ask the same about the rest of the family who were there when she changed it - how did they know?
-
How do we even know Jeremy was aware he was in her will before the murders.
everybody else in the family was why wouldn't he be.
the relatives knew jeremy had a share.
-
everybody else in the family was why wouldn't he be.
the relatives knew jeremy had a share.
How do you know they knew that before the murders? Who knew? When? It's possible when they realised that Jeremy had killed for money - they spoke with Speakman in order to ensure she didn't meet the same fate.
-
Why bother changing the will at all if they all knew Jeremy would be convicted ? His share would automatically have been null and void anyway as soon as the cuffs were on him.
-
thats point i hadent thought of that.
maybe they just dident know the law.
-
How do you know they knew that before the murders? Who knew? When? It's possible when they realised that Jeremy had killed for money - they spoke with Speakman in order to ensure she didn't meet the same fate.
Because of the very fact that RWB went to granny Speakman to get her to change it. If he didn't know, then he wouldn't have gone to her.
-
Why bother changing the will at all if they all knew Jeremy would be convicted ? His share would automatically have been null and void anyway as soon as the cuffs were on him.
Not really lookout. Only if he was convicted. But they (the relatives) didn't know he would be convicted. Jeremy himself said that he never in a million years thought that he'd be convicted. That wasn't because he was boasting that they'd never convict him. He genuinely didn't think (because he was innocent) that they wqould never convict him because he believed in British Justice. But now of course he thinks the same as I do. British justice stinks as it is run by corrupt men and women. More so today than in the 80's.
-
Not really lookout. Only if he was convicted. But they (the relatives) didn't know he would be convicted. Jeremy himself said that he never in a million years thought that he'd be convicted. That wasn't because he was boasting that they'd never convict him. He genuinely didn't think (because he was innocent) that they wqould never convict him because he believed in British Justice. But now of course he thinks the same as I do. British justice stinks as it is run by corrupt men and women. More so today than in the 80's.
Hi Grahame.WHY the need to change the will at all. Was it aforethought on RWB's part,as I don't believe that " he didn't know ". In HIS own mind he did ( if you get my drift ) ? Something must have been in the wind . A case of forewarned being forearmed ? Meaning that the matter had obviously been discussed around the table on many a night as to who'd get what should either Bamber parent die.
I know what families are like having been involved in similar matters,where a family member died intestate.
-
Hi Grahame.WHY the need to change the will at all. Was it aforethought on RWB's part,as I don't believe that " he didn't know ". In HIS own mind he did ( if you get my drift ) ? Something must have been in the wind . A case of forewarned being forearmed ? Meaning that the matter had obviously been discussed around the table on many a night as to who'd get what should either Bamber parent die.
I know what families are like having been involved in similar matters,where a family member died intestate.
I suppose RWB's knowledge of the will was dependent upon who the executor was? But apparently he did know?
-
I am afraid all the witness evidence points to Jeremy hating his family.
Julie Mugford
Mary Mugford.
Ann Eaton
James Richards
Robert Boutflour
Dorothy Folks
They all testified how Jeremy hated and resented his family.
Barbara Wilson said Jeremy used to ride on Junes bike, taunting her at WHF. He also left rats in June's car.
Jeremy showed his utter contempt for his family. Robbing them shortly before he committed the massacre.
On the massacre night he was calling Sheila all kinds of names to the police. Years later he admitted he did not understand her illness.
Jeremy never forgave June for sending him to boarding school. They had not spoken for years. He slated her to the police and admitted in court they did not get along.
Jeremy had a blazing row with Neville just before the massacre. AE said she was surprised it did not get physical.
-
Christ,just what we need---------------another parrot !! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Decades after conviction Jeremy said he was a mummies boy. Running around WHF. This must have been pre boarding school. He never forgave June for sending him to boarding school.
After persuading June & Neville to finance long jaunts abroad, resentment set in when Sheila & the twins continued to be fully subsidised.
-
Hello Adam wow you are back thought you had been lost at sea :'( Now I am not disagreeing with one word in your post I am not qualified to do so have you a source please
-
I am afraid all the witness evidence points to Jeremy hating his family.
Julie Mugford
Mary Mugford.
Ann Eaton
James Richards
Robert Boutflour
Dorothy Folks
They all testified how Jeremy hated and resented his family.
Barbara Wilson said Jeremy used to ride on Junes bike, taunting her at WHF. He also left rats in June's car.
Jeremy showed his utter contempt for his family. Robbing them shortly before he committed the massacre.
On the massacre night he was calling Sheila all kinds of names to the police. Years later he admitted he did not understand her illness.
Jeremy never forgave June for sending him to boarding school. They had not spoken for years. He slated her to the police and admitted in court they did not get along.
Jeremy had a blazing row with Neville just before the massacre. AE said she was surprised it did not get physical.
I rather think you have posted in the wrong thread Adam? ;)
-
Decades after conviction Jeremy said he was a mummies boy. Running around WHF. This must have been pre boarding school. He never forgave June for sending him to boarding school.
After persuading June & Neville to finance long jaunts abroad, resentment set in when Sheila & the twins continued to be fully subsidised.
And where may I ask is your evidence for that? Don't tell me don't tell me...Wilkes, right? ::)
-
No evidence. But would a 7 -18 year old boy still be running around WHF ?
Anyway how can Jeremy run around WHF if he is at boarding school ?
-
And where may I ask is your evidence for that? Don't tell me don't tell me...Wilkes, right? ::)
Sorry. Mis read.
Mary Mugford testified this. I have already created a thread. Would you like me to find it ?
-
No evidence. But would a 7 -18 year old boy still be running around WHF ?
Anyway how can Jeremy run around WHF if he is at boarding school ?
Erm?.....During holidays. ;)
-
Sorry. Mis read.
Mary Mugford testified this. I have already created a thread. Would you like me to find it ?
NO NO :o Please don't. I'm fine, really I am. ::)
-
Sorry. Mis read.
Mary Mugford testified this. I have already created a thread. Would you like me to find it ?
Oh I see muggy's mum. Ever heard of chinese whispers?
-
There was also a thread on whether a mother would lie under oath to protect her daughter. Started by April.
Most people said she would not.
Would you like me to find it for you ?
-
There was also a thread on whether a mother would lie under oath to protect her daughter. Started by April.
Most people said she would not.
Would you like me to find it for you ?
Half truths are sometimes more damaging than outright lies Adam. You will probably notice this now that I've mentioned it when it happens to you. You've already seen it in regard to myself by others on the forum. But you hadn't noticed it because you think the things they say of me to be the truth? This is happening to Jeremy all the time, but you, knowing no better think the half truths are in fact the whole truth.
-
Do you think the seven people who testified in court were lying ?
Jeremy agreed with some of it. Regarding June & Sheila.
There is no record of him refuting the blazing row AE said he had with Neville just before the massacre. There is also no record of what he thought of the twins. Although Julie said he resented there subsidised life.
Mary Mugford testified June was planning to amend her will in favour of the twins. Source, Jeremy. There is no record of Jeremy refuting this.
-
Do you think the seven people who testified in court were lying ?
Jeremy agreed with some of it. Regarding June & Sheila.
There is no record of him refuting the blazing row AE said he had with Neville. There is also no record of what he thought of the twins. Although Julie said he resented there subsidised life.
Mary Mugford testified June was planning to amend her will in favour of the twins. Source, Jeremy. There is no record of Jeremy refuting this.
There are a lot of things I don't agree with on this forum. But I don't refute all of them. Yes I do think that some lied on oath, or at least were economical with the truth. Yes I do believe a mother may lie for her daughter in order to protect her from prosecution. Anf finally I don't think that everything was rosy in the family garden concerning the so called extended family. I believe there was discord and hatred among themselves. Some of this boiled over into the public eye eg: when John Eaton punched Ralph in the eye.
And yes I think it entirely possible that the truth can be stretched so far as to give a distorted view of Jeremy's relationship with his parents. He is also recorded in one of the books I believe that he loved to play with the children. It would have to be a very hard man to kill two children and I just don't see that hardness in Jeremy? You said yourself that he was a mummy's boy and Ralph apparently called him a nansy boy? I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up.
I suggested to scipio that he wrote to Jeremy and he could not see any purpose of that? The purpose in doing that is to get your own impression of him. Otherwise to put it in plain English you are only believing what others say about him in effect. Hearsay in other words. You have no way of knowing that these people are telling the truth or not. You can only trust they are.
-
Do you think the seven people who testified in court were lying ?
Jeremy agreed with some of it. Regarding June & Sheila.
There is no record of him refuting the blazing row AE said he had with Neville. There is also no record of what he thought of the twins. Although Julie said he resented there subsidised life.
Mary Mugford testified June was planning to amend her will in favour of the twins. Source, Jeremy. There is no record of Jeremy refuting this.
What you speak of is not rare,it's called life,and goes on in thousands of families so it wasn't unique to the Bambers. People are posting as if they're absolutely horrified at some of the things that went on,mainly about Jeremy of course. ( todays headlines are worse,as is society in general )
I'd imagine that a safe distance was kept from the Bambers towards their relatives,as Neville was no fool and he certainly would have seen through the lot of them. He obviously let Jeremy find out for himself.
I wouldn't rely on what AE said. The " object " that was pivotal to the case didn't even get a mention in her statement ?
-
I know family arguments are part of life. I am just trying to show these contributed to Jeremy making his decision.
There were lots of other reasons. Oh and £436,000.
-
Here are some of the other reasons. Apart from the £436,000. Although the judge in court said it was likely to be a lot more.
ALREADY IN PRISON ON THE FARM:
Was it 14 or 17 hour days on the farm ? Either way long days. At court Jeremy said he had seen his fathers will which tied him to working on the farm until Neville died.
BOARDING SCHOOL:
Mary Mugford said Jeremy 'never forgave June for sending him to boarding school.
THINGS WERE SLIPPING AWAY:
Jeremy was 24. It was the 'loads of money' era. Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy based in London. But told Julie he had 'too much to lose' by walking away. He had neither the talent or determination to make it alone.
Mary Mugford said in court Jeremy had told her June was going to amend her will in favour of the twins.
OPPORTUNITY:
There was an opportunity and ready made scapegoat.
HATRED:
People testified how Jeremy hated his parents. Julie testified how Jeremy said Sheila upset him when younger.
RESENTMENT:
Sheila was living rent & work free in London. And would have inherited as much as Jeremy when Neville/June deceased. But how many hours had she worked on the farm ? And how many hours would she put in after inheriting ?
DOING EVERYONE A FAVOUR:
Neville was apparently 'ready to be put to pasture', June was a 'religious maniac', Sheila needed being 'put out of her misery' & the twins were bound to be effected by all this. Even Colin would benefit as he would have more time to look for work without the burden of two children.
PROVING JULIE WRONG, AND IMPRESSING HER:
Julie obviously never believed Jeremy would do something so horrendous. Even on the night she dismissed him. On TV she said Jeremy used to 'say things to shock people'.
STATUS, POWER, FAME:
Jeremy would instantly obtain these. He offered a 'Sun' journalist his life story prior to being charged.
TO SHOW HE COULD ACHIEVE SOMETHING:
The perfect crime and frame. Jeremy was so proud. Ringing Julie on the night. Then telling her later but giving himself a proxy. He later boasted to Liz Rimmington 'only I know what really happened that night'.
ON THE DAY:
Spending 14, or was it 17 hours working on the farm. Watching Sheila & the twins strolling around on their free holiday. A rare opportunity with everyone at WHF. Julies dismissal. Maybe Jeremy had an argument at WHF that night. BW said there was always a strained atmosphere when Jeremy was present.
THE CARAVAN BREAK IN:
BW said June & Neville knew about this. Further damaging their relationship with Jeremy. Was it now beyond repair ? Jeremy and June had not spoken for years according to Mary Mugford.
ADOPTION:
Jeremy was not related by blood. He was adopted and then sent to boarding school. Before persuading his parents to finance some jaunts abroad. Now he was a farm labourer. Complaining about his adoptive parents interfering in his life. Parents he did not like.
THE BUSINESS:
AE says Jeremy and Neville had a blazing row just before the murders. Neville would always have the final say as Jeremy only had a small share. This would have frustrated the 'would be' business executive Jeremy.
-
I know family arguments are part of life. I am just trying to show these contributed to Jeremy making his decision.
There were lots of other reasons. Oh and £436,000.
What, to kill 5 people for when he had half his granny's estate to look forward to? Not a chance.
-
Here are some of the other reasons. Apart from the £436,000. Although the judge in court said it was likely to be a lot more.
ALREADY IN PRISON ON THE FARM:
Was it 14 or 17 hour days on the farm ? Either way long days. At court Jeremy said he had seen his fathers will which tied him to working on the farm until Neville died.
BOARDING SCHOOL:
Mary Mugford said Jeremy 'never forgave June for sending him to boarding school.
THINGS WERE SLIPPING AWAY:
Jeremy was 24. It was the 'loads of money' era. Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy based in London. But told Julie he had 'too much to lose' by walking away. He had neither the talent or determination to make it alone.
Mary Mugford said in court Jeremy had told her June was going to amend her will in favour of the twins.
OPPORTUNITY:
There was an opportunity and ready made scapegoat.
HATRED:
People testified how Jeremy hated his parents. Julie testified how Jeremy said Sheila upset him when younger.
RESENTMENT:
Sheila was living rent & work free in London. And would have inherited as much as Jeremy when Neville/June deceased. But how many hours had she worked on the farm ? And how many hours would she put in after inheriting ?
DOING EVERYONE A FAVOUR:
Neville was apparently 'ready to be put to pasture', June was a 'religious maniac', Sheila needed being 'put out of her misery' & the twins were bound to be effected by all this. Even Colin would benefit as he would have more time to look for work without the burden of two children.
PROVING JULIE WRONG, AND IMPRESSING HER:
Julie obviously never believed Jeremy would do something so horrendous. Even on the night she dismissed him. On TV she said Jeremy used to 'say things to shock people'.
STATUS, POWER, FAME:
Jeremy would instantly obtain these. He offered a 'Sun' journalist his life story prior to being charged.
TO SHOW HE COULD ACHIEVE SOMETHING:
The perfect crime and frame. Jeremy was so proud. Ringing Julie on the night. Then telling her later but giving himself a proxy. He later boasted to Liz Rimmington 'only I know what really happened that night'.
ON THE DAY:
Spending 14, or was it 17 hours working on the farm. Watching Sheila & the twins strolling around on their free holiday. A rare opportunity with everyone at WHF. Julies dismissal. Maybe Jeremy had an argument at WHF that night. BW said there was always a strained atmosphere when Jeremy was present.
THE CARAVAN BREAK IN:
BW said June & Neville knew about this. Further damaging their relationship with Jeremy. Was it now beyond repair ? Jeremy and June had not spoken for years according to Mary Mugford.
ADOPTION:
Jeremy was not related by blood. He was adopted and then sent to boarding school. Before persuading his parents to finance some jaunts abroad. Now he was a farm labourer. Complaining about his adoptive parents interfering in his life. Parents he did not like.
THE BUSINESS:
AE says Jeremy and Neville had a blazing row just before the murders. Neville would always have the final say as Jeremy only had a small share. This would have frustrated the 'would be' business executive Jeremy.
As I said, one way vision. Just out of curiosity why are you so obsessed with Jeremy?
-
You mean his granny was going to bypass June, Neville and other relatives and hand everything to Jeremy and Sheila. Source please.
When did she die ? Wikipedia says Jeremy took legal action over her will decades later.
How much was she worth ? Again, source please.
-
What, to kill 5 people for when he had half his granny's estate to look forward to? Not a chance.
Yeah, I think you have your wires crossed a little bit there Grahame, if Nevill and June were alive, then Jeremy wouldn't have inherited much (if anything) from the Speakman estate.
-
In 2003 he began a High Court action to recover £1.2m from the estate of his adoptive grandmother, Mabel Speakman, arguing that he should have inherited her home at Carbonnells Farm, Wix. Source Wikipedia.
Wish I had inherited a home from either set of grandparents. I didn't.
-
Jeremy's lawsuit was unsuccessful.
-
You mean his granny was going to bypass June, Neville and other relatives and hand everything to Jeremy and Sheila. Source please.
When did she die ? Wikipedia says Jeremy took legal action over her will decades later.
How much was she worth ? Again, source please.
I think the consensus is that she died in February 1986, however Lomax suggests it was September 1985.
I don't know any figures, but her estate was 'substantial', she owned majority shares in Osea Caravan park and owned the Vaulty Manor opposite.
-
Adam why do you have the need to bring the word "adoptive" into your post Mabel Speakman I am told thought highly of Jeremy and he was originally in her will.
-
In 2003 he began a High Court action to recover £1.2m from the estate of his adoptive grandmother, Mabel Speakman, arguing that he should have inherited her home at Carbonnells Farm, Wix. Source Wikipedia.
Wish I had inherited a home from either set of grandparents. I didn't.
Carbonnells Farm in Wix, was co-owned between Speakman and the Boutflours. The Boutflours lived there, Mabel Speakman lived at Vaulty Manor.
-
Adam why do you have the need to bring the word "adoptive" into your post Mabel Speakman I am told thought highly of Jeremy and he was originally in her will.
Susan, I believe he copied and pasted the text from a news report, that's all.
Edit: In fact it is from Wikipedia (like he said it was).
-
Harters thanks for that. Sorry Adam.
-
If Jeremy was about to inherit a lot of money from his grandmother, why wasn't that brought up in court ?
It would negate the main motive straight away & put reasonable doubt in the juries minds.
-
If Jeremy was about to inherit a lot of money from his grandmother, why wasn't that brought up in court ?
It would negate the main motive straight away & put reasonable doubt in the juries minds.
He wasn't.
-
He wasn't.
;D
-
A testimony from someone who grew up with Jeremy
L A Coles
I first knew Jeremy a long time ago, in fact many years before the tragedies at White House Farm. Jeremy is a kind person who helped me considerably during a period in my life that was very difficult. He always proved to be a shoulder to cry on all too often. I was shocked that he had been found guilty of murdering his family as this was not the man that I knew so well.
Over the years we drifted apart but managed to send the odd card or letter. But in later years we came into regular contact again and even my son and daughter, who are now fully grown write to Jeremy and have got to know him. I would trust Jeremy with my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren.
Our lives move on, all of us, but sadly Jeremy’s has not, he has been unlawfully denied the right to relationships and family that we all have with our liberty. This is why I urge everyone who reads this to campaign and fight for Jeremy.
I long to see my friend released to the freedom he so richly deserves. I often feel that I owe him something for his loyalty to me during those years when we should have both been young and carefree but the burdens of life sometimes take over us. I didn’t need to see any evidence of Jeremy’s innocence, I knew him well and I always knew he couldn’t kill or raise his hand to anyone in violence. Jeremy always was, and always will be the perfect gentleman and the warmest of my friends.
I had always known that something wasn’t right about the evidence in his conviction and having met his relatives I could see they were greedy, grasping creatures and so it comes as no surprise that the so called ‘evidence’ they found has turned out to be fabricated which Peter Sutherst outlines in his interviews. I urge the people who were involved in this wrongdoing to come forward to the police, hand yourself in and tell the truth because you will be facing a long jail term for this crime and the courts will view you more leniently if you make the approach to put matters right.
-
Jeremy talking about his upbringing
In an emotional letter Bamber wrote: “It’s every little boy’s dream to have so many places to explore, build camps, ride on tractors, have lots of pets and feel completely safe... and that’s how it was for me.
“Mum was always home, ready with food and drinks and cuddles when I’d scraped or banged something, and from a young age I’d just tag along with Dad when I fancied.
“It’s just happy memories. The fact that I was adopted didn’t affect me in the slightest... my mum and dad are June and Nevill and they will always be so.
HAPPY
“I was always a mummy’s boy until I was seven or eight years old. We always had au pairs and a female housekeeper and Sheila so I was surrounded by women who ensured I got lots of love and attention.”
Bamber revealed he also had a close relationship with his father as he grew older.
“Mum taught me to cook and all sorts by the time I was nine and going to boarding school... from then on Dad took on a bigger role in my life and by 15 we were good mates as well as father and son,” he said.
“I was close to both mum and dad.”
Neville and June Bamber Killed: Dad Nevill and mum June were gunned down
Bamber, 51, was this week told that he can challenge his full-life tariff at the European Court of Human Rights.
And although that ruling affects only the length of his sentence, he still believes he will clear his name of the murders at the remote farmhouse in Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Essex, in 1985, despite his two failed appeals in 1989 and 2002.
He has always claimed that his schizophrenic sister Sheila, 28, murdered the family before turning the gun on herself.
His last attempt to overturn his conviction was thrown out earlier this year. He challenged key evidence about a silencer on the murder weapon, but was refused permission for a new appeal.
Despite his assertion that Sheila was the real killer Bamber says he only has happy memories of her.
“Sheila was always my big sister,” he wrote. “We were at our closest from my being 15 and her 18 or 19 until I was 19 and off to Australia.”
“Those four years were great for both of us and we had lots of good times together. She was so protective of me and really kind and sensitive.
“When Sheila had the twins I saw her almost every week, and I never understood her mental illness... I never took it seriously, but it never caused any rift in our relationship.”
Jeremy has spoken to me many times about how much he likes cooking
-
There are a lot of things I don't agree with on this forum. But I don't refute all of them. Yes I do think that some lied on oath, or at least were economical with the truth. Yes I do believe a mother may lie for her daughter in order to protect her from prosecution. Anf finally I don't think that everything was rosy in the family garden concerning the so called extended family. I believe there was discord and hatred among themselves. Some of this boiled over into the public eye eg: when John Eaton punched Ralph in the eye.
And yes I think it entirely possible that the truth can be stretched so far as to give a distorted view of Jeremy's relationship with his parents. He is also recorded in one of the books I believe that he loved to play with the children. It would have to be a very hard man to kill two children and I just don't see that hardness in Jeremy? You said yourself that he was a mummy's boy and Ralph apparently called him a nansy boy? I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up.
I suggested to scipio that he wrote to Jeremy and he could not see any purpose of that? The purpose in doing that is to get your own impression of him. Otherwise to put it in plain English you are only believing what others say about him in effect. Hearsay in other words. You have no way of knowing that these people are telling the truth or not. You can only trust they are.
Grahame, I don't always agree with you, but in this case, I agree with MOST of what you say. It occurs to me that it's not beyond the realms of possibility that those who gave Jeremy a less than glowing character reference could well have had things suggested to them, starting off with being told that he was guilty. It's not impossible that some of them knew each other and compared notes. It would only take one strong personality to sway previously held opinions.
-
How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.
Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.
-
It would have to be a very hard man to kill two children and I just don't see that hardness in Jeremy? You said yourself that he was a mummy's boy and Ralph apparently called him a nansy boy? I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up.
So you again admit you are a Jeremy supporter. Maybe you will stop pretending to be sititng on the fence as an objective party finally? When you write things liek this then profess you are objective and on the fence it doesn't wash.
You look at it ass backwards. Instead of looking at the evidence you look at whethe ryou believe Jeremy would be able to kill and would do so for the amount of money at stake and you say he would not even though you personally did not know him and there is no way you could know what he is or is not capable of. There are thousands of examples of peopel killing family over lesser amounts of money than he stood to gain some for even small insurance policies like $5-10,000.
Rational objective people follow the evidence where it leads and the evidence established Jeremy did it.
In your ass backwards way of looking at it you decide that he would never have done it and therefore that means the vast evidence against him is all faked. You see it more liekly all the evidence was planted and everyone involved is lying except Jeremy because you woudl rather believe that they all lied and all the evidence planted than to believe Jeremy did it.
So no evidence would be strong enough in your eyes to prove Jeremy guilty, you refuse to believe he could have done it so all the evidence has to be lies and planted though you have not a shred of evidence to actually prove anyone lied or planted anything.
Some of the evidence proving his guilt is beyond control of police though. You still ignore that because you simply don't want to believe he did it end of story.
Anytime your true position is shown to be flawed and purely out of bias you lash out like a child, deny it and claim you are objective and rational and I am twisting and all sorts of BS.
I am not twising anything your SIMPLISTIC and CHILDISH rationale of why you believe Jeremy is innocent was typed with your own fingers and it was: "I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up."
It adds up to you that eveyrone planted/concealed evidence and lied as opposed to Jeremy killing anyone despite his proven lies and the fact his claims DO NOT ADD UP. His claims make no sense and he repeatedly lied and changed his story. Even the staged bullets int he kitchen don't add up there were too many. His story doesn't add up and your childish rationale fails to acocunt for the most damning evidence that proves Sheila did nothing.
There is no way Sheila could have committed the murders without having minor injuries and getting blood /GSR on her clothing and had to wear gloves as well. Ther eis no way for such gloves and clothing to have been been hid at WHF never to be found. Police were convinced the did it early on and searched for such evidence finding none. She can't have killed herself because she was dragged flat after she was dead and the bible opened and closed in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead. Police could not have done these things her blood was dry by the time they entered.
You simply ignore Jeremy admitting he removed the scope and hid the phone replacing it with the bedroom phone and anything else he did that is highly suspicious.
Your claims don't add up anymore than Jeremy's. Stop accusing those you call guilters of having blinders, it it you and Jeremy supporters wearing the blinders.
-
How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.
Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.
I don't know many 24 year olds who are the " my mum " type. They all act macho when they're together and talk about their mothers this way. Going back to when I was at school,a lads mum was at the school gate with her dog and just thought she'd wait for her teenage son as it was 4 o'clock,hometime. Did he greet her ? No ! He asked what she was doing outside the school showing him up,and stood arguing with her and giving her cheek,simply because he was embarrassed in front of his school friends.
Jeremy would be no different.He'd have loved his mum but like most lads/young men,wouldn't show it openly.
" Effeminate Jeremy ?" What,with a queue of floozies ready to bed him ?? Because that's how it was when he moved to Goldhanger,because when he lived at home,he had to be in at a certain time or his mother had words.
-
How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.
Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.
we have been through this before - find those exact words in the original police statements or log books made the day after the event by the policemen that were actually with him and speaking to him . Not in September but the days afterwards. The show me the document please.
-
If Jeremy was about to inherit a lot of money from his grandmother, why wasn't that brought up in court ?
It would negate the main motive straight away & put reasonable doubt in the juries minds.
You are correct. Unfortunately it appears that a lot of things weren't brought up in court that should have been?
-
He wasn't.
Why did RWB feel it necessary to get grandma to change her will to exclude Jeremy then?
-
How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.
Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.
RWB called her a looney. Which of course in layman's terms she was. Jeremy was only telling the truth. Ask the Boutflours who always called them both (although they strongly deny it) cuckoos. I think you will probably find that the relatives called Jeremy a lot worse because they hated him?
-
How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.
Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.
Doesn't Wilkes say anything about it? I am surprised.
-
Why did RWB feel it necessary to get grandma to change her will to exclude Jeremy then?
To remove June's share.
-
So you again admit you are a Jeremy supporter. Maybe you will stop pretending to be sititng on the fence as an objective party finally? When you write things liek this then profess you are objective and on the fence it doesn't wash.
You look at it ass backwards. Instead of looking at the evidence you look at whethe ryou believe Jeremy would be able to kill and would do so for the amount of money at stake and you say he would not even though you personally did not know him and there is no way you could know what he is or is not capable of. There are thousands of examples of peopel killing family over lesser amounts of money than he stood to gain some for even small insurance policies like $5-10,000.
Rational objective people follow the evidence where it leads and the evidence established Jeremy did it.
In your ass backwards way of looking at it you decide that he would never have done it and therefore that means the vast evidence against him is all faked. You see it more liekly all the evidence was planted and everyone involved is lying except Jeremy because you woudl rather believe that they all lied and all the evidence planted than to believe Jeremy did it.
So no evidence would be strong enough in your eyes to prove Jeremy guilty, you refuse to believe he could have done it so all the evidence has to be lies and planted though you have not a shred of evidence to actually prove anyone lied or planted anything.
Some of the evidence proving his guilt is beyond control of police though. You still ignore that because you simply don't want to believe he did it end of story.
Anytime your true position is shown to be flawed and purely out of bias you lash out like a child, deny it and claim you are objective and rational and I am twisting and all sorts of BS.
I am not twising anything your SIMPLISTIC and CHILDISH rationale of why you believe Jeremy is innocent was typed with your own fingers and it was: "I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up."
It adds up to you that eveyrone planted/concealed evidence and lied as opposed to Jeremy killing anyone despite his proven lies and the fact his claims DO NOT ADD UP. His claims make no sense and he repeatedly lied and changed his story. Even the staged bullets int he kitchen don't add up there were too many. His story doesn't add up and your childish rationale fails to acocunt for the most damning evidence that proves Sheila did nothing.
There is no way Sheila could have committed the murders without having minor injuries and getting blood /GSR on her clothing and had to wear gloves as well. Ther eis no way for such gloves and clothing to have been been hid at WHF never to be found. Police were convinced the did it early on and searched for such evidence finding none. She can't have killed herself because she was dragged flat after she was dead and the bible opened and closed in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead. Police could not have done these things her blood was dry by the time they entered.
You simply ignore Jeremy admitting he removed the scope and hid the phone replacing it with the bedroom phone and anything else he did that is highly suspicious.
Your claims don't add up anymore than Jeremy's. Stop accusing those you call guilters of having blinders, it it you and Jeremy supporters wearing the blinders.
Aren't you one extremely rude individual? You don't even appear to have the resolution of a child to even understand what I believe do you. I suggest that you cease and desist to continue to try and belittle others with you viscious manner and simplistic mind. Please have a little more respect for your elders. You appear to lack even an iota of wisdom and foresight? I wonder why you guilters cannot hold an adult conversation without abusing others at some level?
-
To remove June's share.
I believe it was Ann Eaton who said that he went there to ensure that Jeremy wouldn't benefit in any way from her will. In other words to write him out of it?
-
I believe it was Ann Eaton who said that he went there to ensure that Jeremy wouldn't benefit in any way from her will. In other words to write him out of it?
I don't know who specifically it was, possibly Robert, but yes, they explained what Jeremy had done and the will was altered.
June's share would have filtered down to him (possibly :-\) and I think he was going to receive some extra Osea Caravan park shares.
That's as I understand it anyway. :-\
-
I don't know who specifically it was, possibly Robert, but yes, they explained what Jeremy had done and the will was altered.
June's share would have filtered down to him (possibly :-\) and I think he was going to receive some extra Osea Caravan park shares.
That's as I understand it anyway. :-\
And this of course was either before the trial, or possibly before the verdict was known?
-
And this of course was either before the trial, or possibly before the verdict was known?
Well I would imagine so, as Speakman passed away before the trial. It's lucky they didn't wait until after!!!
They were clearly convinced, and the verdict shows their fears were justified.
-
Aren't you one extremely rude individual? You don't even appear to have the resolution of a child to even understand what I believe do you. I suggest that you cease and desist to continue to try and belittle others with you viscious manner and simplistic mind. Please have a little more respect for your elders. You appear to lack even an iota of wisdom and foresight? I wonder why you guilters cannot hold an adult conversation without abusing others at some level?
You 'GUILTERS' :o
One misbehaves and we all get branded. ??? ;D
-
You 'GUILTERS' :o
One misbehaves and we all get branded. ??? ;D
Well no not all Hartley. ;D But this man does annoy me a bit sometimes with his snyde remarks which are for the most part uncalled for. I really am not what you term a Bamber supporter as such. But I tend to argue from that standpoint a lot because of such people as scipio. I will often argue in favour of Bamber just to annoy him. ::)
-
I believe it was Ann Eaton who said that he went there to ensure that Jeremy wouldn't benefit in any way from her will. In other words to write him out of it?
But why,if he hadn't been convicted at that point ? As I've already said,why bother changing it when RWB knew that it was a foregone conclusion anyway ? A tad premature,wasn't it ?
-
Well no not all Hartley. ;D But this man does annoy me a bit sometimes with his snyde remarks which are for the most part uncalled for. I really am not what you term a Bamber supporter as such. But I tend to argue from that standpoint a lot because of such people as scipio. I will often argue in favour of Bamber just to annoy him. ::)
I'd never have guessed. ;D
-
But why,if he hadn't been convicted at that point ? As I've already said,why bother changing it when RWB knew that it was a foregone conclusion anyway ? A tad premature,wasn't it ?
It just goes to demonstrate just how much they believed him to be guilty and if he got off then he would have arguably inherited the lot?
-
It just goes to demonstrate just how much they believed him to be guilty and if he got off then he would have arguably inherited the lot?
I'm not sure how it works. Pamela would have still received her share, how June's share would have been distributed I do not know.
-
It just goes to demonstrate just how much they believed him to be guilty and if he got off then he would have arguably inherited the lot?
They'll all look a bit sick if he's found to have been innocent. Even then,I can't see him being the type to take them all to court to get back what's his.
-
They'll all look a bit sick if he's found to have been innocent. Even then,I can't see him being the type to take them all to court to get back what's his.
You are funny Lookout. ::)
-
You are funny Lookout. ::)
I'm glad you think so,Harters. ;D
-
They'll all look a bit sick if he's found to have been innocent. Even then,I can't see him being the type to take them all to court to get back what's his.
I think I would!
-
I think I would!
I wouldn't want the courtroom hassle all over again,Jansus. It would be High court too.
-
we have been through this before - find those exact words in the original police statements or log books made the day after the event by the policemen that were actually with him and speaking to him . Not in September but the days afterwards. The show me the document please.
Thought I read these words in a recent police statement posted on here. Regarding the police passing Jeremy on the way to WHF.
-
I think I would!
I think you'll find he tried. ::)
-
Thought I read these words in a recent police statement posted on here. Regarding the police passing Jeremy on the way to WHF.
I may be wrong but I think you will find it was a much later statement and did not match up with the original statement or notebook.
That's why I asked for the original statements .
-
I quote a statement which a Jeremy supporter posted. Then I am told the statement is wrong.
-
I quote a statement which a Jeremy supporter posted. Then I am told the statement is wrong.
I did not say that - work it out .
-
Because of the very fact that RWB went to granny Speakman to get her to change it. If he didn't know, then he wouldn't have gone to her.
and if rwb knew its not really credible that jeremy dident.
-
They'll all look a bit sick if he's found to have been innocent. Even then,I can't see him being the type to take them all to court to get back what's his.
What are you smoking? He sued them even though he had been convicted. You seem to know nothing at all about his character and instead have some fantasy view of how pious he is.
-
What are you smoking? He sued them even though he had been convicted. You seem to know nothing at all about his character and instead have some fantasy view of how pious he is.
Whatever it is she is smoking, she's a long term user of it. Her affliction is an on-going illness.
-
I quote a statement which a Jeremy supporter posted. Then I am told the statement is wrong.
haha ;D
-
and if rwb knew its not really credible that jeremy dident.
Quite frankly, just between you and me..... ;D......most people know what is in their relative's wills. Nothing is strange about this at all. Trouble is that we always tend to attach a mystery to the things we hear on the forum when there is no mystery at all. The people who wrote the wills probably told those who were in their wills anyway. Nothing underhanded at all?
-
Grahame Ha Ha made my day has that ;D ;D ;D ;D Adam thats life ;D
-
What are you smoking? He sued them even though he had been convicted. You seem to know nothing at all about his character and instead have some fantasy view of how pious he is.
Maaaaaan this smoke's gooooood. No one's pious in this world maaaan. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-cool10.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Grahame think we all should start having a little smoke before posting ;D ;D ;D
-
Quite frankly, just between you and me..... ;D......most people know what is in their relative's wills. Nothing is strange about this at all. Trouble is that we always tend to attach a mystery to the things we hear on the forum when there is no mystery at all. The people who wrote the wills probably told those who were in their wills anyway. Nothing underhanded at all?
That is the problem, sometimes uneittigly ee can decide what we believe, innocent or guilty and then try to prove it. Very easy with this case as there's so much conflicting evidence which can be interpreted in different ways.
-
he allready had a house and a car and was set to inherit plenty of cash from his grandmother so yes he did have no real motive.
Source please about the grandmother.
-
Whatever it is she is smoking, she's a long term user of it. Her affliction is an on-going illness.
It's not half the " illness " that you've got !!
-
Just because you don't agree with my posts---------you sad,spiteful individual !
-
Taken from David Shaws manuscript
Anji Greaves had stood by Jeremy during his twelve months in custody awaiting trial. On remand Jeremy had written over 100 letters to her. She’d said at the time: ‘I can’t believe that someone who blushed like a schoolboy and longed to be hugged all the time could possibly have murdered his family.’
At 25 years old JB would have been a fully developed adult male. The above suggests he was under developed?
-
At 25 years old JB would have been a fully developed adult male. The above suggests he was under developed?
No I read into this that Jeremy felt remote from his parents from the earliest stages and felt awkward in front of them,turning his angst inward for many years,only for it to be released in an inexplicable frenzy of revenge one August Wednesday morning.The mystery is why he changed behaviour,when he wasn't making a bad attempt at farming,just he wasn't cut out for it and longed for something else. June offered to buy Sheila an antique shop in proximity to the Farm,and what a pity she didn't make a similar offer to Jeremy of managing a wine bar in London's West End.
-
No I read into this that Jeremy felt remote from his parents from the earliest stages and felt awkward in front of them,turning his angst inward for many years,only for it to be released in an inexplicable frenzy of revenge one August Wednesday morning.The mystery is why he changed behaviour,when he wasn't making a bad attempt at farming,just he wasn't cut out for it and longed for something else. June offered to buy Sheila an antique shop in proximity to the Farm,and what a pity she didn't make a similar offer to Jeremy of managing a wine bar in London's West End.
You've totally confused me? I was referring to the fact that it has been suggested JB blushed easily and hugged a lot suggesting arrested development.
-
You've totally confused me? I was referring to the fact that it has been suggested JB blushed easily and hugged a lot suggesting arrested development.
Well he was a late developer as you can see from the Silver Jubilee photgraph. After he gained O Levels at Colchester College he may have gained in self-confidence.
-
Well he was a late developer as you can see from the Silver Jubilee photgraph. After he gained O Levels at Colchester College he may have gained in self-confidence.
Late developer of psychopath?
-
Late developer of psychopath?
Thinking of the planning which must have gone into the murders if guilty does make him "evil beyond belief",but the psychopath debate is beyond my comprehension.
-
Thinking of the planning which must have gone into the murders if guilty does make him "evil beyond belief",but the psychopath debate is beyond my comprehension.
Putting psychopathy to one side, you suggest if guilty he's evil beyond belief. So what do you say to the torment he continues to put his victims through and the clear lack of conscience or respect concerning the memory of the murder victims?
Where did this profound immorality come from?
-
You've totally confused me? I was referring to the fact that it has been suggested JB blushed easily and hugged a lot suggesting arrested development.
I agree. It certainly smacks of stunted emotional growth.
-
Putting psychopathy to one side, you suggest if guilty he's evil beyond belief. So what do you say to the torment he continues to put his victims through and the clear lack of conscience or respect concerning the memory of the murder victims?
Where did this profound immorality come from?
I don't believe his claim that 'adoption didn't bother him'. He found out about his adoption around the time he was sent off to boarding school. Coming to terms with the adoption would surely have been difficult enough - being packed off to boarding school might possibly have magnified feelings of rejection. His was later teased and called a 'bastard' after he confided in a friend about his adoption. I think these aspects were the seeds.
-
I don't believe his claim that 'adoption didn't bother him'. He found out about his adoption around the time he was sent off to boarding school. Coming to terms with the adoption would surely have been difficult enough - being packed off to boarding school might possibly have magnified feelings of rejection. His was later teased and called a 'bastard' after he confided in a friend about his adoption. I think these aspects were the seeds.
Just a fleeting thought. I wonder if he felt able to tell June and Nevill that he'd been called "Bastard" or might he have felt too ashamed, humiliated and embarrassed, maybe of using the word in front of them.
-
I don't believe his claim that 'adoption didn't bother him'. He found out about his adoption around the time he was sent off to boarding school. Coming to terms with the adoption would surely have been difficult enough - being packed off to boarding school might possibly have magnified feelings of rejection. His was later teased and called a 'bastard' after he confided in a friend about his adoption. I think these aspects were the seeds.
With reference to another case, they had also maintained their adoption had not affected them. In the lead up to the confession it became apparent that this was in fact untrue and they had indeed struggled with many issues relating to this, including rejection. They had suggested their victim was a representation of their adoptive mother.
I think this is what JB wants us all to believe. Personally I don't think it should be ruled out as a motivating factor.
-
With reference to another case, they had also maintained their adoption had not affected them. In the lead up to the confession it became apparent that this was in fact untrue and they had indeed struggled with many issues relating to this, including rejection.
I think this is what JB wants us all to believe.
Adoption issues definitely mess with people's heads. It creates a lot of insecurity problems. One kid that I went to school with was adopted and he seemed to bring it up always in some way it was always on his mind almost like blacks hung up on race work race into everything and see things through racial glasses.
Jeremy's actions though are no different than actions blood children have done. Killing siblings and parents to get the entire fortune because one is lazy and doesn't want to work anymore has to do more with one's lack of drive and lack of a work ethic. he wanted to be a rich bigshot but didn't want to put in the effort required to achieve that on his own.
-
Adoption issues definitely mess with people's heads. It creates a lot of insecurity problems. One kid that I went to school with was adopted and he seemed to bring it up always in some way it was always on his mind almost like blacks hung up on race work race into everything and see things through racial glasses.
Jeremy's actions though are no different than actions blood children have done. Killing siblings and parents to get the entire fortune because one is lazy and doesn't want to work anymore has to do more with one's lack of drive and lack of a work ethic. he wanted to be a rich bigshot but didn't want to put in the effort required to achieve that on his own.
I agree, quite understandably I guess, with much of what you say, but there are many variables here. We have spent HOURS debating biological/adopted feelings. The bottom line is that a biological child is never going to understand what "being adopted" feels like and an adopted child is never going to experience what it feels like to be "biological."
-
Adoption issues definitely mess with people's heads. It creates a lot of insecurity problems. One kid that I went to school with was adopted and he seemed to bring it up always in some way it was always on his mind almost like blacks hung up on race work race into everything and see things through racial glasses.
Jeremy's actions though are no different than actions blood children have done. Killing siblings and parents to get the entire fortune because one is lazy and doesn't want to work anymore has to do more with one's lack of drive and lack of a work ethic. he wanted to be a rich bigshot but didn't want to put in the effort required to achieve that on his own.
I don't agree with what you say about adoption. The same can happen within bio families,and it does,probably more so than adoptees,so that's a fallacy as far as I'm concerned. Children are a product of their upbringing,adopted or not,a stable background being paramount in both cases.
Adoption has NEVER been an issue with me insofar as having known adoptees, who are no different.
There has been NO insecurity problems with those that I've known,neither had they made a BIG issue out of being adopted.
However,there's nothing like how You want them to be when if fits your agenda.
-
I don't agree with what you say about adoption. The same can happen within bio families,and it does,probably more so than adoptees,so that's a fallacy as far as I'm concerned. Children are a product of their upbringing,adopted or not,a stable background being paramount in both cases.
Adoption has NEVER been an issue with me insofar as having known adoptees, who are no different.
There has been NO insecurity problems with those that I've known,neither had they made a BIG issue out of being adopted.
However,there's nothing like how You want them to be when if fits your agenda.
I could just as well say that I don't agree with what you say about being biological. I have NO first hand experience of what it feels like and unless you are adopted you have no first hand experience of what adoption feels like. All EITHER of us know is what we are told by those who do know and my own experience of that is that every story is different.
-
Adoption issues definitely mess with people's heads. It creates a lot of insecurity problems. One kid that I went to school with was adopted and he seemed to bring it up always in some way it was always on his mind almost like blacks hung up on race work race into everything and see things through racial glasses.
Jeremy's actions though are no different than actions blood children have done. Killing siblings and parents to get the entire fortune because one is lazy and doesn't want to work anymore has to do more with one's lack of drive and lack of a work ethic. he wanted to be a rich bigshot but didn't want to put in the effort required to achieve that on his own.
Not the best example re "blacks & race" Scipio - >:(
This is your opinion. I am suggesting that it (adoption) shouldn't be ruled out as a factor in this particular case. I can't imagine JB was too happy to hear his biological father refer to him as a psychopath!? I use this as just one example.
-
I'm saying that both categories can be insecure whether you agree or not. Adoptees or bio's,but it's not right to differentiate that adoptees have the " dirty end of the stick ",because they don't.It happens in both cases where you have a " black sheep " in a bio family when someone feels that they don't fit in.
How can you feel that it's different being adopted in the same situation as a bio ? It's exactly the same,if the situation's a bad one.
-
I don't believe his claim that 'adoption didn't bother him'. He found out about his adoption around the time he was sent off to boarding school. Coming to terms with the adoption would surely have been difficult enough - being packed off to boarding school might possibly have magnified feelings of rejection. His was later teased and called a 'bastard' after he confided in a friend about his adoption. I think these aspects were the seeds.
But as Caroline has pointed out, JB claimed that " adoption didn't bother him" - we are discussing a man who has been convicted of killing 5 members of his family (including his adoptive parents). It cannot be ruled out imo that adoption could have been a factor.
-
I'm saying that both categories can be insecure whether you agree or not. Adoptees or bio's,but it's not right to differentiate that adoptees have the " dirty end of the stick ",because they don't.It happens in both cases where you have a " black sheep " in a bio family when someone feels that they don't fit in.
How can you feel that it's different being adopted in the same situation as a bio ? It's exactly the same,if the situation's a bad one.
I DON'T disagree, but neither side can have any concept of what the other feels like. You ask me how can I feel that it's different being adopted in the same situation as a bio. The ONLY answer I can give is that I was TOLD I was different from biological children. I was TOLD I did bad things that REAL children didn't do, so PLEASE don't tell me that a bad situation is exactly the same, whether the child is adopted or biological. You MAY be right but I won't ever get the chance to experience it for myself.
-
I DON'T disagree, but neither side can have any concept of what the other feels like. You ask me how can I feel that it's different being adopted in the same situation as a bio. The ONLY answer I can give is that I was TOLD I was different from biological children. I was TOLD I did bad things that REAL children didn't do, so PLEASE don't tell me that a bad situation is exactly the same, whether the child is adopted or biological. You MAY be right but I won't ever get the chance to experience it for myself.
That's as maybe,but there are hundreds of children who are told that " they're different ",simply because they have a certain disease or illness as well ( which I think is wrong ) Where does the equality come in ? There is no need to tell any child that they're different, Special,would be the word that I'd use.
A child who is labelled different,has to then bear that stigma for the rest of its life and it's utterly wrong.
ALL children,to my mind are Special,but there are those who are a bit more so. Different is a horrible word.
-
That's as maybe,but there are hundreds of children who are told that " they're different ",simply because they have a certain disease or illness as well ( which I think is wrong ) Where does the equality come in ? There is no need to tell any child that they're different, Special,would be the word that I'd use.
A child who is labelled different,has to then bear that stigma for the rest of its life and it's utterly wrong.
ALL children,to my mind are Special,but there are those who are a bit more so. Different is a horrible word.
I wouldn't refer to JB as 'special?'
-
I wouldn't refer to JB as 'special?'
I didn't say he was !! I was talking about adopted children in general and how their parents perceive them as being as opposed to " different ".
-
I didn't say he was !! I was talking about adopted children in general and how their parents perceive them as being as opposed to " different ".
I thought we were discussing JB? This is the JB forum.
I can see this becoming personal and going off the thread topic. I think we should stick to opinions regarding JB and his adoption.
-
That's as maybe,but there are hundreds of children who are told that " they're different ",simply because they have a certain disease or illness as well ( which I think is wrong ) Where does the equality come in ? There is no need to tell any child that they're different, Special,would be the word that I'd use.
A child who is labelled different,has to then bear that stigma for the rest of its life and it's utterly wrong.
ALL children,to my mind are Special,but there are those who are a bit more so. Different is a horrible word.
Added to which, a child who doesn't receive positive reinforcement is likely, without help, to have a low sense of self worth, as you have noted with Sheila. It's just possible that the Bambers were so proud of their children that they were AFRAID to show TOO much overt affection in case they were criticized OR perhaps they took the view that if a child receives praise it gets conceited and "too big for it's boots". Whatever, it's the child who would have lost out..................but there were two children. Jeremy would probably have had similar experiences. You have used the word "NORMAL", I wonder on a scale of 1-10 how "normal" you believe was their upbringing, and would that be normal compared with other families or normal compared with other adopted children.
-
That's as maybe,but there are hundreds of children who are told that " they're different ",simply because they have a certain disease or illness as well ( which I think is wrong ) Where does the equality come in ? There is no need to tell any child that they're different, Special,would be the word that I'd use.
A child who is labelled different,has to then bear that stigma for the rest of its life and it's utterly wrong.
ALL children,to my mind are Special,but there are those who are a bit more so. Different is a horrible word.
I totally agree Lookout and many, many adopted children are considered extremely special by their parents. it's true not all have always been and that is very sad and should never have happened and no child should ever be made to feel different.imo
-
I thought we were discussing JB? This is the JB forum.
I can see this becoming personal and going off the thread topic. I think we should stick to opinions regarding JB and his adoption.
Erm---" Misconceptions About Jeremys Upbringing " Yes,it's about JB. Yes,it's the JB forum !! Yes,it's indirectly about JB,referring to adoption. Got a problem ?
I WON'T be doing what YOU say,madam !
-
Maggie when I was a child I was always told that children who were adopted were "special" because they had been chosen by their parents whereas such as I was just gotten :'(
-
Erm---" Misconceptions About Jeremys Upbringing " Yes,it's about JB. Yes,it's the JB forum !! Yes,it's indirectly about JB,referring to adoption. Got a problem ?
I WON'T be doing what YOU say,madam !
I am not suggesting 'you do what I say' Lookout. What I am suggesting is that by generalising on this forum about your views and opinions on adoption you are no doubt going to hit a chord - thus turning the generalisations into something personal. I have witnessed it here on this forum in the past. This is what I am attempting to explain, you obviously have some sort of beef with me, as is evident from your response.
You call them special some call them normal others call them this and that and so on....
Caroline's post states JB says he was not affected by his adoption - some of us disagree with this and other misconceptions regarding his upbringing.
-
I think it's a lovely expression,Susan. It's a more " attached " response.
I used to tell my mum I wasn't born,I was invented. ;D ;D ;D ;D So different from my brother.
-
Added to which, a child who doesn't receive positive reinforcement is likely, without help, to have a low sense of self worth, as you have noted with Sheila. It's just possible that the Bambers were so proud of their children that they were AFRAID to show TOO much overt affection in case they were criticized OR perhaps they took the view that if a child receives praise it gets conceited and "too big for it's boots". Whatever, it's the child who would have lost out..................but there were two children. Jeremy would probably have had similar experiences. You have used the word "NORMAL", I wonder on a scale of 1-10 how "normal" you believe was their upbringing, and would that be normal compared with other families or normal compared with other adopted children.
Exactly April - low self worth, under developed or over developed ego, a sense of entitlement.......
-
Maybe JB's next blog could go into detail about his adoption and how he felt about it. He certainly seems to want to avoid the subject. As was it evident in another case I'm familiar with. On the surface, family life appeared normal - based on the submissions made to the CCRC in the months leading up to the confession, it appeared to be anything but. The same for other disclosures made prior to the confession.
Appearances can be deceptive imo.
-
Maggie when I was a child I was always told that children who were adopted were "special" because they had been chosen by their parents whereas such as I was just gotten :'(
Yes Susie, you were common or garden. ;D When we adopted in the 1980s it was the practice to tell a child that they chose their parents as opposed to the other way round. It was thought that telling a child he/she was chosen put too much pressure on them and cause them to feel they had to be 'grateful' and try to live up to an impossible ideal.
In the 1960s and 70s children usually didn't know they were adopted until like Sheila and Jeremy they were told, out of the blue, it was the way adoptees were told to do it and must have been very traumatic to the children and the parents involved, just an awful way to treat a child and awful thing for parents who loved their child to have to do.
I don't know what is suggested these days. My children always knew they were loved because they were and children know if they are, I simply cannot understand how anyone can adopt a child and not love that child with a passion, makes no sense and is very cruel. imo
-
I have found that some adoptees are very eager to find their biological family, others simply don´t care. The same with people who don´t know their father, some try everything to find him and have contact, others are indifferent.
You really cannot generalize about this issue, people are vastly different.
-
I have found that some adoptees are very eager to find their biological family, others simply don´t care. The same with people who don´t know their father, some try everything to find him and have contact, others are indifferent.
You really cannot generalize about this issue, people are vastly different.
totally agree. Even within the same family, attitudes and effects can differ a lot. I have experience of that with my nieces.