Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on July 27, 2014, 05:36:PM
-
At the time old Jeremy's arrest he had savings in his bank, is there any factual proof he had debts?
-
At the time old Jeremy's arrest he had savings in his bank, is there any factual proof he had debts?
Who says he had debts?
He had 2000 pounds in his bank account. In today´s currency, about 5,300 pounds. That is a lot of money for most 24 year olds.
-
none that i can see in fact ive never heard it before.
-
I have heard rumours about Sheila having debts, but not Jeremy.
-
i know the relatives had lardge debts.
-
Very strange considering his motive was meant to be greed
-
yes he was supposed to be a playboy as well and an lazy spendthrift so would sort of expect him to have debts.
-
yes he was supposed to be a playboy as well and an lazy spendthrift so would sort of expect him to have debts.
Julie must have worked overtime selling weed for him to have accrued that much :D
-
cleary he dident smoke all the profits.
-
Jeremy told Julie he paid MM £2000. Julie did not believe him as she knew he did not have that sort of money available.
There is nothing saying Jeremy had huge debts. But he did not have the finances to live the life he wanted. Or escape from 14/17 hour days on the farm. He agreed in court that Neville's will tied him to the farm if he wanted to inherit anything.
He had short term relief when he robbed the caravan site. But for Jeremy that would just pay for a few lavish meals.
There are many other reasons he committed the massacre. Thread already created. However money was the main reason. The judge saying it was a lot more than £436,000.
The relatives were rich in their own right. Source already provided.
-
the relatives were certanly not rich in there own right.
they were going cap in hand to nevile for cash.
-
the relatives were certanly not rich in there own right.
they were going cap in hand to nevile for cash.
Source please.
I asked for a source from you yesterday on another thread. You failed to provide it.
-
how could they called wealthy they dident even own there own land.
-
Jeremy told Julie he paid MM £2000. Julie did not believe him as she knew he did not have that sort of money available.
There is nothing saying Jeremy had huge debts. But he did not have the finances to live the life he wanted. Or escape from 14/17 hour days on the farm. He agreed in court that Neville's will tied him to the farm if he wanted to inherit anything.
He had short term relief when he robbed the caravan site. But for Jeremy that would just pay for a few lavish meals.
There are many other reasons he committed the massacre. Thread already created. However money was the main reason. The judge saying it was a lot more than £436,000.
The relatives were rich in their own right. Source already provided.
Thought Jeremy had a fair bit of money in his bank ccount and was very comfortably off for a 24 year old.
IMO he was either a wicked, greedy psychopathic murderer or he is innocent ......... any other reasons to murder are a red herring imo.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YppVCocVbI
heres my source.
-
he was standing a load of cash from his granny anyway.
more than his dad could ever give him.
-
Here are some other motivations. Although money was the main one.
IN JAIL AT WHF:
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:
As the previous thread showed. 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.
-
so he wanted to be a rich playboy but funnly enough wasn't in debt.
and had plenty of cash in the bank there arnt that many playboys who have money in bank.
-
Hmm, this is an odd one, I don't have the best memory in the world I admit, but I do remember reading 'something' which stated that JB had taken out a loan, for soft furnishings or something, the figure of £2000 seems to ring a bell.
Regardless, the reality is irrelevant, I don't believe anybody is suggesting he murdered his family because he was in debt to the tune of a few thousand pounds.
-
can you remember where you read that hartley.
-
It is no secret Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy. He was a ruthless operator. Obsessed with money. Source already provided.
Working 14/17 hour days as a farm labourer meant he did not have the time, money or energy to be a playboy.
His gran's will was discussed a couple of days ago. No one has ever provided proof that he was going to inherit from her. It was not brought up at trial by the defence to refute the money motive claim. There is no mention of this on his OS.
-
Adam none of those would cause a 'normal' person to carry out that crime, only a truly wicked personality ie. Psychopathic/narcissistic person would cope with carrying it out. Imo
Your reasons don't stand up on their own, the only really acceptable reason imo is that he is a truly evil man or he's innocent. Prove he is evil and I will agree with you, otherwise none of your reasons convince me. :)
-
Thought Jeremy had a fair bit of money in his bank ccount and was very comfortably off for a 24 year old.
IMO he was either a wicked, greedy psychopathic murderer or he is innocent ......... any other reasons to murder are a red herring imo.
That does appear to be the case. :-\
-
can you remember where you read that hartley.
I thought it was information from Jeremy himself. :-\
It was a couple of grand, and then he'd saved up a few hundred for something else for the house.
I don't think it is relevant though.
-
It is no secret Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy. He was a ruthless operator. Obsessed with money. Source already provided.
Working 14/17 hour days as a farm labourer meant he did not have the time, money or energy to be a playboy.
His gran's will was discussed a couple of days ago. No one has ever provided proof that he was going to inherit from her. It was not brought up at trial by the defence to refute the money motive claim. There is no mention of this on his OS.
what source.
-
It is no secret Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy. He was a ruthless operator. Obsessed with money. Source already provided.
Working 14/17 hour days as a farm labourer meant he did not have the time, money or energy to be a playboy.
His gran's will was discussed a couple of days ago. No one has ever provided proof that he was going to inherit from her. It was not brought up at trial by the defence to refute the money motive claim. There is no mention of this on his OS.
? sorry can you
1) remind us of the source that he was a ruthless operator obsessed by money
2) Why did the family have the will altered then ?
-
Adam none of those would cause a 'normal' person to carry out that crime, only a truly wicked personality ie. Psychopathic/narcissistic person would cope with carrying it out. Imo
Your reasons don't stand up on their own, the only really acceptable reason imo is that he is a truly evil man or he's innocent. Prove he is evil and I will agree with you, otherwise none of your reasons convince me. :)
None of the reasons alone would be enough. But together they were a strong supporting reason sitting alongside over a million pounds in today's money.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=RUnVU_TSJ4Or0QXU9ICQAQ&url=http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php%3Ftopic%3D922.15&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFpJ1SpLEJ0RVnbYnKSeJyvIKwcBA
Page 1.
-
I thought it was information from Jeremy himself. :-\
It was a couple of grand, and then he'd saved up a few hundred for something else for the house.
I don't think it is relevant though.
probably not relevant but it could be.
-
None of the reasons alone would be enough. But together they were a strong supporting reason sitting alongside over a million pounds in today's money.
From which source did you obtain in formation that Jeremy was a ruthless operator obsessed by money?
-
I thought it was information from Jeremy himself. :-\
It was a couple of grand, and then he'd saved up a few hundred for something else for the house.
I don't think it is relevant though.
It wasn't as if he was in major debt, but then I don't think anybody has suggested that he was, have they?
Any debt he may or may not have had was not the motivation for him to murder his family.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=RUnVU_TSJ4Or0QXU9ICQAQ&url=http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php%3Ftopic%3D922.15&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFpJ1SpLEJ0RVnbYnKSeJyvIKwcBA
Page 1.
thats not a source.
-
From which source did you obtain in formation that Jeremy was a ruthless operator obsessed by money?
As he murdered 5 people including 2 children for financial gain, it's not difficult to understand where such a notion would stem from. :-\
-
Of course it is a source.
A very good article as well.
-
forum posts are not sources.
-
It is not a forum post. It was an independent article. A forum member put it on a forum.
-
theres no link the artical posted there.
why cant you link to the artical derectly.
a quate without a link means nothing.
-
It is no secret Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy. He was a ruthless operator. Obsessed with money. Source already provided.
Working 14/17 hour days as a farm labourer meant he did not have the time, money or energy to be a playboy.
His gran's will was discussed a couple of days ago. No one has ever provided proof that he was going to inherit from her. It was not brought up at trial by the defence to refute the money motive claim. There is no mention of this on his OS.
Many young people want to be playboys or girls and live the celebrity lifestyle but is there proof he actually did want that. Cannot see how working at Sloppy Joe's or Little Chef took him closer to such an ambition. In Australia which it is claimed he mainly funded, although you like to promote the fact he didn't he worked on a sugar plantation.
We don't need reasons, they prove nothing, only reason to my mind would be that he was extremely wicked. Imo
-
and new zealand is hardly a place for playboys.
-
and new zealand is hardly a place for playboys.
hehe, no! Neither is Australia - Jeremy had a lot to learn about the playboy lifestyle! Work in low end bars and restaurants would be a no-no to an up-and-coming playboy! Work that he did out of his own free will. Farm work doesn´t REALLY do anything to cultivate a playboy image! :P
-
None of the reasons alone would be enough. But together they were a strong supporting reason sitting alongside over a million pounds in today's money.
Not unless he was wicked enough, we are speaking about a human being Adam and most human beings would not be capable of carrying out such a violent cruel murder, even if the thought of it was attractive. To be able to cope with such horror and kill the people who had loved you most, parents who cared for you as a baby takes a particular kind of wickedness. To be able to turn up and talk to the police without showing signs of emotion, rushing adrenaline etc. requires a person who is devoid of empathy or emotion as far as I can see.
-
hehe, no! Neither is Australia - Jeremy had a lot to learn about the playboy lifestyle! Work in low end bars and restaurants would be a no-no to an up-and-coming playboy! Work that he did out of his own free will. Farm work doesn´t REALLY do anything to cultivate a playboy image! :P
Correct. He could only live the playboy life if he had the finances.
-
and new zealand is hardly a place for playboys.
Oh okay? ???
-
Oh okay? ???
Yea, don´t go there, Harters!
-
Correct. He could only live the playboy life if he had the finances.
There is no proof that Jeremy wanted to live a playboy lifestyle.
Colin Caffel seems to think that Jeremy´s motive was not only greed, but perhaps more strongly HATE and RESENTMENT at the controlling ways towards Sheila and Jeremy by the Bambers.
Colin states in his book that if Jeremy hadn´t killed June, he himself might have. He really does say that! :o
-
Yea, don´t go there, Harters!
I'm too niave, so I daren't lol :D
-
It is no secret Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy. He was a ruthless operator. Obsessed with money. Source already provided.
Working 14/17 hour days as a farm labourer meant he did not have the time, money or energy to be a playboy.
His gran's will was discussed a couple of days ago. No one has ever provided proof that he was going to inherit from her. It was not brought up at trial by the defence to refute the money motive claim. There is no mention of this on his OS.
if wasnt mentioned in the will how could he be writtan out of it.
-
There is no proof that Jeremy wanted to live a playboy lifestyle.
Colin Caffel seems to think that Jeremy´s motive was not only greed, but perhaps more strongly HATE and RESENTMENT at the controlling ways towards Sheila and Jeremy by the Bambers.
Colin states in his book that if Jeremy hadn´t killed June, he himself might have. He really does say that! :o
Most interesting.
I said similar things on page 2 of this thread.
-
Most interesting.
I said similar things on page 2 of this thread.
What did you say, I didn´t read it? I am sure you will be MORE THAN HAPPY to provide a link! Adam, celebrate, someone actually just asked you for a link to one of YOUR posts, you must be thrilled! ;D
-
Does anybody else remember reading about JB taking out a loan to pay for carpets or curtains? ???
There's obviously been something mentioned by somebody, hence the thread title.
-
Here are some other motivations. Although money was the main one.
IN JAIL AT WHF:
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:
As the previous thread showed. 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.
First testimony here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5620.0.html
-
It is no secret Jeremy wanted to be a rich playboy. He was a ruthless operator. Obsessed with money. Source already provided.
Working 14/17 hour days as a farm labourer meant he did not have the time, money or energy to be a playboy.
His gran's will was discussed a couple of days ago. No one has ever provided proof that he was going to inherit from her. It was not brought up at trial by the defence to refute the money motive claim. There is no mention of this on his OS.
Here:
2nd testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5620.0.html
-
Harters I remember reading on this forum he had taken out a loan for household stuff not sure if it was electrical items or furniture but I have read it.
-
I thought it was information from Jeremy himself. :-\
It was a couple of grand, and then he'd saved up a few hundred for something else for the house.
I don't think it is relevant though.
Its in one of his statements to S.Jones that he took a loan out in 1984. I think the sum was 1 maybe 2 thousand. At one time Jeremy had over 3 thousand in the bank, but that dwindled away when he moved into Goldhanger.
He got free rent, fuel and phone, but he had to furnish it with his own money. Jones asked if he was happy with having to furnish it himself...The reply why would I be unhappy about it. I think Jeremy told him that his parents had already done enough for him...Jeremy asked Jones if he wanted to see the receipts for what he had bought...Jones didn't reply. :o
-
Does anybody else remember reading about JB taking out a loan to pay for carpets or curtains? ???
There's obviously been something mentioned by somebody, hence the thread title.
I do remember something mentioned ages ago, Harters but not sure where the info came from or if it was hearsay. :-\
-
Harters I remember reading on this forum he had taken out a loan for household stuff not sure if it was electrical items or furniture but I have read it.
Thank you Susan, I thought I was going mad. :-\
(Now I'm sure ;D)
-
Its in one of his statements to S.Jones that he took a loan out in 1984. I think the sum was 1 maybe 2 thousand. At one time Jeremy had over 3 thousand in the bank, but that dwindled away when he moved into Goldhanger.
He got free rent, fuel and phone, but he had to furnish it with his own money. Jones asked if he was happy with having to furnish it himself...The reply why would I be unhappy about it. I think Jeremy told him that his parents had already done enough for him...Jeremy asked Jones if he wanted to see the receipts for what he had bought...Jones didn't reply. :o
Traadaa :)
-
Patti thank you for that information at least Harters will now know he is not mad well not quite ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti thank you for that information at least Harters will now know he is not mad well not quite ;D ;D ;D
Not 'alf as mad as the thread starter will be though. :P
-
Harters ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Harters ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes dear? :D
-
Not 'alf as mad as the thread starter will be though. :P
Well at least I'm not mad and I've got a release certificate to prove it. ;)
-
In this case,it was a myth to say that a murderer would return to the scene of a crime,for although Jeremy already resided at Goldhanger,he could just as easily have moved back into WHF and put Goldhanger for sale/rent in which to gain more revenue.
Instead,he handed the keys over to his relatives without having bothered to go inside the farmhouse to even " retrace his steps ". Who'd want to go into a place so soon after the vicious deaths of 5 people anyway ? Only someone with no sentimental attachments !
If probate had been carried out in the proper manner,nobody would have been allowed inside the place for at least 4 months,well not to move in anyway,since there's a lot of paperwork involved in the changeover.
Not the greedy,grasping individual Jeremy was painted.
-
In this case,it was a myth to say that a murderer would return to the scene of a crime,for although Jeremy already resided at Goldhanger,he could just as easily have moved back into WHF and put Goldhanger for sale/rent in which to gain more revenue.
Instead,he handed the keys over to his relatives without having bothered to go inside the farmhouse to even " retrace his steps ". Who'd want to go into a place so soon after the vicious deaths of 5 people anyway ? Only someone with no sentimental attachments !
If probate had been carried out in the proper manner,nobody would have been allowed inside the place for at least 4 months,well not to move in anyway,since there's a lot of paperwork involved in the changeover.
Not the greedy,grasping individual Jeremy was painted.
Exactly! ;)
-
In this case,it was a myth to say that a murderer would return to the scene of a crime,for although Jeremy already resided at Goldhanger,he could just as easily have moved back into WHF and put Goldhanger for sale/rent in which to gain more revenue.
Instead,he handed the keys over to his relatives without having bothered to go inside the farmhouse to even " retrace his steps ". Who'd want to go into a place so soon after the vicious deaths of 5 people anyway ? Only someone with no sentimental attachments !
If probate had been carried out in the proper manner,nobody would have been allowed inside the place for at least 4 months,well not to move in anyway,since there's a lot of paperwork involved in the changeover.
Not the greedy,grasping individual Jeremy was painted.
WHF was owned by the 'Henry Smith Charity', for Jeremy to move in, then he would have had to come to an agreement with the owner.
Jeremy did not hand the keys over to the relatives, he had no authority to do so. Ann and Peter were asked by the executor to manage the business interests and property in the immediate aftermath. The keys were given to them by Basil Cock.
None of this has any reflection on Jeremy's level of greed either way.
-
well if thats true then he had no motive to kill to get hold of it did he becouse he wouldent have got it anyway.
-
well if thats true then he had no motive to kill to get hold of it did he becouse he wouldent have got it anyway.
Got what? ???
The (alleged) motive was an inheritance of nearly half a million pounds.
-
half a millon in cash or assets or a mix of both.
-
half a millon in cash or assets or a mix of both.
Both.
-
WHF was owned by the 'Henry Smith Charity', for Jeremy to move in, then he would have had to come to an agreement with the owner.
Jeremy did not hand the keys over to the relatives, he had no authority to do so. Ann and Peter were asked by the executor to manage the business interests and property in the immediate aftermath. The keys were given to them by Basil Cock.
None of this has any reflection on Jeremy's level of greed either way.
I thought the keys were offered to Jeremy but he refused them so they were given to Ann Eaton? That's what I read anyway?
-
I thought the keys were offered to Jeremy but he refused them so they were given to Ann Eaton? That's what I read anyway?
Nope.
-
I thought the keys were offered to Jeremy but he refused them so they were given to Ann Eaton? That's what I read anyway?
It's what I read too,Grahame. Didn't Jeremy call the relatives " sick puppies " when they took the children to make up the twins beds at the farmhouse ?
-
Nope.
So why did the executor hand the business matters over to the relatives? That was his job as executor surely?
ps: Why haven't we read of this before?
-
I wonder why the keys were handed to the relatives instead of Jeremy? As he was the next of kin.
-
Both.
it would be good to know how much was cash and how much was asets.
-
And how much tax came out of it too !
-
a fair bit probebly but with cash that wouldent be much of a problem with assets it would.
-
I wonder why the keys were handed to the relatives instead of Jeremy? As he was the next of kin.
The executor probably thought Jeremy was not capable of running the farm, so in order to protect the estates, he selected Ann and Peter to take over temporary control. :-\
-
the executor wouldent have known any of them how could he come to such a decision.
did the executor know jeremy and the family.
-
So I take it that Basil Cock was the executor of the will ?
-
im a bit confused now hartley was it basil cook
-
So I take it that Basil Cock was the executor of the will ?
dont you mean cook. ;)
-
The executor probably thought Jeremy was not capable of running the farm, so in order to protect the estates, he selected Ann and Peter to take over temporary control. :-\
Jeremy stated he had no interest in running the farm and feigned being upset by saying he could not step foot in WHF ever again knowing his family was killed there so he said to give the keys and responsibility to others. no curiousity to see inside, he said it would be too traumatic.
Very shortly later though he changed his mind about going inside and went inside to see what he could sell and to get his father's wallet. He still showed little interest (at least with others around) in looking the scene over well to try to figure out what had happened. He was concerned with disposing of certain papers and taking what booty he could.
-
Ha Ha lookout/nugnug was it Cock or was it Cook that is the question ;D
-
Jeremy stated he had no interest in running the farm and feigned being upset by saying he could not step foot in WHF ever again knowing his family was killed there so he said to give the keys and responsibility to others. no curiousity to see inside, he said it would be too traumatic.
Very shortly later though he changed his mind about going inside and went inside to see what he could sell and to get his father's wallet. He still showed little interest (at least with others around) in looking the scene over well to try to figure out what had happened. He was concerned with disposing of certain papers and taking what booty he could.
Why was he taking booty, scipio? He was the last surviving member of the family, it was his to take, dispose of whatever.
We have certain facts, we don't have a minute by minute description of what Jeremy did or didn't do, we have hearsay from family members who didn't like him so should not jump to conclusions. imo
-
family members who had a vested finical interest in convicting him.
-
Why was he taking booty, scipio? He was the last surviving member of the family, it was his to take, dispose of whatever.
We have certain facts, we don't have a minute by minute description of what Jeremy did or didn't do, we have hearsay from family members who didn't like him so should not jump to conclusions. imo
Technically it is not his to dispose of or do anything with until the executor gives such to him. Since it would have flowed ot him in due time why he in such a rush instead of waiting? Worse though he said it woudl be too stressful to go in the house ever again and didn't qwant to go even to see what had happened but went in for economic gain and did so pretty shortly after he sai dhe woudl never go in because it would be too stressful.
His haphazard acting is part of what made police suspicious. He could have stayed in character and never go inside like he claimed he would do and let Cock transfer the property to him. Instead he left character to go see what quick money he could get. He did the same with Sheila's place ransacking it for whatever he could take. If you are going to be all business and rapidly plunder then don't put on an act that you would never go inside. That is just setting yourself up for a fall. It is that simple.
-
Jeremy stated he had no interest in running the farm and feigned being upset by saying he could not step foot in WHF ever again knowing his family was killed there so he said to give the keys and responsibility to others. no curiousity to see inside, he said it would be too traumatic.
Very shortly later though he changed his mind about going inside and went inside to see what he could sell and to get his father's wallet. He still showed little interest (at least with others around) in looking the scene over well to try to figure out what had happened. He was concerned with disposing of certain papers and taking what booty he could.
Presumption on your part. Non one can judge another person's feeling.
-
Technically it is not his to dispose of or do anything with until the executor gives such to him. Since it would have flowed ot him in due time why he in such a rush instead of waiting? Worse though he said it woudl be too stressful to go in the house ever again and didn't qwant to go even to see what had happened but went in for economic gain and did so pretty shortly after he sai dhe woudl never go in because it would be too stressful.
His haphazard acting is part of what made police suspicious. He could have stayed in character and never go inside like he claimed he would do and let Cock transfer the property to him. Instead he left character to go see what quick money he could get. He did the same with Sheila's place ransacking it for whatever he could take. If you are going to be all business and rapidly plunder then don't put on an act that you would never go inside. That is just setting yourself up for a fall. It is that simple.
If I had just lost 5 members of my family my behaviour would be haphazard too. In any case police always treat people with suspicion. Perhaps he ought to have offered one of them a job to allay suspicion? ;)
-
Ha Ha lookout/nugnug was it Cock or was it Cook that is the question ;D
thats got me very confused now hartley was it cook or cock.
-
If I had just lost 5 members of my family my behaviour would be haphazard too. In any case police always treat people with suspicion. Perhaps he ought to have offered one of them a job to allay suspicion? ;)
Acting clam one second and then forcing yourself to puke because you are so upset the next is not natural variance. If you are going to put on an aact you can't ham it up then totally leave character the next minute.
He didn't think about how badly he would want to get in there to sell the goods so made up the claim he would never go inside so police would think he was seriously grieving and so they would not wonder why he didn't want to see the scene like other members of the family. An about face that quick to go sell the property wasn't bright but he figured police would never find out.
Jeremy never seemed to think about people sharing information so he had no problem telling different peopel different things instea do being consistent and this was one of his problems. When you tell different people such different things it is a sign of lying. That made people suspicious and those suspicions helped at least in part get him caught.
-
If I had just lost 5 members of my family my behaviour would be haphazard too. In any case police always treat people with suspicion. Perhaps he ought to have offered one of them a job to allay suspicion? ;)
people behave in very diffrent ways when somthing happens to them.
-
Technically it is not his to dispose of or do anything with until the executor gives such to him. Since it would have flowed ot him in due time why he in such a rush instead of waiting? Worse though he said it woudl be too stressful to go in the house ever again and didn't qwant to go even to see what had happened but went in for economic gain and did so pretty shortly after he sai dhe woudl never go in because it would be too stressful.
His haphazard acting is part of what made police suspicious. He could have stayed in character and never go inside like he claimed he would do and let Cock transfer the property to him. Instead he left character to go see what quick money he could get. He did the same with Sheila's place ransacking it for whatever he could take. If you are going to be all business and rapidly plunder then don't put on an act that you would never go inside. That is just setting yourself up for a fall. It is that simple.
With respect, scipio you make massive assumptions, none of us know the workings of Jeremy Bamber's mind or why he behaved in certain ways, changed his mind or whatever. We can make assumptions or guess but we certainly don't know.
-
With respect, scipio you make massive assumptions, none of us know the workings of Jeremy Bamber's mind or why he behaved in certain ways, changed his mind or whatever. We can make assumptions or guess but we certainly don't know.
There are only so many reasons that people put on acts and lie. The context and circumstances help figure out why besides the obvious general reaosn "to conceal the truth". Why they want to conceal the truth is determined by the context.
-
There are only so many reasons that people put on acts and lie. The context and circumstances help figure out why besides the obvious general reaosn "to conceal the truth". Why they want to conceal the truth is determined by the context.
]
IF he is innocent though. does he behaviour seem odd?
that is a question that no one seems willing to answer?
-
in such cercumstances i dont think theres really any such thing as odd and normal.
-
]
IF he is innocent though. does he behaviour seem odd?
that is a question that no one seems willing to answer?
Which behaviour specifically? I think quite a lot of his behaviour seemed odd - for instance, just after being told his father was dead - he asked several times if he could talk to his father as though bewildered. If he had collapsed at the news of their deaths, this response might be more believable but I remember cringing as read the account.
-
Caroline
it seemed a very odd request to ask if he could speak with his Father not really the response one would expect :'(
-
Which behaviour specifically? I think quite a lot of his behaviour seemed odd - for instance, just after being told his father was dead - he asked several times if he could talk to his father as though bewildered. If he had collapsed at the news of their deaths, this response might be more believable but I remember cringing as read the account.
If he was in shock, I don´t think it was neccessarily an odd response - just imagine!
-
Caroline
it seemed a very odd request to ask if he could speak with his Father not really the response one would expect :'(
Especially since he didn't try speaking to his father from outside when he allegedly thought they were still alive and just hung around outside talking about cars.
-
Caroline
it seemed a very odd request to ask if he could speak with his Father not really the response one would expect :'(
depends if you think your fathers still alive or not.
-
Especially since he didn't try speaking to his father from outside when he allegedly thought they were still alive and just hung around outside talking about cars.
Don´t you think there were police instructions - it is not normal that family members communicate in hostage situations, unless the police specifically arrange it.
My guess is that an EP officer tried to take Jeremy´s mind off the grave situation by for instance talking about cars.
I am not sure whether Jeremy committed those murders or not, but what you want us to believe doesn´t add up. Jeremy just having killed his family, then volunteering to the police: I don´t like my sisters, and I want to buy a Porche ASAP. It´s just stupid.
-
Which behaviour specifically? I think quite a lot of his behaviour seemed odd - for instance, just after being told his father was dead - he asked several times if he could talk to his father as though bewildered. If he had collapsed at the news of their deaths, this response might be more believable but I remember cringing as read the account.
Again just presumption on your part. People generally are confused after such tragedies. My confusion comes when you seem to conveniently forget this in your desire to blacken Jeremy's name. It appears that you are becomming more and more like the guilty mob instead of keeping an open mind. The very fact that he kept asking to speak to his father indicates without question that he was confused.
-
maybe it hadent sunk in that his father was dead.
-
Especially since he didn't try speaking to his father from outside when he allegedly thought they were still alive and just hung around outside talking about cars.
That is just utter crap. You can make up things like that til your heart's content. But it has nothing to do with the evidence you always claim to make your decisions on. That remark comes from complete bias.
-
maybe it hadent sunk in that his father was dead.
What Jeremy did was not faked in my opinion. It was complete confusion and it is not fair for people to keep sniping at him when obviously he was in a state of shock. Good grief how people can be so hard hearted is beyond me, reading some of the distasteful remarks I am reading tonight by obviously biased people. Come obn folks let's see a bit of open mindedness for a change.
-
Especially since he didn't try speaking to his father from outside when he allegedly thought they were still alive and just hung around outside talking about cars.
He didn't 'hung around talking about cars' he was upset and the police spoke to him trying to distract him from the situation and what was going on around him. That is where the 'story' about the Porsche came from when Jeremy told them he wanted to buy a kit car.
-
That is just utter crap. You can make up things like that til your heart's content. But it has nothing to do with the evidence you always claim to make your decisions on. That remark comes from complete bias.
What am I making up? I see you are back to Team Jeremy again by the way,
Fact: Jeremy did not go to WHF right away like an average person receiving such a message would do (and many would call police then immediately go) but rather TESTIFIED he did not feel the call was urgent and thus at first did basically nothing. In fact he didn't do nothing though he phoned Julie to have a witness who could say, "he told me he received a call from his father" so that police would think well maybe he really did receive it since he told a third party at the time that he had. 20 minutes after calling her he finally called police and claimed as time went on he realized it was urgent so that is when he called them.
FACT: after claling police did he go to WHF? No he waited in the phone hoping that the cops would arrive and could then report to them what they had found. The dispatcher told him to go to WHF to meet police so that is what reuslte din him going.
FACT: he was known to fly there in 5 minutes. Did he drive fast and then go knock on the door or climb through a window like he knew how to do? No he drove as slow as dirt and when he saw police approaching he pulled to the side of the road so they could beat him there. He was a mile away only and he stopped so they coudl go first. Instead of immediately getting on their tale he stayed and waited a while so tha the could pull up several minutes later.
FACT: he did not try to go in or even to look in the windows but rather stayed a distance fromt he house.
FACT: instead of ever telling police he knew a way to quietly enter through the windows he said the place would be solidly bolted up and lied about how leaving out a weapon and bullets before going home and how he had taught Sheila to shoot that weapon and that she coudl use eveyr weapon in the house.
FACT: instead of ever trying to call into the house using the megaphone to speak to his family he just chatted with police about guy stuff until he decided to pretend he was upset. At that point he claimed he wa supset and need to talk to his girl for comfort but used the time instead to tell her not to go to work because he wanted to use her as a witness to corroborate he recieved a call from Nevill.
FACT: he never exhibited any survivor's guilt at all let alone any guilt or sorrow at allegedly leaving out the murder wepaon and bullets and thus being responsible.
Those making excuses for Jeremy in this regard are all so full of crap that they need an enema. They would be screaming form the rooftops if julie or someone else they did not like acted in such regard.
There is no way to seriously deny his actions do not match what someone in his place would have done.
When you look at the actual evidence proving he staged the bullets and lied about eveyrthing and SHeial coudl not have killed anyone else and could not have killed herself then it is easy to see why he acted in such an odd manner- he killed them.
-
He didn't 'hang about talking about cars' he was upset and the police spoke to him trying to distract him from what was going on around him. That is where the 'story' about the Porsche came from when Jeremy told them he wanted to buy a kit car.
It is quite a natural thing to make small talk in such situations. I remember doing so myself when I found myself in a situation that involved a family tragedy. I wish people would stop making much ado about nothing. Jeremy's actions were one's of a confused man. Sometimes he would appear calm and other times he would feel stressed. What we of course don't see are the actual words that the police spoke to bring on such reactions? We only know what they "chose" to say in their statements.
-
well the police were making small talk as well.
-
What am I making up? I see you are back to Team Jeremy again by the way,
Fact: Jeremy did not go to WHF right away like an average person receiving such a message would do (and many would call police then immediately go) but rather TESTIFIED he did not feel the call was urgent and thus at first did basically nothing. In fact he didn't do nothing though he phoned Julie to have a witness who could say, "he told me he received a call from his father" so that police would think well maybe he really did receive it since he told a third party at the time that he had. 20 minutes after calling her he finally called police and claimed as time went on he realized it was urgent so that is when he called them.
FACT: after claling police did he go to WHF? No he waited in the phone hoping that the cops would arrive and could then report to them what they had found. The dispatcher told him to go to WHF to meet police so that is what reuslte din him going.
FACT: he was known to fly there in 5 minutes. Did he drive fast and then go knock on the door or climb through a window like he knew how to do? No he drove as slow as dirt and when he saw police approaching he pulled to the side of the road so they could beat him there. He was a mile away only and he stopped so they coudl go first. Instead of immediately getting on their tale he stayed and waited a while so tha the could pull up several minutes later.
FACT: he did not try to go in or even to look in the windows but rather stayed a distance fromt he house.
FACT: instead of ever telling police he knew a way to quietly enter through the windows he said the place would be solidly bolted up and lied about how leaving out a weapon and bullets before going home and how he had taught Sheila to shoot that weapon and that she coudl use eveyr weapon in the house.
FACT: instead of ever trying to call into the house using the megaphone to speak to his family he just chatted with police about guy stuff until he decided to pretend he was upset. At that point he claimed he wa supset and need to talk to his girl for comfort but used the time instead to tell her not to go to work because he wanted to use her as a witness to corroborate he recieved a call from Nevill.
FACT: he never exhibited any survivor's guilt at all let alone any guilt or sorrow at allegedly leaving out the murder wepaon and bullets and thus being responsible.
Those making excuses for Jeremy in this regard are all so full of crap that they need an enema. They would be screaming form the rooftops if julie or someone else they did not like acted in such regard.
There is no way to seriously deny his actions do not match what someone in his place would have done.
When you look at the actual evidence proving he staged the bullets and lied about eveyrthing and SHeial coudl not have killed anyone else and could not have killed herself then it is easy to see why he acted in such an odd manner- he killed them.
That may seem to be so to you. But it is my ability to look at things from both sides. You unfortunately do not have this abilty. Your position is one of bias which you interpret as supported by evidence. I have simply pointed out that all yo often you "presume" some things to be the truth. But in reality it just declares your based attitude against Bamber. I on the other hand have posted both for and against him. If you by chance regain your sense of equilibrium at any time and read my posts instead of forming an opinion without reading them, then you will see that I am not biased towards Bamber.
-
It is quite a natural thing to make small talk in such situations. I remember doing so myself when I found myself in a situation that involved a family tragedy. I wish people would stop making much ado about nothing. Jeremy's actions were one's of a confused man. Sometimes he would appear calm and other times he would feel stressed. What we of course don't see are the actual words that the police spoke to bring on such reactions? We only know what they "chose" to say in their statements.
Exactly Grahame. :)
-
What am I making up? I see you are back to Team Jeremy again by the way,
Fact: Jeremy did not go to WHF right away like an average person receiving such a message would do (and many would call police then immediately go) but rather TESTIFIED he did not feel the call was urgent and thus at first did basically nothing. In fact he didn't do nothing though he phoned Julie to have a witness who could say, "he told me he received a call from his father" so that police would think well maybe he really did receive it since he told a third party at the time that he had. 20 minutes after calling her he finally called police and claimed as time went on he realized it was urgent so that is when he called them.
FACT: after claling police did he go to WHF? No he waited in the phone hoping that the cops would arrive and could then report to them what they had found. The dispatcher told him to go to WHF to meet police so that is what reuslte din him going.
FACT: he was known to fly there in 5 minutes. Did he drive fast and then go knock on the door or climb through a window like he knew how to do? No he drove as slow as dirt and when he saw police approaching he pulled to the side of the road so they could beat him there. He was a mile away only and he stopped so they coudl go first. Instead of immediately getting on their tale he stayed and waited a while so tha the could pull up several minutes later.
FACT: he did not try to go in or even to look in the windows but rather stayed a distance fromt he house.
FACT: instead of ever telling police he knew a way to quietly enter through the windows he said the place would be solidly bolted up and lied about how leaving out a weapon and bullets before going home and how he had taught Sheila to shoot that weapon and that she coudl use eveyr weapon in the house.
FACT: instead of ever trying to call into the house using the megaphone to speak to his family he just chatted with police about guy stuff until he decided to pretend he was upset. At that point he claimed he wa supset and need to talk to his girl for comfort but used the time instead to tell her not to go to work because he wanted to use her as a witness to corroborate he recieved a call from Nevill.
FACT: he never exhibited any survivor's guilt at all let alone any guilt or sorrow at allegedly leaving out the murder wepaon and bullets and thus being responsible.
Those making excuses for Jeremy in this regard are all so full of crap that they need an enema. They would be screaming form the rooftops if julie or someone else they did not like acted in such regard.
There is no way to seriously deny his actions do not match what someone in his place would have done.
When you look at the actual evidence proving he staged the bullets and lied about eveyrthing and SHeial coudl not have killed anyone else and could not have killed herself then it is easy to see why he acted in such an odd manner- he killed them.
You really have to get past your ego scipio. Perhaps then you will see through this completely biased post of yours. Perhaps it is you who need the enema? ;)
-
FACT: he was known to fly there in 5 minutes. Did he drive fast and then go knock on the door or climb through a window like he knew how to do? No he drove as slow as dirt and when he saw police approaching he pulled to the side of the road so they could beat him there. He was a mile away only and he stopped so they coudl go first. Instead of immediately getting on their tale he stayed and waited a while so tha the could pull up several minutes later.
You don't know anything!! What rubbish
As Jeremy was known as a bit of a 'woos' he probably made sure the police went first
Jeremy obviously did not realise the gravity of the situation shown by his remarks on first being told his family was all dead
And that came straight from the horses mouth
Fact !!!
-
If he was in shock, I don´t think it was neccessarily an odd response - just imagine!
His first response was to accuse the raid team of killing everyone - thus he accepted they were dead. THEN he asks to speak to his father. It's like the denial of him being dead was an 'after thought'
-
]
IF he is innocent though. does he behaviour seem odd?
that is a question that no one seems willing to answer?
No,I don't think his behaviour was odd at all. It was in keeping with a state of confusion that only Jeremy as a person would have been capable of.
I think we'd all be in a state of confusion given what had happened and we'd all" act "it out differently.
In fact,we may even act out of character until reality set in.
-
His first response was to accuse the raid team of killing everyone - thus he accepted they were dead. THEN he asks to speak to his father. It's like the denial of him being dead was an 'after thought'
Exactly. Typical behaviour of someone that is in confusion and shock. He had just been told that his whole family were dead. Common sense would tell you that this was typical of someone who was in shock? Why else, what other perpose would it serve to lie about such things. Why do people insist of judging this man on what he said in a stressful situation such as he found himself. These in my opinion were actions and words of an innocent man.
-
His first response was to accuse the raid team of killing everyone - thus he accepted they were dead. THEN he asks to speak to his father. It's like the denial of him being dead was an 'after thought'
I know it sounds weird Caroline but after seeing how some people behave when faced with a sudden death of a relative, shock certainly ha strange effects on we humans, I believe any behaviour is possible. :-\
-
We must remember too that he was only 24 at the time,and not a mature 24 ! He'd never really had a taste of having to stand on his own two feet,so he'd have to grow up overnight and take responsibility for something that he didn't have a clue about,or what to expect.
-
His first response was to accuse the raid team of killing everyone - thus he accepted they were dead. THEN he asks to speak to his father. It's like the denial of him being dead was an 'after thought'
Personally I don´t think you can expect rational reactions in a situation like that. I try to imagine the chaos of the whole scene, the horrid message- it would take some time to really sink in.
His accusation that the police had killed everyone wasn´t rational either.
His first reaction was anger, and true, normally you have denial first, but no two people react the same.
P.S. I am not an expert on this, but isn´t shock and grieving different? There are these "Five stages of Grief", where denial is the first reaction, and anger the second - but what about shock?
-
Found this:
The 5 Stages of Grief are not intended to be worked through and “checked off,” like a list. Rather, they are guideposts, helping us identify and understand what we may be feeling. Not everyone will experience every stage, and many people will go through the stages in a different order. In general, however, grief will include the following 5 phases.
http://www.drchristinahibbert.com/dealing-with-grief/5-stages-of-grief/
-
Found this:
The 5 Stages of Grief are not intended to be worked through and “checked off,” like a list. Rather, they are guideposts, helping us identify and understand what we may be feeling. Not everyone will experience every stage, and many people will go through the stages in a different order. In general, however, grief will include the following 5 phases.
http://www.drchristinahibbert.com/dealing-with-grief/5-stages-of-grief/
Many people's first reaction is to laugh, others will talk about day to day stuff ie. The weather, anything, they sometimes concentrate on totally irrelevant details, shock is totally
unpredictable and such behaviour should never be judged.
I would imagine Nevill was a huge figure in Jeremy's life, not just in stature but as a personality, I'm not surprised he couldn't grasp the fact he was dead.
-
Personally I don´t think you can expect rational reactions in a situation like that. I try to imagine the chaos of the whole scene, the horrid message- it would take some time to really sink in.
His accusation that the police had killed everyone wasn´t rational either.
His first reaction was anger, and true, normally you have denial first, but no two people react the same.
P.S. I am not an expert on this, but isn´t shock and grieving different? There are these "Five stages of Grief", where denial is the first reaction, and anger the second - but what about shock?
Alias, when I was training we referred to it as loss and bereavement. the general assumption is that we grieve for people but if you've ever lost a favourite book/piece of jewellery/pet goldfish/purse, that dull ache, which most of us experience every time the lost item comes to mind, is no different from that gut wrenching pain we experience when we grieve for our loved ones. It is grief.
The Kubler Ross model gives us 5 stages: denial,anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance (all of which can be broken in to sub sections) and as you say, the stages don't conveniently go 1 through 5, they can take place in any order and for any period of time. There is no set time, the process CAN go on for a life time. Time DOESN'T heal, it just puts the pain in a place where we can hopefully cope with it better.
-
Losing his dad would have had more of an impact than people would have imagined,Maggie.
-
I know it sounds weird Caroline but after seeing how some people behave when faced with a sudden death of a relative, shock certainly ha strange effects on we humans, I believe any behaviour is possible. :-\
It isn't strange at all. When my grandmother lost her daughter she did and said all kinds of wierd things, she put saly in tead instead of sugar. She saw her daughter at the bottom of her bed etc. Possibly Jeremy said something like, "I don't believe you. I want to speak to my father"? In fact he said this more than once. It is called "denial". Quite a normal response if you ask me and in my opinion it is one of those reactions that tell me that Bamber is innocent?
-
well losing your mum and your dad and your sister in one night thats going to do all sorts of things to your mind.
-
I don't see what difference having debts really makes to the case if he was it was not unique I understand a cabinet minister is in money trouble to the tune of nearly £60,000 making the figures here peanuts.
-
I don't see what difference having debts really makes to the case if he was it was not unique I understand a cabinet minister is in money trouble to the tune of nearly £60,000 making the figures here peanuts.
I really cannot see that £500,000 could every be a motive for murdering one's whole family? Jeremy was living quite contented in his little cottage in Goldhanger rent free. I simply cannot believe he would murder his family as this would mess all that up. His cottage would have to be sold in order to form part of the estate. Out of all that death duties must be paid. And if Basil Cock was right the company was in massive debt anyway. So there was absolutely no sense at all for Bamber to commit such a crime.
-
I know it sounds weird Caroline but after seeing how some people behave when faced with a sudden death of a relative, shock certainly ha strange effects on we humans, I believe any behaviour is possible. :-\
I have have experienced sudden death (as you know) which is why I think his behaviour (although I admit it is described by others) as weird.
-
I have have experienced sudden death (as you know) which is why I think his behaviour (although I admit it is described by others) as weird.
I suppose a lot depends on a person's constitution? Not everyone reacts in the same way to these things.
-
I really cannot see that £500,000 could every be a motive for murdering one's whole family? Jeremy was living quite contented in his little cottage in Goldhanger rent free. I simply cannot believe he would murder his family as this would mess all that up. His cottage would have to be sold in order to form part of the estate. Out of all that death duties must be paid. And if Basil Cock was right the company was in massive debt anyway. So there was absolutely no sense at all for Bamber to commit such a crime.
HIs family was indeed worth close to 500,000 pounds and that is 500,000 pounds he would have instead of his family so that he could move to London and live the good life instead of the crappy place he lived which he did not like. Your version where he was so content and happy is a fantasy version of your own making not reality.
-
I have have experienced sudden death (as you know) which is why I think his behaviour (although I admit it is described by others) as weird.
I know Caroline just believe it's hard to judge reactions at that time because everyone behaves differently. For all that, I cannot be sure myself :-\
-
well losing your mum and your dad and your sister in one night thats going to do all sorts of things to your mind.
Indeed,nugs,but he relied so much on his dad for guidance towards the business side of farming as well as the graft that went with it. Neville was a larger than life figure in Jeremys' life. He was in Sheilas' too.
-
It isn't strange at all. When my grandmother lost her daughter she did and said all kinds of wierd things, she put saly in tead instead of sugar. She saw her daughter at the bottom of her bed etc. Possibly Jeremy said something like, "I don't believe you. I want to speak to my father"? In fact he said this more than once. It is called "denial". Quite a normal response if you ask me and in my opinion it is one of those reactions that tell me that Bamber is innocent?
To me, it sounds like over egging. Even when I thought he was innocent, when I read that, it made me cringe.
Why do people insist of judging this man on what he said in a stressful situation such as he found himself. These in my opinion were actions and words of an innocent man.
Because they think he was over doing things and because they think he's guilty - why would they have sympathy for someone they think murdered 5 people? I'm still not 100% sure but I lean more to it every day.
-
HIs family was indeed worth close to 500,000 pounds and that is 500,000 pounds he would have instead of his family so that he could move to London and live the good life instead of the crappy place he lived which he did not like. Your version where he was so content and happy is a fantasy version of your own making not reality.
My version took into account that the company R & J Bamber were in debt according to Basil Cock. Plus I took into consideration death duties that must be paid before any inheritance could take place. Also Jeremy didn't know for sure what other members of the family would inherit from the Bamber estate. I doubt very much if Jeremy would have ended up with 500,000 grand? In fact if you read what the relatives said they inherited it was a very small sum indeed.
-
To me, it sounds like over egging. Even when I thought he was innocent, when I read that, it made me cringe.
Because they think he was over doing things and because they think he's guilty - why would they have sympathy for someone they think murdered 5 people? I'm still not 100% sure but I lean more to it every day.
They didn't think that at the time. They thought of it long after when they made their statements. If you ask me it was they who were over egging it. To me it was normal behaviour.
-
To me, it sounds like over egging. Even when I thought he was innocent, when I read that, it made me cringe.
Because they think he was over doing things and because they think he's guilty - why would they have sympathy for someone they think murdered 5 people? I'm still not 100% sure but I lean more to it every day.
When my mother lost her husband she couldn't even walk and had to be helped along. No way would I have said she was over egging it.
But some of my relatives did I can ensure you. They were saying all kinds of cruel things. Just like the guilters are saying about Jeremy. So from my position I can see exactly what was happening with Jeremy.
-
I suppose a lot depends on a person's constitution? Not everyone reacts in the same way to these things.
Jeremy had been to boarding school from the age of eight, he had travelled quite extensively on his own from a young age. I don't buy the mama's boy image that it sometimes portrayed. I think he was pretty savy and switched on. But if he was such a loving son and devastated by the death of his parents - why was he so quick to condemn his mothers little dog? It was the last thing that was close to her - he didn't ask for anyone to take it in (if he couldn't), he asked that it be put down because he hated it! I find that pretty cold and unfeeling. I did ask him about it once - he chose to to refer to it in his reply.
-
When my mother lost her husband she couldn't even walk and had to be helped along. No way would I have said she was over egging it.
But some of my relatives did I can ensure you. They were saying all kinds of cruel things. Just like the guilters are saying about Jeremy. So from my position I can see exactly what was happening with Jeremy.
How long was you mum like that? A lot long than Jeremy I bet?
-
Jeremy had been to boarding school from the age of eight, he had travelled quite extensively on his own from a young age. I don't buy the mama's boy image that it sometimes portrayed. I think he was pretty savy and switched on. But if he was such a loving son and devastated by the death of his parents - why was he so quick to condemn his mothers little dog? It was the last thing that was close to her - he didn't ask for anyone to take it in (if he couldn't), he asked that it be put down because he hated it! I find that pretty cold and unfeeling. I did ask him about it once - he chose to to refer to it in his reply.
You opinion only Caroline, because it is evident that you love dogs. But unfortunately not everyone thinks like that. Especially if the dog didn't like Jeremy and he didn't like it. If it comes to it why didn't any of the relatives try and save it from being put down?
-
How long was you mum like that? A lot long than Jeremy I bet?
Oh yes. It really messed her up mentally. We had to have her stay at our house and it was a couple of days after my daughter was born as well. So I had the responsibilty of looking after both my mother and my wife, son and daughter. I nearlt brok down with the pressure and to cap it all my sister in law had just had her baby as well. But her attitude was one of indignance because my mother was in no condition to look after her and her baby as had been arranged. Can you see just how different people are when these tragedies happen. We all react differently, not just because of our different constitutions, but also because of other pressures on us at the time. There are in fact many variables that we must consider.
-
You opinion only Caroline, because it is evident that you love dogs. But unfortunately not everyone thinks like that. Especially if the dog didn't like Jeremy and he didn't like it. If it comes to it why didn't any of the relatives try and save it from being put down?
Ann Eaton and her husband didn´t like the dog either - nobody did, poor Crispy went by the name "the Pest."
I am not a dog lover, I THINK I would not have kept it, not even if it had been my decead mother´s; but it is all hard for me to imagine, my mother HATES ALL DOGS and would never have one in the first place. :P
-
You opinion only Caroline, because it is evident that you love dogs. But unfortunately not everyone thinks like that. Especially if the dog didn't like Jeremy and he didn't like it. If it comes to it why didn't any of the relatives try and save it from being put down?
Of course it's my opinion but you're missing the point (and Jeremy does love dogs by the way), the point is that his mother loved the dog, it was special to her and he couldn't wait to get rid of it. I'm not keen on cats but if my mum died and she had a cat, I would make damn sure I looked after it because it was special to her - I wouldn't drop it off at the vets as soon as she was out of the way.
-
Of course it's my opinion but you're missing the point (and Jeremy does love dogs by the way), the point is that his mother loved the dog, it was special to her and he couldn't wait to get rid of it. I'm not keen on cats but if my mum died and she had a cat, I would make damn sure I looked after it because it was special to her - I wouldn't drop it off at the vets as soon as she was out of the way.
Well he certainly didn't love that one did he. ;)
-
Oh yes. It really messed her up mentally. We had to have her stay at our house and it was a couple of days after my daughter was born as well. So I had the responsibilty of looking after both my mother and my wife, son and daughter. I nearlt brok down with the pressure and to cap it all my sister in law had just had her baby as well. But her attitude was one of indignance because my mother was in no condition to look after her and her baby as had been arranged. Can you see just how different people are when these tragedies happen. We all react differently, not just because of our different constitutions, but also because of other pressures on us at the time. There are in fact many variables that we must consider.
And that's the difference - Jeremy's shock didn't appear to last long.
-
And that's the difference - Jeremy's shock didn't appear to last long.
I think you should underline the word "appear"?
-
Jeremy had a dog as a boy. In his police interviews he said he was very fond of it
That was before he realised dogs could mess up stereo equipment.
-
was this a perfectly healthy dog.
-
I think you should underline the word "appear"?
I'm happy with it the way it is ;)
-
And that's the difference - Jeremy's shock didn't appear to last long.
Wastn´t he put on medication?
And again, people react differently. Furthermore. young people are mostly what you might call "reluctant grievers" and are all in all more resilient than older persons.
-
was this a perfectly healthy dog.
As far as I know, it was an old dog.
Isn´t this Crispy?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4102;image)
-
So what on earth has this dog got to do with Jeremy's guilt or innocence? There we go again judging a man on the basis of what he thought of a dog. In fact none of the familty appeared to want it, not just Jeremy. In any case Hartley said that Basil Cock handed the affairs over to the Eatons'. So why judge Jeremy on this dog when it was really the responsibilty of the Eatons' anyway? Well I suppose it reveals something about the relatives. They appeared to only be interested in the money affairs and had no interest at all in Crispy.
-
You can overcome death in the family much quicker when you're younger than not. Jeremy hadn't known personal death and was sheltered in that respect,so wouldn't really have known how to tackle it.
Those sort of people with the upbringing that they had have very different emotions,which border on the unemotional. Such as June,for instance didn't show emotion when Sheila had been discharged from hospital for the last time. Sheila had told her friend Sonja that her mother didn't understand that she'd been ill and more or less told her to " get on with it ".
June was quite hard and unsympathetic in that respect,towards Sheila anyway,though Sheila was angry towards both parents because of their attitudes towards her.
So really,to be brought up in an atmosphere such as this,is it any wonder the kids were confused ?
-
As far as I know, it was an old dog.
Isn´t this Crispy?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4102;image)
I don't think it is? I thought it was a shi tzu?
-
So what on earth has this dog got to do with Jeremy's guilt or innocence? There we go again judging a man on the basis of what he thought of a dog. In fact none of the familty appeared to want it, not just Jeremy. In any case Hartley said that Basil Cock handed the affairs over to the Eatons'. So why judge Jeremy on this dog when it was really the responsibilty of the Eatons' anyway? Well I suppose it reveals something about the relatives. They appeared to only be interested in the money affairs and had no interest at all in Crispy.
The dog wasn't part of the Eaton's family, it was part of Jeremy's and yet he so easily condemned it. It doesn't mean he's guilty, but to me it shows that he could be pretty cold and ruthless.
-
I don't think it is? I thought it was a shi tzu?
Isn´t this a Shi Tzu?
Anyway - Colin was under suspicion for a time because he....... drumroll....... didn´t seem to be grieving.
I don´t think you should read anything into such things, seriously!
-
Jeremy's reaction to the deaths went from one extreme to another.
At first weeping and telling the police 'you said everything would be alright'. Then walking off into the fields and trying (but failing) to be sick. Returning with some flowers.
A few minutes later after some alcohol he told the police to get rid/put down Crispy. He hated him and did not want him messing up his stereo equipment.
After driving back to his cottage he said he was starving and made some breakfast. The food helped him recover adequately and he said to the police 'right, lets get on with it, I'm ready to start when you are'.
-
That dog would have been attached to Sheila.That's why it wasn't harmed on the night of the murders.
I'm 100% sure that Jeremy would have shot it if he'd killed his family. It would have been biting his heels as dogs sense when someone doesn't like them.
-
Isn´t this a Shi Tzu?
Anyway - Colin was under suspicion for a time because he....... drumroll....... didn´t seem to be grieving.
I don´t think you should read anything into such things, seriously!
We all look at things differently and in isolation, it doesn't mean a things but once you start thinking he's guilty, something that might have just seemed a little off, makes more sense in a guilty context.
-
Jeremy's reaction to the deaths went from one extreme to another.
At first weeping and telling the police 'you said everything would be alright'. Then walking off into the fields and trying (but failing) to be sick. Returning with some flowers.
A few minutes later after some alcohol he told the police to get rid/put down Crispy. He hated him and did not want him messing up his stereo equipment.
After driving back to his cottage he said he was starving and made some breakfast. The food helped him recover adequately and he said to the police 'right, lets get on with it, I'm ready to start when you are'.
Sounds like someone totally confused and in shock.
-
If Sheila was in a psychotic rage, wouldn't she have shot, or attempted to shoot Crispy ?
Sheila had gone crazy. Perhaps for several hours. A barking dog running around would just irritate her more.
But Crispy was not shot, and there is no evidence of any missed shots.
-
If Sheila was in a psychotic rage, wouldn't she have shot, or attempted to shoot Crispy ?
Sheila had gone crazy. Perhaps for several hours. A barking dog running around would just irritate her more.
But Crispy was not shot, and there is no evidence of any missed shots.
Sheila would NOT have shot the dog.
-
If Sheila was in a psychotic rage, wouldn't she have shot, or attempted to shoot Crispy ?
Sheila had gone crazy. Perhaps for several hours. A barking dog running around would just irritate her more.
But Crispy was not shot, and there is no evidence of any missed shots.
Good question Adam but by the same token why didn't Jeremy shoot Crispy, he obviously didn't like him, it would have been easier to just shoot him surely?
-
We all look at things differently and in isolation, it doesn't mean a things but once you start thinking he's guilty, something that might have just seemed a little off, makes more sense in a guilty context.
I know.
-
Sounds like someone totally confused and in shock.
OK, you 'could' put it down to shock but lets take the phone call. His dad calls him early hours of the morning saying Sheila had the gun come quick. I can buy the fact that he might have been confused about what to do but once he'd decided the police should be called - why not 999? I have never been able to answer this with an adequate reason that doesn't sound as though I'm making excuses for him. What would you do? Thumb through the phone book looking for a local number or dial 999? I know what I would do.
-
Jeremy could (irrationally) have been angry with Crispy for being alive when his whole family had been wiped out in that house.
-
Jeremy could (irrationally) have been angry with Crispy for being alive when his whole family had been wiped out in that house.
Well, you'd have thought he would have been angry with Sheila (I know I would if she'd just killed my mum and dad) but there's nothing to suggest he was overtly angry about what she's supposed to have done.
-
OK, you 'could' put it down to shock but lets take the phone call. His dad calls him early hours of the morning saying Sheila had the gun come quick. I can buy the fact that he might have been confused about what to do but once he'd decided the police should be called - why not 999? I have never been able to answer this with an adequate reason that doesn't sound as though I'm making excuses for him. What would you do? Thumb through the phone book looking for a local number or dial 999? I know what I would do.
Jeremy knew that Sheila had "episodes"; he knew that his parents liked to keep things private. I think he was clueless as to what to do - and that is the reason he called Julie. He wanted her to tell him what to do. When she didn´t, he went for a compromise and called the local station. I think he could have been afraid that Nevill would get angry at him for calling the police.
I think that Jeremy was quite depedent on other people - his parents did everything for him and Sheila, they even took decicions for them. They never learned to think for themselves.
What would be the difference anyway, from a guilty perspective, to call a local station or 999? The end result would be the same - police at the scene.
-
Well, you'd have thought he would have been angry with Sheila (I know I would if she'd just killed my mum and dad) but there's nothing to suggest he was overtly angry about what she's supposed to have done.
That is strange, I´ll go with that.
-
Sounds like someone totally confused and in shock.
I'm certainly confused.
-
I don't think Jeremy realised the gravity of the situation
It sounds like Sheila had gone a bit crazy a few times
Jeremy's father rang him instead of the police because Sheila would have lost custody of the boys if social services had been told about the incident
I agree Alias
-
I'm certainly confused.
I know you are! 8)
-
I know you are! 8)
At least he admitting it at last. ;D
-
Isn´t this a Shi Tzu?
Anyway - Colin was under suspicion for a time because he....... drumroll....... didn´t seem to be grieving.
I don´t think you should read anything into such things, seriously!
It would be if there was only one dog in the zoo. ;D
-
Yes,that's right.If the police had ever been contacted at all due to Sheilas' episodes,the children would have been taken. Maybe this is why Neville didn't like officialdom because of the power that these people had,and he would have known that.
-
Good question Adam but by the same token why didn't Jeremy shoot Crispy, he obviously didn't like him, it would have been easier to just shoot him surely?
Lots of reasons.
Jeremy quietly entered the house and crept upstairs. Crispy may have slept through this.
If Crispy woke during Neville's brutal beating, Jeremy had much more important things to worry about than chasing a dog. June, Sheila & the twins were probably all still alive.
It is much more likely Sheila would madly fire at a barking and moving dog that would do nothing to calm her rage.
-
I don't think Jeremy realised the gravity of the situation
It sounds like Sheila had gone a bit crazy a few times
Jeremy's father rang him instead of the police because Sheila would have lost custody of the boys if social services had been told about the incident
I agree Alias
There is no evidence to show this is the case.
Why didn't Jeremy or Neville call Dorothy or Leonsrd Folks ? Thread already created.
-
It would be if there was only one dog in the zoo. ;D
I don't get it.
-
You know Leonard & Dorothy Folkes. Don't you ?
They had been working for the Bambers for 36 years.
Dorothy testified that Jeremy said 'he didn't get on with his Sheila. And that he 'would not share his money with Sheila'. If anything happened to the family Jeremy would 'sell the whole lot and pack up'.
Leonard testified that he saw Sheila and the twins the day before the shootings. He said 'she looked happy enough to me'.
What is also interesting is that is that they both lived in a tied cottage at WHF. Surely the best people for Neville to ring when Sheila went 'crazy'.
They were already there. They knew Neville & Sheila & there were two of them. They probably had a key and unlike Jeremy, Neville trusted them, otherwise they would not be working for him. For 36 years.
Forget about keeping it in the family. Sheila had 'gone crazy & had got the gun'. Anyway, working for a family business for 36 years and you are practically family.
But Neville made a mysterious call to Jeremy. Who said himself he 'did not get on' with Sheila.
And why didn't Jeremy call the Folkes's, instead of Julie and a police station miles away ? Jeremy said it did not occur to him.
Why do people think Neville or Jeremy did not phone two people who were already at WHF ?
-
Lots of reasons.
Jeremy quietly entered the house and crept upstairs. Crispy may have slept through this.
If Crispy woke during Neville's brutal beating, Jeremy had much more important things to worry about than chasing a dog. June, Sheila & the twins were probably all still alive.
It is much more likely Sheila would madly fire at a barking and moving dog that would do nothing to calm her rage.
Wow! You do come up with some wild stories Adam and you and your ilk claim that the Bamber supporters make up stories. ::) Yeah I'm sure a small yappie type dog would not hear someone climbing through a window. ROFLMAO. ;D
-
Jeremy knew that Sheila had "episodes"; he knew that his parents liked to keep things private. I think he was clueless as to what to do - and that is the reason he called Julie. He wanted her to tell him what to do. When she didn´t, he went for a compromise and called the local station. I think he could have been afraid that Nevill would get angry at him for calling the police.
I think that Jeremy was quite depedent on other people - his parents did everything for him and Sheila, they even took decicions for them. They never learned to think for themselves.
What would be the difference anyway, from a guilty perspective, to call a local station or 999? The end result would be the same - police at the scene.
It would have taken less time and the response would have been quicker. I don't believe that Jeremy wasn't independent. He travelled by himself, he'd been at boarding school from the age of eight and he lived away from home.
-
I don't think Jeremy realised the gravity of the situation
It sounds like Sheila had gone a bit crazy a few times
Jeremy's father rang him instead of the police because Sheila would have lost custody of the boys if social services had been told about the incident
I agree Alias
Yes, I understand that but, he did make the decision to call the police so Social Services would have found out anyway so why not call 999? He wouldn't have had to search for the number and it would have been an immediate response.
-
Yes, I understand that but, he did make the decision to call the police so Social Services would have found out anyway so why not call 999? He wouldn't have had to search for the number and it would have been an immediate response.
What's it like looking at everything in a biased way now Caroline. If you don't look at both sides it is amazing how little time it takes to become biased. ;)
-
Wow! You do come up with some wild stories Adam and you and your ilk claim that the Bamber supporters make up stories. ::) Yeah I'm sure a small yappie type dog would not hear someone climbing through a window. ROFLMAO. ;D
Crispy would certainly hear Sheila going crazy with a gun. But it seems June didn't, being shot through the neck with her head on the pillow.
Sheila preferred to shoot her sleeping sons 8 times, brutally beat and shoot Neville and shoot June. But did not fire a single shot at at Crispy.
-
Because in Sheilas' mind,the dog wasn't a threat to her,so why shoot it.? As I've already said,Jeremy would have shot it,no problem.
-
What's it like looking at everything in a biased way now Caroline. If you don't look at both sides it is amazing how little time it takes to become biased. ;)
No, I'm not biased but you're turning this onto me - the question was about Jeremy. Why not, when he had made the decision to call the police, did he not call 999 and what would you have done? Got in your car and headed over there, dialled 999 Or thumbed through the directory for the local station and when there was no answer, look for another number?
-
That's three people sticking the knife into Caroline since she dared speak up- how dare she be honest with how she is feeling. What a bitch.
-
Excuse me ? What am I supposed to have done now ??
-
Excuse me ? What am I supposed to have done now ??
You must be paranoid - I didn't say you. I was talking about the only male Bamberette.
-
That's three people sticking the knife into Caroline - how dare she be honest with how she is feeling. What a bitch.
If you find yourself making excuses (which I did), you need to re-evaluate your position (which I also did) - I could just lie and carry on making excuses but what would be the point of that?
-
You must be paranoid - I didn't say you. I was talking about the only male Bamberette.
No,not paranoid,just used to you suddenly flinging some remark at ME !
-
It seems that Caroline has met Jeremy. So was probably taken in by his charm and sincerity. Easily done. Lots of other people have.
But after reviewing the evidence says she is now 70% sure of his guilt.
-
It seems that Caroline has met Jeremy. So was probably taken in by his charm and sincerity. Easily done. Lots of other people have.
But after reviewing the evidence says she is now 70% sure of his guilt.
Eh? I haven't met him!! I wrote and asked him a few questions!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
No, I'm not biased but you're turning this onto me - the question was about Jeremy. Why not, when he had made the decision to call the police, did he not call 999 and what would you have done? Got in your car and headed over there, dialled 999 Or thumbed through the directory for the local station and when there was no answer, look for another number?
i admit you have a point there the only thing i can think of is being woken up at that time of the morning he wasnt really with it.
i think he did offer an explantion for this himself it might be on his websight.
-
Eh? I haven't met him!! I wrote and asked him a few questions!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
If you have not already done so, you should create a thread of you're questions and his answers.
-
i admit you have a point there the only thing i can think of is being woken up at that time of the morning he wasnt really with it.
i think he did offer an explantion for this himself it might be on his websight.
Well, if I wasn't with it, I'd still think of calling 999 first once I had decided to involve the police.
-
i think jeremy did give some explantion for this somewhere if i can find it.
-
i think jeremy did give some explantion for this somewhere if i can find it.
He gave several DIFFERENT explanations for such. The one he gave at trial was he didn't think that Nevill's call was urgent but eventually he came to change his mind.
-
He gave several DIFFERENT explanations for such. The one he gave at trial was he didn't think that Nevill's call was urgent but eventually he came to change his mind.
Could you please post those different explanations?
-
Yes, I understand that but, he did make the decision to call the police so Social Services would have found out anyway so why not call 999? He wouldn't have had to search for the number and it would have been an immediate response.
He had an immediate response anyway. But why is it even an issue if he didn't dial 999? It doesn't make sense to question it.
-
Crispy would certainly hear Sheila going crazy with a gun. But it seems June didn't, being shot through the neck with her head on the pillow.
Sheila preferred to shoot her sleeping sons 8 times, brutally beat and shoot Neville and shoot June. But did not fire a single shot at at Crispy.
Which of course if Bamber did hate the dog would have done anyway. So what's your point? The dog was found hiding under the bed. Which of course poses the question where was the dog originally?
-
Eh? I haven't met him!! I wrote and asked him a few questions!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Is he aware of this forum and what sort of discussions take place? Is he aware of individual members of this forum?
Just curious really.
-
That's three people sticking the knife into Caroline since she dared speak up- how dare she be honest with how she is feeling. What a bitch.
So you are implying that I am not honest? Because I choose to be neutral I am accused and mocked continually for being so. But a classic biased person sees suspicion in everything Bamber said and did. I don't go over entirely because I believe there are still legitimate questions to be asked. But it appears to me that every one in the guilty party can only look at things from one side. Which cannot be good. I can and do question things on both sides and I am mocked for it. That is the kind of people those who believe him to be guilty are keeping company with.
-
hes certanly aware of the forum im not sure about the discussion.
this was jailed before the internet was invented so i doubt he really understands what forums are.
-
Is he aware of this forum and what sort of discussions take place? Is he aware of individual members of this forum?
Just curious really.
Yes, he knows about the forum, he doesn't like it and I don't know if he knows about individual members, if he does, it's not from me.
-
So you are implying that I am not honest? Because I choose to be neutral I am accused and mocked continually for being so. But a classic biased person sees suspicion in everything Bamber said and did. I don't go over entirely because I believe there are still legitimate questions to be asked. But it appears to me that every one in the guilty party can only look at things from one side. Which cannot be good. I can and do question things on both sides and I am mocked for it. That is the kind of people those who believe him to be guilty are keeping company with.
Neutral? :o lol
There's no shame in admitting that you are a 'GULLIBLE' you know. :D
-
Is he aware of this forum and what sort of discussions take place? Is he aware of individual members of this forum?
Just curious really.
Yes he is aware of this forum and he doesn't agree with it. He has asked Mike to stop it. This is the reason why Scott Lomax will not join this forum. He thinks it is against Jeremy's wishes and so will not join.
-
So you are implying that I am not honest? Because I choose to be neutral I am accused and mocked continually for being so. But a classic biased person sees suspicion in everything Bamber said and did. I don't go over entirely because I believe there are still legitimate questions to be asked. But it appears to me that every one in the guilty party can only look at things from one side. Which cannot be good. I can and do question things on both sides and I am mocked for it. That is the kind of people those who believe him to be guilty are keeping company with.
Well firstly......Neutral? I am shocked you even had the nerve to type that word to be honest.
I think it is clear I was talking about Caroline - I said "Caroline." I said "SHE"... I didn't mention the honesty or lack of honesty of anybody else.
You say you're mocked for being neutral and questioning things - but you do the same to Caroline.
-
So you are implying that I am not honest? Because I choose to be neutral I am accused and mocked continually for being so. But a classic biased person sees suspicion in everything Bamber said and did. I don't go over entirely because I believe there are still legitimate questions to be asked. But it appears to me that every one in the guilty party can only look at things from one side. Which cannot be good. I can and do question things on both sides and I am mocked for it. That is the kind of people those who believe him to be guilty are keeping company with.
I don't think for one moment you're being dishonest but what I don't understand is if you are neutral, why you 'seem' to have a dig at me when I'm simply expressing what I also believe? I'm not biased it's just what I believe - I can't help my beliefs no more than you can help yours and good debate questions everything.
-
Yes he is aware of this forum and he doesn't agree with it. He has asked Mike to stop it. This is the reason why Scott Lomax will not join this forum. He thinks it is against Jeremy's wishes and so will not join.
does he really understand the internet though.
im he was jailed before its invention and prisnors arnt allowed access to it.
-
Yes, he knows about the forum, he doesn't like it and I don't know if he knows about individual members, if he does, it's not from me.
Are many people in contact with him? Do you know?
I've always thought it a bit ........... I don't know, uncomfortable I suppose. I wouldn't want a multiple murderer to have my address or phone number. :-\
-
Are many people in contact with him? Do you know?
I've always thought it a bit ........... I don't know, uncomfortable I suppose. I wouldn't want a multiple murderer to have my address or phone number. :-\
Especially with the way some of his campaign team have treated people who have given Bamber their address in the past. I was once going to write but if you don't include your address on the letter then apparently the prison staff won't pass the letter on, so I thought better of it.
-
Neutral? :o lol
There's no shame in admitting that you are a 'GULLIBLE' you know. :D
I'm not offended by that Hartley. ;D But I do admit that I certainly am not intelligent and also a bit slow in my mind as I get older. But if you take the trouble to read all of my posts you will have to agree that I take a middle road. Not because I think Bamber to be innocent. Nor because I think him innocent. But because some things just do not add up and that I cannot agree that EVERYTHING Bamber said is a lie as some do. I also cannot accept that Mugford has told the whole truth. I rather think that she was/is a liar as well and quite simply cannot understand why seemingly intelligent people believe everything she said? So yes I am middle ground on the case. At least I don't try and belittle others (except of course scipio) and try and make them look fools just because they disagree with me. And you know also that if I am proved wrong then I own up to it and say I'm wrongm instead of saying things like "I was misinformed".
-
I'm not offended by that Hartley. ;D But I do admit that I certainly am not intelligent and also a bit slow in my mind as I get older. But if you take the trouble to read all of my posts you will have to agree that I take a middle road. Not because I think Bamber to be innocent. Nor because I think him innocent. But because some things just do not add up and that I cannot agree that EVERYTHING Bamber said is a lie as some do. I also cannot accept that Mugford has told the whole truth. I rather think that she was/is a liar as well and quite simply cannot understand why seemingly intelligent people believe everything she said? So yes I am middle ground on the case. At least I don't try and belittle others (except of course scipio) and try and make them look fools just because they disagree with me. And you know also that if I am proved wrong then I own up to it and say I'm wrongm instead of saying things like "I was misinformed".
Seriously, I was just kidding, I didn't mean to weigh in. Just being jovial. ;)
-
Well firstly......Neutral? I am shocked you even had the nerve to type that word to be honest.
I think it is clear I was talking about Caroline - I said "Caroline." I said "SHE"... I didn't mention the honesty or lack of honesty of anybody else.
You say you're mocked for being neutral and questioning things - but you do the same to Caroline.
Well that means that you believe me to be a liar. It also is an indication that you are biased. Because you obviously have not read all my posts.
Re Caroline. No I don't.
-
Are many people in contact with him? Do you know?
I've always thought it a bit ........... I don't know, uncomfortable I suppose. I wouldn't want a multiple murderer to have my address or phone number. :-\
I have no idea Harters, I never discussed anyone else but I'm sure lots of people write to him. My own experience was actually by accident. I watched Crimes That Shook Britain and was pretty shocked by some of the content. At that point I had always thought he was guilty - although I didn't know much about him. I actually just sent a 'best wishes' type email through the contact site on his website (email a prisoner). I didn't read the small print (didn't know he would have access to my details) so was shocked when I got a reply to my address. Being as he had my address anyway, I thought I would ask him a few questions. My partner wasn't very happy about it - but his interest is Sunderland football club which is probably worse!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have no idea Harters, I never discussed anyone else but I'm sure lots of people write to him. My own experience was actually by accident. I watched Crimes That Shook Britain and was pretty shocked by some of the content. At that point I had always thought he was guilty - although I didn't know much about him. I actually just sent a 'best wishes' type email through the contact site on his website (email a prisoner). I didn't read the small print (didn't know he would have access to my details) so was shocked when I got a reply to my address. Being as he had my address anyway, I thought I would ask him a few questions. My partner wasn't very happy about it - but his interest is Sunderland football club which is probably worse!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I wrote to him a couple of times. I'm not afraid of giving him my name and address. What's the matter with people? What do you think he's going to do anyway.
I am more concerned that the Bamber supporter abusers have my address and so is Jackie Preece as she lives alone and got take away meals delivered to her door ordered by the abusers. I have had mysterious phone calls to my house and abuse down the phone.
So that is another reason that causes me to steer a middle line. Which obviously the biased guilters interpret as being a Bamber supporter. I am quite frankly put off by the whole of the guilty party because of their tendency to abuse and mock the supporters by insinuating that they are gullible or fools etc. No way will I want to be associated with such people. They disgust me.
-
I have no idea Harters, I never discussed anyone else but I'm sure lots of people write to him. My own experience was actually by accident. I watched Crimes That Shook Britain and was pretty shocked by some of the content. At that point I had always thought he was guilty - although I didn't know much about him. I actually just sent a 'best wishes' type email through the contact site on his website (email a prisoner). I didn't read the small print (didn't know he would have access to my details) so was shocked when I got a reply to my address. Being as he had my address anyway, I thought I would ask him a few questions. My partner wasn't very happy about it - but his interest is Sunderland football club which is probably worse!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh okay, so you never had phone calls or visited or gave out your home address?
A have a certain tie the the North East, so I can relate to Sunderland to a certain degree lol.
-
I have never written to Jeremy, and I doubt I ever will. I am in doubt whether he committed the murders and wouldn´t know WHAT to say to him because of that! :P
I think that Jeremy could have come to the conclusion that Nevill might be able to talk the local coppers out of contacting higher authorities regarding Sheila´s "episode" (read Child Protective Services). If he called 999 some strangers would come to the farm.
Maybe.
BTW, the sentence which Jeremy allegedly said to Julie "Everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm", simply does not make sense. It does make sense if you add a "but".
"Everything is going well (with me), but something is wrong at the farm. (What should I do?)"
-
Re Caroline. No I don't.
You clearly do.
What's it like looking at everything in a biased way now Caroline. If you don't look at both sides it is amazing how little time it takes to become biased. ;)
-
I have never written to Jeremy, and I doubt I ever will. I am in doubt whether he committed the murders and wouldn´t know WHAT to say to him because of that! :P
I think that Jeremy could have come to the conclusion that Nevill might be able to talk the local coppers out of contacting higher authorities regarding Sheila´s "episode" (read Child Protective Services). If he called 999 some strangers would come to the farm.
Maybe.
BTW, the sentence which Jeremy allegedly said to Julie "Everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm", simply does not make sense. It does make sense if you add a "but".
"Everything is going well (with me), but something is wrong at the farm. (What should I do?)"
If he said that Alias why would he say in the same sentence, "Something id wrong at the farm". Why do people always leave out that bit. The conversation probably went this way: JM, "Are you ok?" Jeremy: "Yes everything is well with me. Something is wrong at the farm". JM: "Go to bed".
-
I wrote to him a couple of times. I'm not afraid of giving him my name and address. What's the matter with people? What do you think he's going to do anyway.
I am more concerned that the Bamber supporter abusers have my address and so is Jackie Preece as she lives alone and got take away meals delivered to her door ordered by the abusers. I have had mysterious phone calls to my house and abuse down the phone.
So that is another reason that causes me to steer a middle line. Which obviously the biased guilters interpret as being a Bamber supporter. I am quite frankly put off by the whole of the guilty party because of their tendency to abuse and mock the supporters by insinuating that they are gullible or fools etc. No way will I want to be associated with such people. They disgust me.
I have never abused or mocked anyone. I don't have anyone's address and I have had my fair share of abuse from both sides. Why people can't just simply express an opinion without things getting personal is beyond me but since I registered the fact that I'm changing my stance, there is certainly a frosty air from some posters.
-
I wrote to him a couple of times. I'm not afraid of giving him my name and address. What's the matter with people? What do you think he's going to do anyway.
I am more concerned that the Bamber supporter abusers have my address and so is Jackie Preece as she lives alone and got take away meals delivered to her door ordered by the abusers. I have had mysterious phone calls to my house and abuse down the phone.
So that is another reason that causes me to steer a middle line. Which obviously the biased guilters interpret as being a Bamber supporter. I am quite frankly put off by the whole of the guilty party because of their tendency to abuse and mock the supporters by insinuating that they are gullible or fools etc. No way will I want to be associated with such people. They disgust me.
I'm not sure where this 'neutral' thing has come from, but regardless of your actual views, you don't come across on the forum as being neutral, quite the opposite. To say you are neutral actually makes you look a bit silly (no disrespect intended).
I don't know if others see it that way. :-\
-
Oh okay, so you never had phone calls or visited or gave out your home address?
A have a certain tie the the North East, so I can relate to Sunderland to a certain degree lol.
God NO!! My partner would have a fit if Jeremy Bamber called (he thinks he's guilty - end of). He does have the address, the prisoner contact site give out your address but I didn't read the small print and didn't realise they would.
I love Sunderland the place, just not the team! (Although I just hate football - altogether!! ;D)
Edited because I spelled NO 'know' - had a glass of wine, it's quite strong!! ;D ;D
-
I have never abused or mocked anyone. I don't have anyone's address and I have had my fair share of abuse from both sides. Why people can't just simply express an opinion without things getting personal is beyond me but since I registered the fact that I'm changing my stance, there is certainly a frosty air from some posters.
No you don't but now you are associating with such. Which I might add you don't seem to rebuke. I find that I am having to do it. Anyway now that you are with the guilty party you don't have to worry about abuse from them any more. I simply hate these tossers who are completely full of themselves. My nature has always been to defend the weak against the bullies. The guilters have their fair share of bullies.
-
You clearly do.
I wasn't mocking her I was pointing out that which is common amonst the guilters. I leave the abuse to the guilters. People like scipio, who loves to call people fools. I see that you are reverting to your old ways Mat.
-
No you don't but now you are associating with such. Which I might add you don't seem to rebuke. I find that I am having to do it. Anyway now that you are with the guilty party you don't have to worry about abuse from them any more. I simply hate these tossers who are completely full of themselves. My nature has always been to defend the weak against the bullies. The guilters have their fair share of bullies.
Well, you might say that but now the opposite is true! I have no idea who you are talking about - who am I associating with? I say what 'I' think and have found that once you change your stance you get shunned!
-
God know!! My partner would have a fit if Jeremy Bamber called (he thinks he's guilty - end of). He does have the address, the prisoner contact site give out your address but I didn't read the small print and didn't realise they would.
I love Sunderland the place, just not the team! (Although I just hate football - altogether!! ;D)
My better half doesn't like me coming on here, she just thinks you're all a bunch of weirdo's ;D and can't understand why I'd want to come on.
The forum is addictive and consuming at times, which is why I scurry away for a break every now and again.
I think I'd end up divorced if I tried to contact JB, besides I have no desire to whatsoever, I'm kinda creeped out by him. :-\
-
My better half doesn't like me coming on here, she just thinks you're all a bunch of weirdo's ;D and can't understand why I'd want to come on.
The forum is addictive and consuming at times, which is why I scurry away for a break every now and again.
I think I'd end up divorced if I tried to contact JB, besides I have no desire to whatsoever, I'm kinda creeper out by him. :-\
Someone I work with signed up on here after I persuaded them to look past some of the wilder theories posted on here- and then Stephanie Hall kicked off and he decided to stop posting and not come back. :-[
-
I'm not sure where this 'neutral' thing has come from, but regardless of your actual views, you don't come across on the forum as being neutral, quite the opposite. To say you are neutral actually makes you look a bit silly (no disrespect intended).
I don't know if others see it that way. :-\
That is because you are biased I should think? You obviously do not read my posts. I have agreed both with you and scipio on various things. If you read my posts properly and fairly you will see my position very clearly. It may appear at times that I am defending Bamber. But that is because at those times I think what is being said is either unfair or quite simply foolish. Like believing Mugford for instance. I have also said that I believe the relatives are honest and truly believe Bamber to be guilty. If I feel that something is wrong either way I post against it.
-
My better half doesn't like me coming on here, she just thinks you're all a bunch of weirdo's ;D and can't understand why I'd want to come on.
The forum is addictive and consuming at times, which is why I scurry away for a break every now and again.
I think I'd end up divorced if I tried to contact JB, besides I have no desire to whatsoever, I'm kinda creeped out by him. :-\
As does mine! But you're right, it can be addictive ;D. My partner works off-shore so I tend to be on a lot more when he's away - but I am on everyday for moderation purposes.
-
I've never changed - Grahame. You just haven't been lying on the forum recently so I haven't had to call you out on it, but since you're lying and calling people tossers tonight - seems like a good time to reaffirm the true lying tosser?
Mat I haven't called you a tosser. Please desist in calling me one. For your information I have not lied. If I lied then why would I comment on you being a long standing member? What you are saying is completely unfair.
-
That is because you are biased I should think? You obviously do not read my posts. I have agreed both with you and scipio on various things. If you read my posts properly and fairly you will see my position very clearly. It may appear at times that I am defending Bamber. But that is because at those times I think what is being said is either unfair or quite simply foolish. Like believing Mugford for instance. I have also said that I believe the relatives are honest and truly believe Bamber to be guilty. If I feel that something is wrong either way I post against it.
Lol, Okay Mr Neutral. ::)
-
For the sake of forum harmony, I removed my post.
-
For the sake of forum harmony, I removed my post.
Group hug? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Group hug? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Not with Grahame the biased tosser!!!! >:( ;D
-
I sometimes wonder what is the use of commenting on this forum? I am constantly accused of abusing others when all I am doing is defending other against the rude comments by scipio. But in returm it is I who am the one who is accused of lying and abuse instead of scipio. Who appears to get away with his constant rudeness andbelittling of others.
This is why I get fed up with the forum so often. Why am I called a liat because I do not choose to go the way of the guilters but would rather defend those who are being abused.
Personally I have not seen Caroline abused except by Martin who I rebuked.
-
Not with Grahame the biased tosser!!!! >:( ;D
:P ;D
-
Group hug? ;D ;D ;D ;D
I've actually got a rash on the side of my arm from nettle stings FIVE days ago (think I should be worried?) so will turn down the group hug just incase any of you brushed against it - in which case I'd scream.
-
I sometimes wonder what is the use of commenting on this forum? I am constantly accused of abusing others when all I am doing is defending other against the rude comments by scipio. But in returm it is I who am the one who is accused of lying and abuse instead of scipio. Who appears to get away with his constant rudeness andbelittling of others.
This is why I get fed up with the forum so often. Why am I called a liat because I do not choose to go the way of the guilters but would rather defend those who are being abused.
Personally I have not seen Caroline abused except by Martin who I rebuked.
Grahame I asked some perfectly simply case related questions earlier and you accused me of being biased. It came out of the blue because prior to that we were discussing the case. I have asked Scipio to stop being personal have have defended just about everyone on this forum in the past. I'm not going to defend my position - it's what I believe and it's got nothing to do with being biased.
-
:P ;D
Hehe, I wasn't sure I'd get away with that. ;)
Personally I couldn't care less, I'm pretty resilient, but I wonder if you realise how rude it actually is to dismiss another person's view and say that they are 'biased'. Your basically saying that a person is being dishonest or you are belittling their views and saying they are influenced and worthless. If you get abuse for that, then it doesn't surprise me.
Of course your own views are honest and true, without influence from others.
You're either on a wind up, attempting to send people over the edge (which I think is actually the case) or you're just a bit thick and you make yourself look daft. :-\
-
Grahame I asked some perfectly simply case related questions earlier and you accused me of being biased. It came out of the blue because prior to that we were discussing the case. I have asked Scipio to stop being personal have have defended just about everyone on this forum in the past. I'm not going to defend my position - it's what I believe and it's got nothing to do with being biased.
No Caroline you weren't. You were arguing about Jeremys feelings and actions directly after the deaths of his family when it is quite obvious how mixed up people can get after such a terrible tragedy. You seemed to attach suspicion on something that could have been quite innocent. That is why I mentioned the bias.
-
Hehe, I wasn't sure I'd get away with that. ;)
Personally I couldn't care less, I'm pretty resilient, but I wonder if you realise how rude it actually is to dismiss another person's view and say that they are 'biased'. Your basically saying that a person is being dishonest or you are belittling their views and saying they are influenced and worthless. If you get abuse for that, then it doesn't surprise me.
Of course your own views are honest and true, without influence from others.
You're either on a wind up, attempting to send people over the edge (which I think is actually the case) or you're just a bit thick and you make yourself look daft. :-\
I was using the word bias because scipio is always using the word to descibe others. I obviously don't think that everyone who thinks Jeremy is guilty is biased. It just shows you how we are all influenced by what others say about us. I found Mat's comments about me to be hurtful because I though we were getting on so well and what he said about me is quite simply not true. Neither did I call him a liar either. So in my opinion it was unwarrented.
-
I was using the word bias because scipio is always using the word to descibe others. I obviously don't think that everyone who thinks Jeremy is guilty is biased. It just shows you how we are all influenced by what others say about us. I found Mat's comments about me to be hurtful because I though we were getting on so well and what he said about me is quite simply not true.
I think if you go around telling people they are biased, then you are likely to get an unsavoury reaction.
I'm still astonished that you describe yourself as neutral. :o
-
I think if you go around telling people they are biased, then you are likely to get an unsavoury reaction.
I'm still astonished that you describe yourself as neutral. :o
Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?
-
Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?
And Mike gets away with much worse, you don't 'pipe up' though, being neutral and all. ::)
-
No Caroline you weren't. You were arguing about Jeremys feelings and actions directly after the deaths of his family when it is quite obvious how mixed up people can get after such a terrible tragedy. You seemed to attach suspicion on something that could have been quite innocent. That is why I mentioned the bias.
Because that's my opinion - I think he was suspicious and I make absolutely no apologies for that.
-
Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?
Is the insinuation that I'm biased in favour of Scipio? Seriously?
-
Are many people in contact with him? Do you know?
I've always thought it a bit ........... I don't know, uncomfortable I suppose. I wouldn't want a multiple murderer to have my address or phone number. :-\
The amazing thing is that there are murderers who women actually marry not just write to. Teh Amityville Horror murderer is on his 4th wife (all 4 married him in prison) and look at Joran Van Der Sloot. If you are going to write I suggest people use a PO Box or the like not a home address. Some prisoners stalk pen pals and write a million letters.
-
The amazing thing is that there are murderers who women actually marry not just write to. Teh Amityville Horror murderer is on his 4th wife (all 4 married him in prison) and look at Joran Van Der Sloot. If you are going to write I suggest people use a PO Box or the like not a home address. Some prisoners stalk pen pals and write a million letters.
OY! Don't sling me in with that lot!! But I have to say, Jeremy has never stalked me.
-
Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?
I base my assessments on facts and evidence not having friends who know Jeremy and insist he would not do such a thing and thus say things liek you do about believing no matter what a crazy person had to carry out the murders and you will not believe otherwise.
I lay out the evidence that establishes Jeremy is guilty and if such evidence were ever able to be refuted I would accordingly change my assessment of his guilt because I follow the evidence I don't have an agenda driving me.
THe opposite cannot be said for Team Jeremy. Evidence is not cited as tht ereaosn for believing he is innocent. There is blind faith in him and that as a result the evidence must be all faked though there is nothing to refute the evidence.
Claims like well Sheila must have either:
1) committed themurders nude or
2) she changed her clothes and showered and no one ever found the clothing she wore when she committed the murders or
3) she changed her clothes and showered and someone found the clothing she wore but destroyed them intentionally so that Jeremy could take the fall
Are all totally unrealistic not just lacking in evidence yet one of these would have to be true for Jeremy to be innocent. But that;s hardly the only absurd thing required. There are a whole lot of more crazy things that much be true for Jeremy to be innocent.
When someone believes crazy things because of blind faith in someone they didn't know at all or did not know very well there is no way to describe it other than bias.
To prove people are not operating on the basis of bias all they need do is post a basis for their position that relies on sound evidence as opposed to bias.
Most on Team Jeremy can't do tha tbecause they are being driven by gun feelings and you have multiple times mentioned such be it your claim that your friend doesn't think Jeremy would do it and you trust his judgment or your claim that you are unwilling to believe anyone other than a crazy person could kill their family and that it thus hasd to be Sheila the evidence be damned. It is a fact that not all peopel who kill are crazy.
I have called out positions of anybody that doesn't have a rational basis including Caroline's position that there is no way Jeremy would ever have requested a DNA test unless he did not use the moderator even though there are many examples of guilty people requesting DNA tests- including rapists- who hope that foreign DNA will somehow be found or that time will have caused their DNA profile to be unavailable and thus to then claim their profile was not found. There is nothing to lose if they are stuck in jail for life anyway.
If you say a change of facts can't make you change your mind that is a sure sign you have an agenda and are not operating on the basis of facts.
-
I base my assessments on facts and evidence not having friends who know Jeremy and insist he would not do such a thing and thus say things liek you do about believing no matter what a crazy person had to carry out the murders and you will not believe otherwise.
I lay out the evidence that establishes Jeremy is guilty and if such evidence were ever able to be refuted I would accordingly change my assessment of his guilt because I follow the evidence I don't have an agenda driving me.
THe opposite cannot be said for Team Jeremy. Evidence is not cited as tht ereaosn for believing he is innocent. There is blind faith in him and that as a result the evidence must be all faked though there is nothing to refute the evidence.
Claims like well Sheila must have either:
1) committed themurders nude or
2) she changed her clothes and showered and no one ever found the clothing she wore when she committed the murders or
3) she changed her clothes and showered and someone found the clothing she wore but destroyed them intentionally so that Jeremy could take the fall
Are all totally unrealistic not just lacking in evidence yet one of these would have to be true for Jeremy to be innocent. But that;s hardly the only absurd thing required. There are a whole lot of more crazy things that much be true for Jeremy to be innocent.
When someone believes crazy things because of blind faith in someone they didn't know at all or did not know very well there is no way to describe it other than bias.
To prove people are not operating on the basis of bias all they need do is post a basis for their position that relies on sound evidence as opposed to bias.
Most on Team Jeremy can't do tha tbecause they are being driven by gun feelings and you have multiple times mentioned such be it your claim that your friend doesn't think Jeremy would do it and you trust his judgment or your claim that you are unwilling to believe anyone other than a crazy person could kill their family and that it thus hasd to be Sheila the evidence be damned. It is a fact that not all peopel who kill are crazy.
I have called out positions of anybody that doesn't have a rational basis including Caroline's position that there is no way Jeremy would ever have requested a DNA test unless he did not use the moderator even though there are many examples of guilty people requesting DNA tests- including rapists- who hope that foreign DNA will somehow be found or that time will have caused their DNA profile to be unavailable and thus to then claim their profile was not found. There is nothing to lose if they are stuck in jail for life anyway.
If you say a change of facts can't make you change your mind that is a sure sign you have an agenda and are not operating on the basis of facts.
I think Grahame is referring to the frequency to which you use the word 'liar' to critique someone else's post. This is something that I (and the rest of the moderation team) believe to be unnecessary. Just because someone believes something you don't agree with, doesn't make them a liar - by the same token, just because they have no solid evidence, doesn't make them a liar either. The only way they would be a liar, is if they claimed something they didn't actually believe - which is unlikely. So I ask you quite politely - to curb the liar accusations. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.
-
Going back to the original question of why Jeremy didn't call 999 - I can quite categorically say, that had my dad called me to tell me my brother had a gun (he was also schizophrenic), I'd have called 999. He also had never been violent but I would have been equally concerned that he may have hurt himself as well as wondering about the safety of my parents. However, there was no urgency - why?
-
Going back to the original question of why Jeremy didn't call 999 - I can quite categorically say, that had my dad called me to tell me my brother had a gun (he was also schizophrenic), I'd have called 999. He also had never been violent but I would have been equally concerned that he may have hurt himself as well as wondering about the safety of my parents. However, there was no urgency - why?
How many fathers would call to place their son in harms way if there were a truly dangerous situation that not even the father felt he could control? That alone is suspicious let alone to call a son who likely would to answer because the phone wa sno where near his bedroom and and had an answering machine.
Then there is the question of how Nevill even would have had the opportunity to make such a call without being shot, why he would not instead arm himself if he was left alone and why Sheila would not shoot him upon encounteirng him but instead to hang up the phone, and take it back off the hook then march him upstairs to shoot him with June.
Not only do we have to believe all these odd things happened but a whole lot more including as you mention Jeremy not calling 999 but instead calling Julie and then casually calling police. I don't understand how someone in jail for so long having nothing but time to make up a competent lie could come up with something so stupid as claiming he didn't think it was urgent. That's why lawyers usually tell their clients not to testify they often screw themselves.
-
AE said Neville would have picked up a chair and defended himself while disarming Sheila.
A thread was created on what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. No one could give an answer.
Another thread was created on how long Neville would have to wait. Jeremy was upstairs, 'sleeping like a log'. Perhaps with his bedroom door shut. His answering machine would have stopped the phone ringing after 3-7 rings. So impossible for Jeremy to wake.
-
Morning Harters/Caroline
my lesser half thinks forums are for saddo's oh heck and I am one of them can't keep away for long. ;D
-
And Mike gets away with much worse, you don't 'pipe up' though, being neutral and all. ::)
That's because I can't understand him most of the time. And it's his forum. Also scipio does it all the time. Anyway that would be a moderators job. I only rebuke scipio because he is exceptionally rude and because no moderator does.
-
Caroline you have not been shunned by forum members because you have changed your stance posters still respect and love you for you not your stance on Jeremy Bamber and my friends on here are still my friends even though I have a different take on things than them now. :-*
-
Morning Grahame
Forum member's have never considered you to be biased or a liar you are passionate in what you believe and are quite entitled to be. I too am completely lost on Mike's posts as I do not understand one word of them and have given up. As far as Scipio is concerned he can give it but also can take it so that is fair enough in my eyes.
-
Is the insinuation that I'm biased in favour of Scipio? Seriously?
Quite frankly Caroline I don't think either you or the rest of the admin team do much about him. I am left to rebuke him. Constantly whilst the admin stand idly by. Yet I appear to be "told off" if I'm cheeky to him?
And whilst we're on the subject. I report certain posts and they appear to be ignored? I posted in the moderator thread and suggested quite amiably that it may be a good idea just in order to be civil to send a pm to the member concerned to at least tell them their post has been removed?
My post was "ignored". So Ihad to contact ngb and he agreed with me that it would be a good idea to do so.
But I received no acknowledgement or indeed any pm from any of the moderators. Now I don't know about you, but that alone I consider to be rude in and of itself. How many moderators and admin are there?
-
Caroline you have not been shunned by forum members because you have changed your stance posters still respect and love you for you not your stance on Jeremy Bamber and my friends on here are still my friends even though I have a different take on things than them now. :-*
I found Carolines posts extremely powerful when she was not a guilter than now. She used to give some very good arguments. But now unfortunately, sorry to say it, a bit bland now that the challenge has gone. And to be congratulated and defended by the guilters? Yuk!
-
Morning Grahame
Forum member's have never considered you to be biased or a liar you are passionate in what you believe and are quite entitled to be. I too am completely lost on Mike's posts as I do not understand one word of them and have given up. As far as Scipio is concerned he can give it but also can take it so that is fair enough in my eyes.
Well scipio can seem to understand him. He also abuses and is rude towards him a great deal. But Mike just takes it on the chin until of course he gets fed up with him and just snaps. Then he is accused by the guilters that he is abusive. So am I. But all I do is retaliate and defend those who are being abused verbally....Well, somebody's got to do it if the moderators are asleep. ::)
-
That's because I can't understand him most of the time. And it's his forum. Also scipio does it all the time. Anyway that would be a moderators job. I only rebuke scipio because he is exceptionally rude and because no moderator does.
I guess you must have missed my posts to him. Incidentally, how much notice do you believe he takes of your rebukes? Personally, I've never seen anything from him by way of either apology OR self moderation in response to admonishments.
-
I guess you must have missed my posts to him. Incidentally, how much notice do you believe he takes of your rebukes? Personally, I've never seen anything from him by way of either apology OR self moderation in response to admonishments.
Who are you referring to? It rather sounds like scipio to me. He never receives any warnings and no I haven't seen your posts to him. Neither have I seen an answer to my post in the moderator thread. Now I can't even find my post or the thread?
-
Who are you referring to? It rather sounds like scipio to me. He never receives any warnings and no I haven't seen your posts to him. Neither have I seen an answer to my post in the moderator thread. Now I can't even find my post or the thread?
Gremlins in the mix, perhaps? :)
-
The amazing thing is that there are murderers who women actually marry not just write to. Teh Amityville Horror murderer is on his 4th wife (all 4 married him in prison) and look at Joran Van Der Sloot. If you are going to write I suggest people use a PO Box or the like not a home address. Some prisoners stalk pen pals and write a million letters.
The Prison Service insist on a home address and will not deliver mail if a PO box is used. They also check if you are willing to receive telephone calls from a prisoner before permission is given for a prisoner to call.
-
I found Carolines posts extremely powerful when she was not a guilter than now. She used to give some very good arguments. But now unfortunately, sorry to say it, a bit bland now that the challenge has gone. And to be congratulated and defended by the guilters? Yuk!
Because they don't agree with what you believe and that makes you biased not me!! And you're being personal. Yuk!!
-
Quite frankly Caroline I don't think either you or the rest of the admin team do much about him. I am left to rebuke him. Constantly whilst the admin stand idly by. Yet I appear to be "told off" if I'm cheeky to him?
And whilst we're on the subject. I report certain posts and they appear to be ignored? I posted in the moderator thread and suggested quite amiably that it may be a good idea just in order to be civil to send a pm to the member concerned to at least tell them their post has been removed?
My post was "ignored". So Ihad to contact ngb and he agreed with me that it would be a good idea to do so.
But I received no acknowledgement or indeed any pm from any of the moderators. Now I don't know about you, but that alone I consider to be rude in and of itself. How many moderators and admin are there?
Your post wasn't removed, you weren't supposed to have access to the moderator thread/board - it is a thread/board for moderators only - your post is still there but your access to the thread was removed. Several members had access to it for a short while by mistake. And whether you read my posts to Scipio or not, I have challenged him on MANY occasions as has April.
-
Because they don't agree with what you believe and that makes you biased not me!! And you're being personal. Yuk!!
My post still stands Caroline. You used to make some powerful posts. Now you seem to have lost the incentive.
-
My post still stands Caroline. You used to make some powerful posts. Now you seem to have lost the incentive.
I have because my position has changed and I'm inclined to think he's guilty. I have no concern for what other people think of my posts, I don't write them to impress anyone.
-
Caroline you have not been shunned by forum members because you have changed your stance posters still respect and love you for you not your stance on Jeremy Bamber and my friends on here are still my friends even though I have a different take on things than them now. :-*
Thank you Susan! I know some people are just the same but others are decidedly frosty and like to get in the odd dig now and again. It doesn't bother me and says more about them than it does me. I shall continue to give my opinion if and when I so desire, and if they don't like it then that's kinda tough! ;D ;D ;D
-
Your post wasn't removed, you weren't supposed to have access to the moderator thread/board - it is a thread/board for moderators only - your post is still there but your access to the thread was removed. Several members had access to it for a short while by mistake. And whether you read my posts to Scipio or not, I have challenged him on MANY occasions as has April.
No pm to me in answer to my post. Nothing. My posts was very polite yet no one took any notice. It's not my fault that I had access. You have not challenged him on his rudeness towards other members. If you had then I wouldn't have had to rebuke him myself. If he takes no notice then I should think he needs a warning. If I get banned because I stand up to him then I don't really care a rats ass. I will accept the ban without whinging like some others. But I will not back down on this disgustingly rude fellow. But of course you are the admin. Who am I to tell you your job?
-
I have because my position has changed and I'm inclined to think he's guilty. I have no concern for what other people think of my posts, I don't write them to impress anyone.
Well as long as you think its ok? I thought the whole point of making posts is to make an impression on people? But still, you're the boss.
-
Caroline if that is the case then it is very sad as we are all human beings and should be allowed our opinion even when it differs from that of our friends. Since I changed my stance nothing has changed I was virtually ignored when I thought he was innocent same now I think he could be guilty perhaps I should stop talking crap ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well as long as you think its ok? I thought the whole point of making posts is to make an impression on people? But still, you're the boss.
I do think it's OK or I wouldn't have said it, But considering that certain members become personal when I do post, I must be making an impression. My change in stance has certainly rattled a few cages. ;)
-
Caroline if that is the case then it is very sad as we are all human beings and should be allowed our opinion even when it differs from that of our friends. Since I changed my stance nothing has changed I was virtually ignored when I thought he was innocent same now I think he could be guilty perhaps I should stop talking crap ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You and I need to stick together then Susan ;)
-
I guess you must have missed my posts to him. Incidentally, how much notice do you believe he takes of your rebukes? Personally, I've never seen anything from him by way of either apology OR self moderation in response to admonishments.
Just for you Grahame, in case you missed it first time round. I take exception to being told that I've done nothing to rebuke his rudeness. Between us, Caroline and I have used most of the appropriate adjectives in the book to censure him. It has NO effect. In fact, he relishes the attention like a child and does it all the more.
-
Going back to the original question of why Jeremy didn't call 999 - I can quite categorically say, that had my dad called me to tell me my brother had a gun (he was also schizophrenic), I'd have called 999. He also had never been violent but I would have been equally concerned that he may have hurt himself as well as wondering about the safety of my parents. However, there was no urgency - why?
Because something similar had happened before and had calmed down on its own?
Freddie Emami had called Nevill, because he could not control Sheila during an "episode". Dotors couldn´t control her during this episode, and Freddie was scared to death.
However, Nevill didn´t see this as an emergency, so he took his time coming to London. Why didn´t he?
-
Caroline it is strange to say the least. I always thought Jeremy innocent but of late changed my stance as all forum members know but some of my best friends on here are in the guilty camp and I get on so well with them as people even when I thought he was innocent as their views on JB did not affect how I viewed them and that is how it should be.
-
april I have seen on many occasions you and Caroline pull scipio up for his rudeness to no avail. I don't think he is a bad guy just does not have the flow of the English language that steve uk has I think Grahame handles him so well and I enjoy reading their posts.
-
april I have seen on many occasions you and Caroline pull scipio up for his rudeness to no avail. I don't think he is a bad guy just does not have the flow of the English language that steve uk has I think Grahame handles him so well and I enjoy reading their posts.
Susan, THANK-YOU :) Perhaps Grahame hasn't been on forum at those times but just between us, I get the impression that Grahame enjoys his exchanges with Scipio and he MAY feel a little bit guilty about that. I bet he'd miss him if he wasn't here ;D
-
scipio, the Energizer Bunny of Insults. :P
I don´t think it is a secret that I find his choice of wording offensive. He likes to wind people up, simple as that, and he HAS to have the last word.
He does bring life to this board though, however we could live without the insults! I see it as him having a problem with himself.
-
april it is funny you should say that but last time Grahame left the forum I emailed him and asked him to come back and I said "who is going to answer Scipio's posts" as you do it so well. I never thought it was getting to Grahame the way is has.
-
Because something similar had happened before and had calmed down on its own?
Freddie Emami had called Nevill, because he could not control Sheila during an "episode". Dotors couldn´t control her during this episode, and Freddie was scared to death.
However, Nevill didn´t see this as an emergency, so he took his time coming to London. Why didn´t he?
I could understand your point, if he had chosen NOT to call the police and just gone over to WHF to help BUT he did call the police so if he thought the police needed to become involved, why not 999?
-
I could understand your point, if he had chosen NOT to call the police and just gone over to WHF to help BUT he did call the police so if he thought the police needed to become involved, why not 999?
As I said (and I am perhaps playing Devil´s advocate a little bit), he was fearful that Nevill would be angry at him for calling the police. The local coppers would have been a compromise - very possibly people Nevill knew.
I think Jeremy´s call to Julie indicates indecision.
-
I'm not sure where this 'neutral' thing has come from, but regardless of your actual views, you don't come across on the forum as being neutral, quite the opposite. To say you are neutral actually makes you look a bit silly (no disrespect intended).
I don't know if others see it that way. :-\
I disagree - I have seen Grahame actually read some of Scipios posts and agree with them - so I do see him as neutral . He has always said he thought it was an MOJ and not that Jeremy was innocent - and then has worked his way forward .So that has been my humble opinion . I have certainly seen him question a lot.
If it does not always appear that way it is probably because a lot of you have been round the same subjects lots of times and have managed to form you own opinion on certain subjects .
I agree totally with what you have been told on Jeremys opinion of this forum . That has been confirmed to me as well.
-
No pm to me in answer to my post. Nothing. My posts was very polite yet no one took any notice. It's not my fault that I had access. You have not challenged him on his rudeness towards other members. If you had then I wouldn't have had to rebuke him myself. If he takes no notice then I should think he needs a warning. If I get banned because I stand up to him then I don't really care a rats ass. I will accept the ban without whinging like some others. But I will not back down on this disgustingly rude fellow. But of course you are the admin. Who am I to tell you your job?
That isn't true. This is a voluntary position and something I spend a great deal of time over whether you appreciate it or not. The fact that a few posters act outside of their age is their problem, I don't read every post by Scipio or I'd never sleep. Being an Admin or Moderator has little effect on some people because they don't respond to moderation.
-
Caroline it is strange to say the least. I always thought Jeremy innocent but of late changed my stance as all forum members know but some of my best friends on here are in the guilty camp and I get on so well with them as people even when I thought he was innocent as their views on JB did not affect how I viewed them and that is how it should be.
I totally agree Susan!!
-
scipio, the Energizer Bunny of Insults. :P
I don´t think it is a secret that I find his choice of wording offensive. He likes to wind people up, simple as that, and he HAS to have the last word.
He does bring life to this board though, however we could live without the insults! I see it as him having a problem with himself.
Alias, IMO, anyone with an EGO as large as his has problems, the "last word" being one when we think of the lengths to which he feels the need to go, in order to get it.
-
I disagree - I have seen Grahame actually read some of Scipios posts and agree with them - so I do see him as neutral . He has always said he thought it was an MOJ and not that Jeremy was innocent - and then has worked his way forward .So that has been my humble opinion . I have certainly seen him question a lot.
If it does not always appear that way it is probably because a lot of you have been round the same subjects lots of times and have managed to form you own opinion on certain subjects .
I agree totally with what you have been told on Jeremys opinion of this forum . That has been confirmed to me as well.
Excellent post Janus
-
No pm to me in answer to my post. Nothing. My posts was very polite yet no one took any notice. It's not my fault that I had access. You have not challenged him on his rudeness towards other members. If you had then I wouldn't have had to rebuke him myself. If he takes no notice then I should think he needs a warning. If I get banned because I stand up to him then I don't really care a rats ass. I will accept the ban without whinging like some others. But I will not back down on this disgustingly rude fellow. But of course you are the admin. Who am I to tell you your job?
Calm down, calm down (in my best possible scouse accent) :P
-
Grahame
I read Skips posts with great amusement and laugh when he announces facts are facts when they clearly are not. You have always been fair !!!
A few people on this forum have taken the case seriously and done stuff to help get to the truth but others are just on here because they have time on their hands.
The truth will come out as it always will. I know far more than I did before but will tell you in person when I meet up with you again. As I said before some things were meant to be
I will never shy away from people who ban people unfairly or send me threatening messages or set up fake twitter accounts because the end is getting closer even Vidvic said he thought Jeremy would get another appeal hearing when the last application was made. If Jeremy needs money for more tests I will make sure he has it.
one mystery who made the marks on the mantel ? and who is not telling the truth about how they got there
-
Alias, IMO, anyone with an EGO as large as his has problems, the "last word" being one when we think of the lengths to which he feels the need to go, in order to get it.
I wonder if he has ever used the term 'If you want a friend, get a dog'? ;D
-
Alias, IMO, anyone with an EGO as large as his has problems, the "last word" being one when we think of the lengths to which he feels the need to go, in order to get it.
Like a low self esteem.
-
Caroline are you not too fond of dogs then ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D but I know you are as Emerson said "the only way to have a friend is to be one" don't think Scipio is looking for friends he is passionate about what he believes happened at WHF and does make some good points he does throw some insults but do what I do don't take them on board ;D he is not a bad guy and puts up some funny posts especially fat ladies shakin their booty running after him down the street ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder if he has ever used the term 'If you want a friend, get a dog'? ;D
Wonder if he's heard of Billy No Mates ;D
-
That isn't true. This is a voluntary position and something I spend a great deal of time over whether you appreciate it or not. The fact that a few posters act outside of their age is their problem, I don't read every post by Scipio or I'd never sleep. Being an Admin or Moderator has little effect on some people because they don't respond to moderation.
I still didn't get an answer to my suggestion in the moderators thread.
-
Alias are you not too fond of dogs then ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D as Emerson said "the only way to have a friend is to be one" don't think Scipio is looking for friends he is passionate about what he believes happened at WHF and does make some good points he does throw some insults but do what I do don't take them on board ;D he is not a bad guy and puts up some funny posts especially fat ladies shakin their booty running after him down the street ;D ;D ;D
Susan, I think he's more passionate about arguing than ANYTHING that happened at WHF. He probably trawls the internet for sites where he can argue and boast to his heart's content. ;D
-
I still didn't get an answer to my suggestion in the moderators thread.
What was the question? I'll try to answer it as best I can. :)
-
Ha Ha april think my reply should have been to Caroline :'( just modified my post but you beat me to it think I am going mad :'(
-
Ha Ha april think my reply should have been to Caroline :'( just modified my post but you beat me to it think I am going mad :'(
Hehehehee !!!Welcome to the club ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I still didn't get an answer to my suggestion in the moderators thread.
Are you aiming this at 'just' me? I can't speak for others but I didn't see you post in the mod thread and ONLY saw it AFTER it was pointed out that you (and a few others) had access to the mod board. You just said you PM'd NGB and he thought it was a good idea so you did get an answer or are we all meant to comment? I guess you don't realise it but you are showing bias towards me simply because I changed my mind and that's fine, I can live with that.
-
Are you aiming this at 'just' me? I can't speak for others but I didn't see you post in the mod thread and ONLY saw it AFTER it was pointed out that you (and a few others) had access to the mod board. You just said you PM'd NGB and he thought it was a good idea so you did get an answer or are we all meant to comment? I guess you don't realise it but you are showing bias towards me simply because I changed my mind and that's fine, I can live with that.
Still can't believe you didn't answer Grahame though. ??? :D
-
Caroline are you not too fond of dogs then ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D but I know you are as Emerson said "the only way to have a friend is to be one" don't think Scipio is looking for friends he is passionate about what he believes happened at WHF and does make some good points he does throw some insults but do what I do don't take them on board ;D he is not a bad guy and puts up some funny posts especially fat ladies shakin their booty running after him down the street ;D ;D ;D
Hi Susan, the dog comment is from something I read and ever since I read it, I keep hearing it mentioned by other people. I'll explain another time ;D ;D
-
Still can't believe you didn't answer Grahame though. ??? :D
Ill wear a horse hair coat for a week!! ;D ;D
-
Are you aiming this at 'just' me? I can't speak for others but I didn't see you post in the mod thread and ONLY saw it AFTER it was pointed out that you (and a few others) had access to the mod board. You just said you PM'd NGB and he thought it was a good idea so you did get an answer or are we all meant to comment? I guess you don't realise it but you are showing bias towards me simply because I changed my mind and that's fine, I can live with that.
No I'm not aiming it at you Caroline. If you saw my original complaint you will see that I was addressing all the moderators.
I'm not showing bias towards you because you have changed your mind. I was just making an observation that I used to enjoy reading your posts because they were not only powerful but contained substance as well. I just vthink its a pity that you appear to have limited your scope a bit that's all. It's easy to swim with the flow and agree with the guilters, who think they've got the case all sewn up. But I see problems with the case that others either don't seem aware of, or are unwilling to face them?
But as for me since you've changed your stance I don't find the forum so interesting now.
-
Do you remember I suggested a little green thumbs up for a good post ?
Well perhaps we could think of a special smiley for when someone is being RUDE and PERSONAL and you perceive their post as offensive ?
But unfortunately there are certain people who might make it a personal challenge to see how many they could accumulate , but then that would just about sum up their mentality.
-
Do you remember I suggested a little green thumbs up for a good post ?
Well perhaps we could think of a special smiley for when someone is being RUDE and PERSONAL and you perceive their post as offensive ?
But unfortunately there are certain people who might make it a personal challenge to see how many they could accumulate , but then that would just about sum up their mentality.
We used to have that - and people got really upset, when they saw that they had gotten a lot of "dislikes". Some crazy poster (who is not here anymore) sat up all night to "smite" certain people as many times as possible. I think you could use that function once per hour.
A lot of hassle about the "smites". :o
I thought it was rather funny and didn´t mind being "smited". ;D
-
We used to have that - and people got really upset, when they saw that they had gotten a lot of "dislikes". Some crazy poster (who is not here anymore) sat up all night to "smite" certain people as many times as possible. I think you could use that function once per hour.
A lot of hassle about the "smites". :o
I thought it was rather funny and didn´t mind being "smited". ;D
yes I had been told that before - which is strange as it works on other forums - but maybe they are not as controversial as this one :)
-
We used to have that - and people got really upset, when they saw that they had gotten a lot of "dislikes". Some crazy poster (who is not here anymore) sat up all night to "smite" certain people as many times as possible. I think you could use that function once per hour.
A lot of hassle about the "smites". :o
I thought it was rather funny and didn´t mind being "smited". ;D
Sorry 'bout that. :-[
-
Sorry 'bout that. :-[
HAHAHA! So it was YOU!
Harters, I know who it was.... wasn´t you....
But we can make a new poll about whether we should have the smite thing back, and you can get to sit up all night smiting us! ;D
-
HAHAHA! So it was YOU!
Harters, I know who it was.... wasn´t you....
But we can make a new poll about whether we should have the smite thing back, and you can get to sit up all night smiting us! ;D
I personally think it would be silly and pointless. They have it on many comment sections of news sites and it usually just reflectts childish behavior and often stifles subtance instead of encouraging it.
I was going to say it sounds corny and immature even before I heard about someone sitting there smiting on purpose all night long, good grief.
As is it now if you like a post you have to respond and say so and hopefully express why, that is superior to an anonymous thumbs up or down.
-
yes I had been told that before - which is strange as it works on other forums - but maybe they are not as controversial as this one :)
It was a disaster - dummy's everywhere!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No I'm not aiming it at you Caroline. If you saw my original complaint you will see that I was addressing all the moderators.
I'm not showing bias towards you because you have changed your mind. I was just making an observation that I used to enjoy reading your posts because they were not only powerful but contained substance as well. I just vthink its a pity that you appear to have limited your scope a bit that's all. It's easy to swim with the flow and agree with the guilters, who think they've got the case all sewn up. But I see problems with the case that others either don't seem aware of, or are unwilling to face them?
But as for me since you've changed your stance I don't find the forum so interesting now.
On the one hand, I see lots of problems but also, on the other, see that Jeremy did a lot of suspicious things and I don't want to ignore either hand that's all.
-
HAHAHA! So it was YOU!
Harters, I know who it was.... wasn´t you....
But we can make a new poll about whether we should have the smite thing back, and you can get to sit up all night smiting us! ;D
;D
We brought it back quite recently, I think after discussing it with Caroline, she thought it would liven the forum up a bit (she wasn't on the forum when it was originally in play). It was soon apparent that the majority of people on this forum are whinging, whining, petty children. :o So it got dumped again.
Although, being a whinging, whining, petty child myself, I quite liked the system. :D
-
It was a disaster - dummy's everywhere!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Caroline you were not a member of this forum at that time ?
-
Still can't believe you didn't answer Grahame though. ??? :D
:P ;D
-
Ill wear a horse hair coat for a week!! ;D ;D
No. A hair vest. ;D
-
It was a disaster - dummy's everywhere!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes so many that I found it very difficult to find mine.
-
On the one hand, I see lots of problems but also, on the other, see that Jeremy did a lot of suspicious things and I don't want to ignore either hand that's all.
Well yes I understand that. But a lot of other things that other people did were suspicious as well. I mean Muggy is being portrayed so much as a lilly white innocent angel that I keep expecting to see her effigy being paraded down the street amidst all the guilty party members dressed as Ku Klux Klan members.
-
;D
We brought it back quite recently, I think after discussing it with Caroline, she thought it would liven the forum up a bit (she wasn't on the forum when it was originally in play). It was soon apparent that the majority of people on this forum are whinging, whining, petty children. :o So it got dumped again.
Although, being a whinging, whining, petty child myself, I quite liked the system. :D
Yes. It played havock with my bipolar. ;)
-
I personally think it would be silly and pointless. They have it on many comment sections of news sites and it usually just reflectts childish behavior and often stifles subtance instead of encouraging it.
I was going to say it sounds corny and immature even before I heard about someone sitting there smiting on purpose all night long, good grief.
As is it now if you like a post you have to respond and say so and hopefully express why, that is superior to an anonymous thumbs up or down.
WOW! WOW!! WOW!!! This has to be chalked up for posterity!!!! I am totally, irrevocably, 100% in agreement with every word, Scipio. When last in play here, for some people, it very quickly ripped off the veneer of civilization they masked themselves with, to reveal a far less attractive side of themselves. It caused mayhem where none had previously existed and the fallout lasted for months. NEVER AGAIN....................................PLEEEEEEEEEEEEZE.
-
Well yes I understand that. But a lot of other things that other people did were suspicious as well. I mean Muggy is being portrayed so much as a lilly white innocent angel that I keep expecting to see her effigy being paraded down the street amidst all the guilty party members dressed as Ku Klux Klan members.
No she's not, by who? ???
-
WOW! WOW!! WOW!!! This has to be chalked up for posterity!!!! I am totally, irrevocably, 100% in agreement with every word, Scipio. When last in play here, for some people, it very quickly ripped off the veneer of civilization they masked themselves with, to reveal a far less attractive side of themselves. It caused mayhem where none had previously existed and the fallout lasted for months. NEVER AGAIN....................................PLEEEEEEEEEEEEZE.
Just a trial? ;D
-
No she's not, by who? ???
Not by you Hartley. ;)
-
Not by you Hartley. ;)
Not by anybody is she? :-\
-
Not by anybody is she? :-\
Well if you have read how scipio, Adam and Steve-UK speak of her you would be forgiven if you get that impression, let's put it that way.
-
Well if you have read how scipio, Adam and Steve-UK speak of her you would be forgiven if you get that impression, let's put it that way.
I can't speak for them, but I get the impression they are making arguments against the 'GULLIBLES' claims that she is not a credible witness.
I don't see anybody polishing her halo. :-\
In your neutral stance, what do you think of those who appear to worship JB? I never see you argue that side, are you biased? ??? ;D
-
I can't speak for them, but I get the impression they are making arguments against the 'GULLIBLES' claims that she is not a credible witness.
I don't see anybody polishing her halo. :-\
In your neutral stance, what do you think of those who appear to worship JB? I never see you argue that side, are you biased? ??? ;D
Well just see this recent thread. It is so obvious that they are giving excuses for her. Only a blind man can't see it. And read how both Adam and Steve speak of her in such glowing terms during their membership here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5624.60.html
-
Well just see this recent thread. It is so obvious that they are giving excuses for her. Only a blind man can't see it. And read how both Adam and Steve speak of her in such glowing terms during their membership here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5624.60.html
Neither have posted on that page. ???
-
I can't speak for them, but I get the impression they are making arguments against the 'GULLIBLES' claims that she is not a credible witness.
I don't see anybody polishing her halo. :-\
In your neutral stance, what do you think of those who appear to worship JB? I never see you argue that side, are you biased? ??? ;D
Well if you don't know my position now you never will Hartley.
I have already expressed my opinion on those who seem to speak of him in intimate terms as if the know him, by calling him their "big bwuvver" and other silly terms. You must also see where I have expressed my dislike for him and the way he treats those who have done a great deal for him. You surely must have also seen where I said that if he every does get out then I won't be going to any coming out party. I don't like him period. If you have missed these posts then all I can say is that either you have selective reading abilities, or you must have been asleep?
-
Neither have posted on that page. ???
scipio has. look again. I simply cannot believe that you haven't seen the posts where they have spoken of her in such glowing terms. And quite frankly I'm not going to find the posts for you, because if you haven't seen them then the only deduction I can make is that you must be biased? ::)
-
Well if you don't know my position now you never will Hartley.
I have already expressed my opinion on those who seem to speak of him in intimate terms as if the know him, by calling him their "big bwuvver" and other silly terms. You must also see where I have expressed my dislike for him and the way he treats those who have done a great deal for him. You surely must have also seen where I said that if he every does get out then I won't be going to any coming out party. I don't like him period. If you have missed these posts then all I can say is that either you have selective reading abilities, or you must have been asleep?
But you don't call them out on it, why is that?
I don't think you are neutral, I think you are a hardened JB supporter, attempting to claim neutrality in order to add respect to your views, it isn't working.
Obviously if people are claiming that Julie was some sort of Saint, then those people are clowns. She did the right thing in coming forward and standing as a witness, but the reality is that she should be in the cell next to JB.
I haven't read posts by the three members you mention, where they offer up Julie as some sort of hero, although in my defence, if a post is more than a couple of paragraphs then I glaze over and the point is often lost on me, all three members are lengthy posters.
It's a bit silly that you continuously make a claim about what all 'guilters' think, when the reality is people all have their own opinions. By claiming what all 'guilters' are thinking, you are suggesting that myself, CE, Scipio, Steve, Adam, Caroline, Susan, depending on her thoughts Alias and possibly April, all think the same thing. :o We most certainly do not.
You just make yourself look silly (imo). As is your right of course. :P
-
scipio has. look again. I simply cannot believe that you haven't seen the posts where they have spoken of her in such glowing terms. And quite frankly I'm not going to find the posts for you, because if you haven't seen them then the only deduction I can make is that you must be biased? ::)
You didn't say Scipio, you said Steve and Adam. ???
-
But you don't call them out on it, why is that?
I don't think you are neutral, I think you are a hardened JB supporter, attempting to claim neutrality in order to add respect to your views, it isn't working.
Obviously if people are claiming that Julie was some sort of Saint, then those people are clowns. She did the right thing in coming forward and standing as a witness, but the reality is that she should be in the cell next to JB.
I haven't read posts by the three members you mention, where they offer up Julie as some sort of hero, although in my defence, if a post is more than a couple of paragraphs then I glaze over and the point is often lost on me, all three members are lengthy posters.
It's a bit silly that you continuously make a claim about what all 'guilters' think, when the reality is people all have their own opinions. By claiming what all 'guilters' are thinking, you are suggesting that myself, CE, Scipio, Steve, Adam, Caroline, Susan, depending on her thoughts Alias and possibly April, all think the same thing. :o We most certainly do not.
You just make yourself look silly (imo). As is your right of course. :P
Think as you like Hartley. I'm not really bothered.
-
Think as you like Hartley. I'm not really bothered.
I'm not bothered that you're pretending not to be bothered. :P
-
I'm not bothered that you're pretending not to be bothered. :P
Good to see you wearing your therapist hat, Harters dear :D
-
I'm not bothered that you're pretending not to be bothered. :P
Well I'm not bothered that you think I'm pretending not to be bothered. :P
-
Well I'm not bothered that you think I'm pretending not to be bothered. :P
Well, I'm not bothered that you're not bothered that you think that I'm not bothered that I think you are pretending not to be bothered about being bothered. :-\
Bovvered? ??? ;D
-
Well, I'm not bothered that you're not bothered that you think that I'm not bothered that I think you are pretending not to be bothered about being bothered. :-\
Bovvered? ??? ;D
I'm afraid thats about as far as my bipolar will let me go. :o ;D
-
I'm afraid thats about as far as my bipolar will let me go. :o ;D
So! I'm not really bothered! ;)
You are right though, this is becoming tedious. :P
-
Caroline you were not a member of this forum at that time ?
We're not talking about the old days of the smite vote, it was brought back last year just before the nun was banned. You weren't a member then
-
;D
We brought it back quite recently, I think after discussing it with Caroline, she thought it would liven the forum up a bit (she wasn't on the forum when it was originally in play). It was soon apparent that the majority of people on this forum are whinging, whining, petty children. :o So it got dumped again.
Although, being a whinging, whining, petty child myself, I quite liked the system. :D
I found the thought of a grown person sitting up all night smiting strangers on an internet forum hilarious!!! ;D
I didn´t mind the system.
-
I found the thought of a grown person sitting up all night smiting strangers on an internet forum hilarious!!! ;D
I didn´t mind the system.
We changed it to a voting system and people got upset if they had only a few votes. I was surprised at how people reacted, I didn't expect that it would cause such a riot but I totally blame Harters, it was ALL his idea ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
We changed it to a voting system and people got upset if they had only a few votes. I was surprised at how people reacted, I didn't expect that it would cause such a riot but I totally blame Harters, it was ALL his idea ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
We ARE a childish bunch of people! ;D
-
We changed it to a voting system and people got upset if they had only a few votes. I was surprised at how people reacted, I didn't expect that it would cause such a riot but I totally blame Harters, it was ALL his idea ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yeah, now that we are all more amiable towards one another, I think we should give it another go? ;D
-
Go on,Harters,you'll have a field day with my posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Go on,Harters,you'll have a field day with my posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Too bloody right!!!! >:( ;D
-
Yeah, now that we are all more amiable towards one another, I think we should give it another go? ;D
Ye think? :o
-
Ye think? :o
Tough love. ;D
-
Caroline/Harters maybe we should leave well alone ;D
-
Ye think? :o
I thought it was a good system, not really sure why it got binned. :-\
-
Caroline/Harters maybe we should leave well alone ;D
Where's the fun in that? ;D
-
Ha Ha Caroline Harters loved every minute of it he sat back and watched the cat fights ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha Caroline Harters loved every minute of it he sat back and watched the cat fights ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
How dare you Susan, what do you take me for!!!!! >:( :D
-
Ha Ha Harters I gave you two smytes because you had none and I felt sorry for you :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha Harters I gave you two smytes because you had none and I felt sorry for you :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks. >:( I have to sit up all night now to return the favour!!! ;D
-
Ha Ha you were very naughty so I removed them ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha Ha you were very naughty so I removed them ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Removed what? :o Are we talking about the same thing? :-[
-
Ha Ha not sure I know what I am talking about pretend I'm not here ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I didn't even bother with it last time anyway. :o
-
We're not talking about the old days of the smite vote, it was brought back last year just before the nun was banned. You weren't a member then
Yes inspite of everyone telling you what would happen you went ahead and did it anyway. ::)
-
Yes inspite of everyone telling you what would happen you went ahead and did it anyway. ::)
Grahame, Caroline had serious misgivings about it, but she's not the only voice and it was decided to trial it. It was a HUGE mistake but last time I looked we all fell into the category of human beings and as such are allowed to get it wrong from time to time. It COULD have been a roaring success.
-
Crikey - what have I started? :-[
I think when posters are rude - as I don't have a suitable smiley with something like hands over ears and and a cross, offended face I will just write
RAOOO!!!!!!!!!
Rude and Out Of Order
perhaps they might get the message . Doubt it though :(
-
Yes inspite of everyone telling you what would happen you went ahead and did it anyway. ::)
When you do everything you're told, you can level that at me - but until ....... ::) I made the mistake of thinking we were all adults here - now where did I put that horse hair coat (it's the modern version Grahame!! :P).
-
Grahame, Caroline had serious misgivings about it, but she's not the only voice and it was decided to trial it. It was a HUGE mistake but last time I looked we all fell into the category of human beings and as such are allowed to get it wrong from time to time. It COULD have been a roaring success.
We decided to give it a go and it was a disaster ;D ;D ;D but true April there was always the possibility it COULD have been a success. ;) ;)
-
Crikey - what have I started? :-[
I think when posters are rude - as I don't have a suitable smiley with something like hands over ears and and a cross, offended face I will just write
RAOOO!!!!!!!!!
Rude and Out Of Order
perhaps they might get the message . Doubt it though :(
That sounds like a good idea Jansus - let me just try it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes inspite of everyone telling you what would happen you went ahead and did it anyway. ::)
RAOOO!!!!!!!!! :P
-
When you do everything you're told, you can level that at me - but until ....... ::) I made the mistake of thinking we were all adults here - now where did I put that horse hair coat (it's the modern version Grahame!! :P).
Caroline, mohair is SO much softer on the skin :D :D :D
-
That sounds like a good idea Jansus - let me just try it ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline, mohair is SO much softer on the skin :D :D :D
Actually April, it's really cashmere, I see no sense in suffering unduly ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Grahame, Caroline had serious misgivings about it, but she's not the only voice and it was decided to trial it. It was a HUGE mistake but last time I looked we all fell into the category of human beings and as such are allowed to get it wrong from time to time. It COULD have been a roaring success.
A 'HUGE' mistake?
Alright it started a little bit of bickering, but it wasn't as if the pope was struck by a meteorite or anything. :-\
-
We're not talking about the old days of the smite vote, it was brought back last year just before the nun was banned. You weren't a member then
Oh, Caroline! She thought she had you then!!! ;D ;D
-
Grahame, Caroline had serious misgivings about it, but she's not the only voice and it was decided to trial it. It was a HUGE mistake but last time I looked we all fell into the category of human beings and as such are allowed to get it wrong from time to time. It COULD have been a roaring success.
Well on past history no it wouldn't have been because human nature doesn't change.
-
When you do everything you're told, you can level that at me - but until ....... ::) I made the mistake of thinking we were all adults here - now where did I put that horse hair coat (it's the modern version Grahame!! :P).
The point is that no one listened to me and so they went ahead with it. Probably because you all think I'm a luny with no intelligence. As I said before, human nature does not change. It is when people introduce silly things like the smite application you soon discover that "adults" are sometimes just taller children. ;)
-
Hello Maggie still trying to work out what the voting system would have achieved posters who are rude don't care anyway posters like me vote for everyone ;D ;D ;D ;D and love rude people as much as nice people ;D
-
Grahame the voting system would only work if posters were light hearted and did not take it too seriously but human beings being what they are do take it seriously with the exception of harters ;D ;D ;D especially the females claws come out ;D
-
The point is that no one listened to me and so they went ahead with it. Probably because you all think I'm a luny with no intelligence. As I said before, human nature does not change. It is when people introduce silly things like the smite application you soon discover that "adults" are sometimes just taller children. ;)
I don't think I have ever even suggested such a thing. BUT, if people didn't experience things for themselves, we might never have moved past cave painting. ;)
-
I don't think I have ever even suggested such a thing. BUT, if people didn't experience things for themselves, we might never have moved past cave painting. ;)
Yes but you don't expect them to go BACK to cave painting.
-
Well on past history no it wouldn't have been because human nature doesn't change.
Grahame, what a very sad indictment :'(
-
A 'HUGE' mistake?
Alright it started a little bit of bickering, but it wasn't as if the pope was struck by a meteorite or anything. :-\
That must have been when you left us then. You clearly didn't experience the backlash.
-
Grahame, what a very sad indictment :'(
But it's true April. Men are still the same as they were when history was first recorded. Men still hate, murder, go to war, cheat on one an other, covet oneanother's possessions, wives husbands riches etc. The only thing that has changed is the technology used to commit all these things.
-
But it's true April. Men are still the same as they were when history was first recorded. Men still hate, murder, go to war, cheat on one an other, covet oneanother's possessions, wives husbands riches etc. The only thing that has changed is the technology used to commit all these things.
Collectively, none of what you say can be denied, Grahame. Individually, I HAVE to believe it's possible for people to change and unless they're given the chance they won't know what's possible.
-
Collectively, none of what you say can be denied, Grahame. Individually, I HAVE to believe it's possible for people to change and unless they're given the chance they won't know what's possible.
Oh yes of course men can change. Unfortunately they haven't yet. ;)
-
Oh yes of course men can change. Unfortunately they haven't yet. ;)
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :D
-
Yes but you don't expect them to go BACK to cave painting.
No, but you would imagine that those who had experienced cave painting would be able to get better at it - that their drawings would become more advanced and more mature in their composition. Instead it seems some haven't got past eating the crayons or poking one or two up their noses! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No, but you would imagine that those who had experienced cave painting would be able to get better at it - that their drawings would become more advanced and more mature in their composition. Instead it seems some haven't got past eating the crayons or poking one or two up their noses! ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I can't even do cave painting. And no I'm not very mature. But who cares anyway? It's only a forum.
The problen with forums is that they give folk the impression they know one another. But in actual fact (1) We only reveal what we want to reveal. (2) We think we reveal only what we want to reveal, but fail miserably. (3) I'm sure we would all get on wonderfully if we actually met and got to know one another? In other words a forum represents a false portrait of ourselves.
-
Ha Ha Grahame we could all get a shock if we met up I could turn out to be a little highland laddie with a long grey beard and a glass eye and walking with a stick ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D and you could be a gorgeous blonde and scipio may want you to shake your booty ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can't even do cave painting. And no I'm not very mature. But who cares anyway? It's only a forum.
The problen with forums is that they give folk the impression they know one another. But in actual fact (1) We only reveal what we want to reveal. (2) We think we reveal only what we want to reveal, but fail miserably. (3) I'm sure we would all get on wonderfully if we actually met and got to know one another? In other words a forum represents a false portrait of ourselves.
Grahame, this -ANY- forum is only a microcosm of society. The bickering -and friendships- here are simply representative of what goes on in the wider world. We hide behind our masks whether we're on here or out there.
-
I can't even do cave painting. And no I'm not very mature. But who cares anyway? It's only a forum.
The problen with forums is that they give folk the impression they know one another. But in actual fact (1) We only reveal what we want to reveal. (2) We think we reveal only what we want to reveal, but fail miserably. (3) I'm sure we would all get on wonderfully if we actually met and got to know one another? In other words a forum represents a false portrait of ourselves.
I agree - but you can't help what impression others get, only the one you try to portray. Even when you're being honest, there are some who just insist in believing what they want. I'm sure we would all get on and I'm sure we'd all be a damn sight politer in face to face exchanges. Perhaps we should organise a Jeremy Bamber Forum get together? I'd be game!
-
Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I feel a need to defend the ancient cave painters - some of them were fantastic artists, and I am amazed by the messages from them having survived for tens of thousands of years! This piece of art is about 30.000 years old! Impressive, even by today´s standards.
(http://www.vibekefalberg.dk/images/ardeche/PICT0421.jpg)
-
I agree - but you can't help what impression others get, only the one you try to portray. Even when you're being honest, there are some who just insist in believing what they want. I'm sure we would all get on and I'm sure we'd all be a damn sight politer in face to face exchanges. Perhaps we should organise a Jeremy Bamber Forum get together? I'd be game!
Susan and I had one planned. It was going to be at the Osea Caravan Park. All of you would stay there in tents, except Susan and me, who would find the nearest decent hotel and bunk up there. During our stay we would hope that some interesting Frensmen would knock on our door..... ;D
-
Caroline I'm game but you will all need to board a bus and come to the Highlands what a hoot I will guarantee people will find me no different face to face than they do on the forum ;D and I know you will be the same Caroline.
-
Susan and I had one planned. It was going to be at the Osea Caravan Park. All of you would stay there in tents, except Susan and me, who would find the nearest decent hotel and bunk up there. During our stay we would hope that some interesting Frensmen would knock on our door..... ;D
Is that 1 tent each or would we be doubling up? I don't think I'd trust sleeping next to some people. I'm not THAT popular.
I'd get stuck with Preece! :-\ :-*
-
Susan and I had one planned. It was going to be at the Osea Caravan Park. All of you would stay there in tents, except Susan and me, who would find the nearest decent hotel and bunk up there. During our stay we would hope that some interesting Frensmen would knock on our door..... ;D
Alias, I live close enough to it to sleep in my own bed in preference to a tent but I can recommend the Chequers at Goldhanger for excellent food. ;D
-
Alias you and I knew we were worth more than a caravan and would go into the best hotel and grab a fella in green undies ;D or better still no undies ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline I'm game but you will all need to board a bus and come to the Highlands what a hoot I will guarantee people will find me no different face to face than they do on the forum ;D and I know you will be the same Caroline.
Susan, may I suggest that if every person on the forum sees you in a different way you might find it rather difficult ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias, I live close enough to it to sleep in my own bed in preference to a tent but I can recommend the Chequers at Goldhanger for excellent food. ;D
Especially the Sea Bass, very yummy :)
-
Is that 1 tent each or would we be doubling up? I don't think I'd trust sleeping next to some people. I'm not THAT popular.
I'd get stuck with Preece! :-\ :-*
She´s hot, so.... ;D ;)
-
I can't even do cave painting. And no I'm not very mature. But who cares anyway? It's only a forum.
The problen with forums is that they give folk the impression they know one another. But in actual fact (1) We only reveal what we want to reveal. (2) We think we reveal only what we want to reveal, but fail miserably. (3) I'm sure we would all get on wonderfully if we actually met and got to know one another? In other words a forum represents a false portrait of ourselves.
I'm absolutely certain that we would NOT all get on if we actually met. 8)
-
She´s hot, so.... ;D ;)
In a pent up aggressive kinda way? ???
-
Especially the Sea Bass, very yummy :)
The smoked salmon was to die for. Sadly I can't remember the rest because it was very hot and we ate in the courtyard, but the wine was lovely, too ;) ;) ;)
-
I agree - but you can't help what impression others get, only the one you try to portray. Even when you're being honest, there are some who just insist in believing what they want. I'm sure we would all get on and I'm sure we'd all be a damn sight politer in face to face exchanges. Perhaps we should organise a Jeremy Bamber Forum get together? I'd be game!
It's a bit like driving a car I suppose. We are all a lot bolder in a car than we are if we actually meet the 7ft high boxer. ;D
I was talking to someone on CB radio once. He called himself Italian Stallion. Turned out he was a 4ft midget.
-
Not that it has anything to do with anything, but I feel a need to defend the ancient cave painters - some of them were fantastic artists, and I am amazed by the messages from them having survived for tens of thousands of years! This piece of art is about 30.000 years old! Impressive, even by today´s standards.
(http://www.vibekefalberg.dk/images/ardeche/PICT0421.jpg)
Better than picasso.
-
April if everybody on this forum met me they would think she is as daft as she comes over on the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Susan and I had one planned. It was going to be at the Osea Caravan Park. All of you would stay there in tents, except Susan and me, who would find the nearest decent hotel and bunk up there. During our stay we would hope that some interesting Frensmen would knock on our door..... ;D
I'd sleep at home and travel down there.
-
I'm absolutely certain that we would NOT all get on if we actually met. 8)
Absolutely?
-
In a pent up aggressive kinda way? ???
She's actually a very nice person to talk to.
-
Is that 1 tent each or would we be doubling up? I don't think I'd trust sleeping next to some people. I'm not THAT popular.
I'd get stuck with Preece! :-\ :-*
Probably wake up with a red hot poker in your neck.
-
April if everybody on this forum met me they would think she is as daft as she comes over on the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan dear, how do you know/what makes you think you come over as daft on forum. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Better than picasso.
I love Picasso - I´d say: as good as Picasso! ;D
-
Well if you have read how scipio, Adam and Steve-UK speak of her you would be forgiven if you get that impression, let's put it that way.
If the she is Julie than that's funny because I have criticized her and suggested that if Jeremy married her she might not have ratted him out and instead stood behind him.
-
Better than picasso.
It looks like some internal organs.
-
If the she is Julie than that's funny because I have criticized her and suggested that if Jeremy married her she might not have ratted him out and instead stood behind him.
You are probably right.
-
I'd love a meeting. I know Mat would be bowled over if he saw me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout Mat would want to share your tent then again so would harters could you manage two of them ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'd love a meeting. I know Mat would be bowled over if he saw me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You could bunk with him! ;D
-
April if everybody on this forum met me they would think she is as daft as she comes over on the forum ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ha, ha!! You're not daft! But nothing wrong in bringing a bit of light relief - that's you job Susan and you do it so well! ;D ;D X
-
You could bunk with him! ;D
I have a sick note from my mother and am unable to attend.
-
Aw,shucks,how unfortunate. Hope it's nothing too serious. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Aw,shucks,how unfortunate. Hope it's nothing too serious. ;D ;D ;D ;D
He´ll miss out then, too bad! ;D
-
He´ll miss out then, too bad! ;D
His loss,Alias. ;D
-
I'm actually watching TOWIE-----I love it ::) Wednesdays and Sundays. An anorak,or what ?
-
He´ll miss out then, too bad! ;D
Don't worry Alias I'll take his place. Here's my picture so you'll recognise me. :)
-
Don't worry Alias I'll take his place. Here's my picture so you'll recognise me. :)
That actually made me jump! :o
-
Don't worry Alias I'll take his place. Here's my picture so you'll recognise me. :)
HAHAHA, you are sooooo attractive!!
-
Morning Caroline thank you for the compliment X
-
April ha ha know thyself is my motto and I live by that ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Don't worry Alias I'll take his place. Here's my picture so you'll recognise me. :)
Quite handsome. :P
-
April ha ha know thyself is my motto and I live by that ;D ;D ;D ;D
Susan, I'm not certain what that was a response to, but telling me you know yourself SO soon after the above picture is hopefully an error on your part ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
April ha ha know thyself is my motto and I live by that ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's my motto as well. That's why I don't have a very high opinion of myself. ;D
-
Grahame that is OK then because most others on the forum have and that is what is important :)
-
The talk of a forum meet brought back bad memories :(
I was involved in a forum taking case to court on unfair bank charges ( actually quite proud that I helped a man save his house from possession)
Anyway we had a meet in Birmingham - I travelled there by train - got lost trying to find the hotel but eventually walked into a room of strangers - The meet was ok :-\ but conversation does not flow so easily as posting does - and then I had to stay in the rooms above the bar on my own - and all of the corridors had locking doors which I though was a bit scary .
I could not sleep as it was in the middle of Birmingham and very noisy and lots of sirens - very loud sirens .
I went to go down to meet the others for breakfast to find that I was actually in the middle of a crime scene as there had been a stabbing in the breakfast room in the small hours ( hence all the sirens) blood on the floor and everything . I was then ushered out on the street, most of which was taped off - and somehow managed to meet up with some of the forum so we could find somewhere to calm down - but it was very un-nerving.
-
The talk of a forum meet brought back bad memories :(
I was involved in a forum taking case to court on unfair bank charges ( actually quite proud that I helped a man save his house from possession)
Anyway we had a meet in Birmingham - I travelled there by train - got lost trying to find the hotel but eventually walked into a room of strangers - The meet was ok :-\ but conversation does not flow so easily as posting does - and then I had to stay in the rooms above the bar on my own - and all of the corridors had locking doors which I though was a bit scary .
I could not sleep as it was in the middle of Birmingham and very noisy and lots of sirens - very loud sirens .
I went to go down to meet the others for breakfast to find that I was actually in the middle of a crime scene as there had been a stabbing in the breakfast room in the small hours ( hence all the sirens) blood on the floor and everything . I was then ushered out on the street, most of which was taped off - and somehow managed to meet up with some of the forum so we could find somewhere to calm down - but it was very un-nerving.
Wow, jansus! What a mess.
-
The talk of a forum meet brought back bad memories :(
I was involved in a forum taking case to court on unfair bank charges ( actually quite proud that I helped a man save his house from possession)
Anyway we had a meet in Birmingham - I travelled there by train - got lost trying to find the hotel but eventually walked into a room of strangers - The meet was ok :-\ but conversation does not flow so easily as posting does - and then I had to stay in the rooms above the bar on my own - and all of the corridors had locking doors which I though was a bit scary .
I could not sleep as it was in the middle of Birmingham and very noisy and lots of sirens - very loud sirens .
I went to go down to meet the others for breakfast to find that I was actually in the middle of a crime scene as there had been a stabbing in the breakfast room in the small hours ( hence all the sirens) blood on the floor and everything . I was then ushered out on the street, most of which was taped off - and somehow managed to meet up with some of the forum so we could find somewhere to calm down - but it was very un-nerving.
Jansus, I sincerely hope we wouldn't resort to such behaviour, but for most of us, the only thing we have in common is Jeremy and we can't agree about him :D I think I'd better leave a note so that if anything happens to me it will give the police something to go on ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh--------not nice and pretty off-putting really,although lightening doesn't strike twice,or does it ? :o
-
Jansus, I sincerely hope we wouldn't resort to such behaviour, but for most of us, the only thing we have in common is Jeremy and we can't agree about him :D I think I'd better leave a note so that if anything happens to me it will give the police something to go on ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
yes it could be more risky that a bank charges forum meet I would think.
-
getting back to the thread I read somewhere that the sum that JB tried to sue the family for being written out of granny speakmans will was 1.27million? is that true?
-
i heard somthing simlar im not sure where though.
-
i heard somthing simlar im not sure where though.
if that is correct then he was in line for much more money than he would have inherited by the crime.
I guess he failed because he could not prove they made her change the will by force - rather than the amount.